Palm Springs City Council
September 10, 2025

3.2.6 Contractor agrees to ensure that subcontractors, and any other parties involved with the Project who are brought onto or involved in the Project by Contractor, provide the same minimum insurance coverage required of Contractor. Contractor agrees to monitor and review all such coverage and assumes all responsibility for ensuring that such coverage is provided in conformity with the requirements of this section. Contractor agrees that upon request, all agreements with subcontractors and others engaged in the Project will be submitted to the City for review.

3.2.7 Contractor acknowledges and agrees that any actual or alleged failure on the part of the City to inform Contractor of non-compliance with any insurance requirement in no way imposes any additional obligations on the City nor does it waive any rights in this or any other regard.

3.2.8 Contractor shall provide proof that policies of insurance required in this Agreement, expiring during the term of this Agreement, have been renewed or replaced with other policies providing at least the same coverage. Proof that such coverage has been ordered shall be submitted prior to expiration.

Endorsements as required in this Agreement applicable to the renewing or new coverage shall be provided to City no later than ten (10) days prior to expiration of the lapsing coverage.

3.2.9 Requirements of specific insurance coverage features or limits contained in this section are not intended as limitations on coverage, limits, or other requirements, or as a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any given policy. Specific reference to a given coverage feature is for purposes of clarification only as it pertains to a given issue, and is not intended by any party or insured to be limiting or all-inclusive.

3.2.10 The requirements in this section supersede all other sections and provisions of this Agreement to the extent that any other section or provision conflicts with or impair the provisions of this section.

3.2.11 Contractor agrees to provide immediate notice to City of any claim or loss against Contractor arising out of the Work performed under this Agreement and for any other claim or loss which may reduce the insurance available to pay claims arising out of this Agreement. City assumes no obligation or liability by such notice, but has the right (but not the duty) to monitor the handling of any such claim or claims if they are likely to involve City, or to reduce or dilute insurance available for payment of potential claims.

3.2.12 Contractor agrees that the provisions of this section shall not be construed as limiting in any way the extent to which the Contractor may be held responsible for the payment of damages resulting from the Contractor’s activities or the activities of any person or person for which the Contractor is otherwise responsible.

Item 1U - Page 62

3.3 Sufficiency of Insurers. Insurance required in this Agreement shall be provided by authorized insurers in good standing with the State of California. Coverage shall be provided by insurers admitted in the State of California with an A.M. Best’s Key Rating of B++, Class VII, or better, unless such requirements are waived in writing by the City Manager or his designee due to unique circumstances.

3.4 Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish City with both certificates of insurance and endorsements, including additional insured endorsements, affecting all of the coverages required by this Agreement. The certificates and endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All proof of insurance is to be received and approved by the City before work commences. City reserves the right to require Contractor’s insurers to provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. Additional insured endorsements are not required for Errors and Omissions and Workers’ Compensation policies.

Verification of Insurance coverage may be provided by: (1) an approved General and/or Auto Liability Endorsement Form for the City of Palm Springs or (2) an acceptable Certificate of Liability Insurance Coverage with an approved Additional Insured Endorsement with the following endorsements stated on the certificate:

1. "The City of Palm Springs, its officials, employees, and agents are named as an additional insured…” ("as respects City of Palm Springs Contract No. " or "for any and all work performed with the City" may be included in this statement).

2. "This insurance is primary and non-contributory over any insurance or self- insurance the City may have..." ("as respects City of Palm Springs Contract No. " or "for any and all work performed with the City" may be included in this statement).

3. "Should any of the above described policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 30 days written notice to the Certificate Holder named." Language such as, “endeavor to” mail and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representative" is not acceptable and must be crossed out.

4. Both the Workers’ Compensation and Employers' Liability policies shall contain the insurer's waiver of subrogation in favor of City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

In addition to the endorsements listed above, the City of Palm Springs shall be named the certificate holder on the policies. All certificates of insurance and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. All certificates of insurance must be authorized by a person with authority to bind coverage, whether that is the authorized agent/broker or insurance underwriter. Failure to obtain the required documents prior to the commencement of work shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them.

Item 1U - Page 63

4. BREACH OF CONTRACT
Any of the following acts if committed by Contractor during the performance of this Agreement shall be considered a material breach of this Agreement:

4.0 Nonpayment of City any business license fees, VTACR fees, or any other fees required by this Agreement or the Palm Springs Municipal Code.

4.1 Failing to comply with any provision of this Agreement or breach of any rules, regulations, or conditions provided in this Agreement or the Palm Springs Municipal Code.

4.2 Violation of any federal, state or local law by Contractor, any person having any ownership interest in Contractor, or any employee of Contractor.

4.3 Failing to maintain a satisfactory level of service to the City or the public.

4.4 Failing to keep any vehicle towed at the request of the Department in safe condition and good repair.

4.5 Failing to use distinctive coloring, monogram, or insignia on the vehicle.

4.6 Any deviation from the schedule of rates set forth in this Agreement without prior approval of the Chief of Police.

4.7 Passing on, or refusing, for any reason, a tow assignment from the Department three or more times in any calendar month.

4.8 Allowing the insurance coverage required herein to either be withdrawn or lapse or to no longer be in force for any reason.

5. ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF REPRESENTATIVES
It is understood and agreed by the parties that the acts and/or omissions of the owner(s), officers, operators, officials, employees, agents, and representatives of Contractor in the performance of the services and obligations under this Agreement shall constitute the acts and/or omissions of Contractor.

6. ENFORCEMENT OF AGREEMENT

6.0 California Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted both as to validity and as to performance of the Parties in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Legal actions concerning any dispute, claim, or matter arising out of or in relation to this Agreement shall be instituted in the Superior Court of the County of Riverside, State of California, or any other appropriate court in such County, and Contractor covenants and agrees to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such court in the event of such action.

6.1 Interpretation. This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the Parties. The terms of this Agreement are contractual and the result of negotiation Item 1U - Page 64

between the Parties. Accordingly, any rule of construction of contracts (including, without limitation, California Civil Code Section 1654) that ambiguities are to be construed against the drafting party, shall not be employed in the interpretation of this Agreement. The caption headings of the various sections and paragraphs of this Agreement are for convenience and identification purposes only and shall not be deemed to limit, expand, or define the contents of the respective sections or paragraphs.

6.2 Default of Contractor. Contractor’s failure to comply with any provision of this Agreement shall constitute a default.

6.2.1 If the City Manager, or his designee, determines that Contractor is in default in the performance of any of the terms or conditions of this Agreement, he/she shall notify Contractor in writing of such default. Contractor shall have ten (10) days, or such longer period as City may designate, to cure the default by rendering satisfactory performance. In the event Contractor fails to cure its default within such period of time, City shall have the right, notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, to terminate this Agreement without further notice and without prejudice of any remedy to which City may be entitled at law, in equity, or under this Agreement. Contractor shall be liable for all reasonable costs incurred by City as a result of such default.

Compliance with the provisions of this section shall not constitute a waiver of any City right to take legal action in the event that the dispute is not cured, provided that nothing shall limit City’s right to terminate this Agreement without cause under Section 5.3.

6.2.2 If termination is due to the failure of the Contractor to fulfill its obligations under this Agreement, City may, after compliance with the provisions of the preceding subsection, take over the work and prosecute the same to completion by contract or otherwise. The Contractor shall be liable to the extent that the total cost for completion of the Services required hereunder exceeds the charges as otherwise allowed herein (provided that the City shall use reasonable efforts to mitigate such damages). The City may withhold any payments to the Contractor for the purpose of set-off or partial payment of the amounts owed the City as previously stated. The withholding or failure to withhold payments to Contractor shall not limit Contractor’s liability for completion of the Services as provided in this Agreement.

6.3 Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the Party against whom enforcement of a waiver is sought. Any waiver by the Parties of any default or breach of any covenant, condition, or term contained in this Agreement, shall not be construed to be a waiver of any subsequent or other default or breach, nor shall failure by the Parties to require exact, full, and complete compliance with any of the covenants, conditions, or terms contained in this Agreement be construed as changing the terms of this Agreement in any manner or preventing the Parties from enforcing the full provisions.

Item 1U - Page 65

6.4 Rights and Remedies Cumulative. Except with respect to rights and remedies expressly declared to be exclusive in this Agreement, the rights and remedies of the Parties are cumulative and the exercise by either Party of one or more of such rights or remedies shall not preclude the exercise by it, at the same or different times, of any other rights or remedies for the same default or any other default by the other Party.

6.5 Legal Action. In addition to any other rights or remedies, either Party may take legal action, in law or in equity, to cure, correct, remedy or recover damages for any default, to compel specific performance of this Agreement, to obtain declaratory or injunctive relief, or to obtain any other remedy consistent with the purposes of this Agreement.

6.6 Attorney Fees. In the event any dispute between the Parties with respect to this Agreement results in litigation or any non-judicial proceeding, the prevailing Party shall be entitled, in addition to such other relief as may be granted, to recover from the non-prevailing Party all reasonable costs and expenses. These include but are not limited to reasonable attorney fees, expert contractor fees, court costs and all fees, costs, and expenses incurred in any appeal or in collection of any judgment entered in such proceeding. To the extent authorized by law, in the event of a dismissal by the plaintiff or petitioner of the litigation or non-judicial proceeding within thirty (30) days of the date set for trial or hearing, the other Party shall be deemed to be the prevailing Party in such litigation or proceeding.

7. NOTICE
Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or communication that either party desires, or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing. All notices shall be personally delivered, sent by pre-paid First Class U.S. Mail, registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt requested, or delivered or sent by facsimile with attached evidence of completed transmission. All notices shall be deemed received upon the earlier of (i) the date of delivery to the address of the person to receive such notice if delivered personally or by messenger or overnight courier; (ii) five (5) business days after the date of posting by the United States Post Office if by mail; or (iii) when sent if given by facsimile. Any notice, request, demand, direction, or other communication sent by facsimile must be confirmed within forty-eight (48) hours by letter mailed or delivered. Other forms of electronic transmission such as e-mails, text messages, and instant messages are not acceptable manners of notice required hereunder. Notices or other communications shall be addressed as follows:

To C
ity : City of Palm Springs
Attention: City Manager & City
Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon
Way Palm springs, California
92262 Telephone: (760)323-8204
Facsimile: (760) 323-8332

Item 1U - Page 66

To Contractor: Name: _____________________________ Attention:

Address
Telephone: Facsimile:

8. CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES; NON-DISCRIMINATION

8.0 Non-liability of City Officers and Employees. No officer or employee of the City shall be personally liable to the Contractor, or any successor -in-interest, in the event of any default or breach by the City or for any amount which may become due to the Contractor or to its successor, or for breach of any obligation of the terms of this Agreement.

8.1 Conflict of Interest. Contractor acknowledges that no officer or employee of the City has or shall have any direct or indirect financial interest in this Agreement nor shall Contractor enter into any agreement of any kind with any such officer or employee during the term of this Agreement and for one year thereafter.

Contractor warrants that Contractor has not paid or given, and will not pay or give, any third party any money or other consideration in exchange for obtaining this Agreement.

8.2 Covenant Against Discrimination. In connection with its performance under this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of actual or perceived race, religion, color, sex, age, marital status, ancestry, national origin (i.e., place of origin, immigration status, cultural or linguistic characteristics, or ethnicity), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, physical or mental disability, or medical condition (each a “prohibited basis”). Contractor shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during their employment, without regard to any prohibited basis. As a condition precedent to City’s lawful capacity to enter this Agreement, and in executing this Agreement, Contractor certifies that its actions and omissions hereunder shall not incorporate any discrimination arising from or related to any prohibited basis in any Contractor activity, including but not limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship; and further, that Contractor is in full compliance with the provisions of Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 7.05.02, including without limitation the provision of benefits, relating to non-discrimination in city contracting.

9. SEVERABILITY
Whenever possible, each provision of this Agreement shall be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law. If any provision of this Agreement shall be determined to be invalid by a final judgment or decree of a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be ineffective only to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity, without invalidating the remi nder of that provision, or the remaining provisions of this Agreement unless the invalid provision is so material that its invalidity deprives either Party of the basic benefit of their bargain or renders this Agreement meaningless.

Item 1U - Page 67

10. INTEGRATION
This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the Parties and supersedes all prior negotiations, arrangements, agreements, representations, and understandings, if any, made by or among the Parties with respect to the subject matter in this Agreement.

11. AMENDMENT
No modification, amendment, addition to, deletion, or alteration of the terms of this Agreement, whether written or oral, shall be valid unless made in writing and formally approved and executed by all parties.

12. NO WAIVER
No delay or omission in the exercise of any right or remedy available hereunder shall impair such right or remedy or be construed as a waiver. Any waiver of any default or condition hereunder must be in writing and shall not be construed as a waiver of any other default concerning the same or any other provision of this Agreement.

The waiver by City of any breach by Contractor of any of the provisions of this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver or a waiver of any subsequent breach or default by Contractor either of the same or a different provision of this Agreement.

13. THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES
Except as may be expressly provided for in this Agreement, nothing contained in this Agreement is intended to confer, nor shall this Agreement be construed as conferring, any rights, including, without limitation, any rights as a third-party beneficiary or otherwise, upon any entity or person not a party to this Agreement.

14. SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST
This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the Parties’ successors and assignees.

15. CORPORATE AUTHORITY
Each of the undersigned represents and warrants that (i) the Party for which he or she is executing this Agreement is duly authorized and existing, (ii) he or she is duly authorized to execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the Party for which he or she is signing, (iii) by so executing this Agreement, the Party for which he or she is signing is formally bound to the provisions of this Agreement, and (iv) the entering into this Agreement does not violate any provision of any other Agreement to which the Party for which he or she is signing is bound.

16. EFFECTIVE DATE
The Effective Date of the Agreement shall be that which is entered at the top of the first page of this agreement, where upon both parties have fully executed the documents herein.

SIGNATURES ON NEXT PAGE

Item 1U - Page 68

SIGNATURE PAGE TO CONTRACT SERVICES AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AND [***INSERT CONTRACTOR’S NAME***]

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below.

CONTRACTOR:

[***TWO SIGNATURES ARE ONLY REQUIRED FOR CORPORATIONS; IF CONSULTANT IS NOT A CORPORATION, DELETE SECOND SIGNATURE AND DATE LINE***]

By: ____________________________ By: ________________________________ Signature Signature
(2nd signature required for Corporations)

Date: Date:

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS:

APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL:

Date: _______ Item No.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

By: ___________________________ By: _______________________________ City Attorney City Clerk

APPROVED:

By: _______________________________ Date:

City Manager – over $150,000
Deputy/Assistant City Manager – up to $50,000
Director – up to $25,000
Manager – up to $5,000

Item 1U - Page 69

EXHIBIT “A”

SCOPE OF SERVICES

Item 1U - Page 70

EXHIBIT “B”

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION
Item 1U - Page 71

EXHIBIT “C”

EXECUTIVE ORDER N-6-22 CERTIFICATION

Executive Order N-6-22 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 4, 2022, directs all agencies and departments that are subject to the Governor’s authority to (a) terminate any contracts with any individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of economic sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals; and (b) refrain from entering into any new contracts with such individuals or entities while the aforementioned sanctions are in effect.

Executive Order N -6-22 also requires that any contractor that: (1) currently has a contract with the City of Palm Springs funded through grant funds provided by the State of California; and/or (2) submits a bid or proposal or otherwise proposes to or enter into or renew a contract with the City of Palm Springs with State of California grant funds, certify that the person is not the target of any economic sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals.

The contractor hereby certifies, SUBJECT TO PENALTY FOR PERJURY, that a) the contractor is not a target of any economic sanctions against Russian and Russian entities and individuals as discussed in Executive Order N -6-22 and b) the person signing below is duly authorized to legally bind the Contractor. This certification is made under the laws of the State of California.

Signature:

Printed Name:

Title:

Firm Name:

Date:

Item 1U - Page 72

ATTACHMENT B

Item 1U - Page 73
RESOLUTION NO.
“A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE

REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS/QUALIFICATIONS FOR THE

ROTATIONAL TOW PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO

ADVERTISE AND SOLICIT RESPONSES FOR THE PALM
SPRINGS POLICE DEPARTMENT.”
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs Police Department impounds and tows numerous and various vehicles removed from highways, public property, or private property in the city of Palm Springs during the normal course of duty; and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs Police Department tows and/or impounds vehicles pursuant to authority under the California Vehicle Code; and WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code 11.82.100 establishes a Vehicle Towing Administrative Cost Recovery (VT ACR) fee charged to each tow company entering into an agreement with the City of Palm Springs; and WHEREAS, the VTACR Fee identified in the Request for Proposals/Qualifications is based on the actual and reasonable costs to the City, including administration and overhead, for administering the official police tow services providers' agreement and operating the vehicle towing program; and
WHEREAS, City of Palm Springs City Council adopted the VTACR Fee on March 14, 2024, setting the maximum allowable towing fees to be charged by each tow company entering into an agreement with the City of Palm Springs.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES THAT:

SECTION 1. Findings.
a. That City staff has prepared a Request for Proposals/Qualifications for the rotational tow program in accordance with Palm Springs Municipal Code 11.82. b. Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 11.82.060 “Selection process: regulates the methods by which the City can select contractors to provide tow services for the Police Department and are specifically outline in the Request for Proposals/Qualifications.

SECTION 2. That the findings and determinations reflected above are true and correct, and are incorporated by this reference herein as the cause and foundation for the action taken by and through this Resolution.

SECTION 3. In accordance with Section 11.82.060 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code , the City Council hereby authorizes the solicitation and advertisement of the Request for Proposals/Qualifications (RFQ 12 -25) for the rotational tow program for the Police Department.

Item 1U - Page 74
Resolution No.

ADOPTED THIS 10th DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025.

Scott Stiles, City Manager
ATTEST:

Brenda Pree, City Clerk

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )

I, BRENDA PREE, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. _____ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on September 10, 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Brenda Pree, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California

Item 1U - Page 75

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: S EPTEMBER 10, 2025 CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT: APPROVE TWO-YEAR COOPERATIVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT NO. 25C267 FOR THE PURCHASE OF ONE DRONE DOCK WITH DRONE

SYSTEM AND SOFTWARE FOR THE DRONE AS FIRST RESPONDER

PROGRAM

FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager

BY: Andrew G. Mills, Chief of Police

SUMMARY:

The Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) is proposing the purchase of an additional drone with docking station, software, and related equipment . This purchase will support the department’s new Drone as First Responder program, where drones will be dispatched from the Real Time Intelligence Center (RTIC) to respond to emergency calls for service. The drones will provide real -time aerial surveillance to improve situational awareness, enabling officers to assess and respond to critical incidents more quickly and efficiently. The integration of an additional drone docking system enables the Police Department to respond to calls in areas beyond the reach of the three existing drone docks. The purchase, fully funded by the Board of State and Community Corrections (BSCC) grant, will enhance the department’s ability to address public safety needs, particularly in the areas of emergency calls for service, search and rescue, tactical operations, and large -scale public events. The use of the Sourcewell Cooperative Purchasing Contract (No. 011223- ADX) ensures competitive pricing and a streamlined procurement process.

RECOMMENDATION:

1) Approve Sourcewell Cooperative Purchase Agreement No. 25C267 (Attachment A) with Advexure, LLC for a two-year term commencing on September 15, 2025, and continuing through September 14, 2027, with two one-year extension options by mutual consent, for an amount not to exceed $37,065.94, for the drone docking system to PSPD’s Drone as First Responder program.

2) Authorize the City Manager or their designee to execute all necessary documents.

Item 1V - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025-- Page 2
Agreement with Advexure LLC for Drone Equipment and Software

BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE:

According to the Public Integrity Disclosure forms submitted on July 1, 2024, Advexure is a Limited Liability Corporation registered in the state of Wisconsin (Attachment B).

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The proposed purchase includes one drone, one docking station, and the necessary software to control the drone and manage the data collected during operations. Equipped with high-resolution cameras, thermal imaging, and other sensors, the drones will enable officers to monitor incidents from the air in real time. The docking station will ensure the drones remain operational with quick recharging and maintenance capabilities, while the software will provide a centralized platform for controlling the drones and analyzing data.

As part of the Drone as First Responder program, the drones enhance the Police Department’s ability to respond to emergencies in real time, supporting a variety of operational needs such as in-progress emergencies, missing persons searches, disaster response, tactical assessments, and large- scale event management. The integration of this technology will provide officers with critical intelligence to make informed decisions quickly, improving both safety and response times. The purchase of this equipment will be fully funded by the BSCC grant, which supports law enforcement efforts to reduce crime, particularly in areas like retail theft and public safety initiatives.

In addition, City of Palm Springs Ordinance 2064, which adopted the Police Department’s Military Equipment Policy 709 as required by Assembly Bill 481, was approved by City Council on June 16, 2022. Military equipment, as defined by Government Code 7070, includes unmanned, remotely powered aerial vehicles, also known as unmanned aerial systems (UAS) or drones. The use of all military equipment, including the UAS, will be reported annually at a public meeting. Use of the UAS will also be reported monthly on the Department’s website. Any use of the UAS will be in strict accordance with constitutionally protected privacy and associational rights and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) regulations and department policy.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

The requested City Council action is not a “Project” as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15378(a), a “Project” means the whole of an action, which has a potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:

This agenda item aligns with the City Council’s Strategic Plan Broad Goal of Public Safety and Community Services, providing services that support a high quality of life.

Item 1V - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025-- Page 3
Agreement with Advexure LLC for Drone Equipment and Software

The total cost of purchasing one drone, one docking station, software, and related equipment of $37,065.94, will be fully covered by the BSCC grant with no impact on the City’s general fund. The BSCC grant is specifically designated to support programs that improve law enforcement operations and enhance public safety, and the purchase of the drone system is fully aligned with the grant’s objectives. The department will ensure that the procurement process stays within the approved grant budget, and any ongoing costs for maintenance and software updates will be managed within the department’s existing resources.

REVIEWED BY:

Department Director: Andrew G. Mills
Procurement & Contracting Manager: Tabitha Richards
City Manager: Scott Stiles

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Cooperative Purchase Agreement No. 25C267
B. Business Public Integrity Disclosure

Item 1V - Page 3

ATTACHMENT A

Item 1V - Page 4

4.13.2023
COOPERATIVE PURCHASE AGREEMENT 25C267

UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES AND SERVICES
SOURCEWELL CONTRACT NO. 011223-ADX
This Cooperative Purchase of Equipment and Software Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the City of Palm Springs, a California charter city and municipal corporation (“City”), and Advexure LLC, a Wisconsin Limited Liability Company (“Contractor”). City and Contractor are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” or collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

1. Background.
a. This Agreement is made and entered into in reference to the competitively solicited SOURCEWELL Contract No. 011223-ADX w ith Contractor (“Cooperative Agreement”).
b. The City desires to utilize the equipment and associated services for the Palm Springs Police Department (PSPD) attached hereto as Attachment “A” , the content of which is incorporated by reference to this Agreement as if fully set out her in its entirety.
c. Contractor desires to perform said services on the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement.

2. Term. Unless earlier terminated in accordance with Section 10 of this Agreement, this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect, commencing on September 15, 2025, and ending on September 14, 2027. The Parties may mutually extend the term of this Agreement for up to two additional one-year periods (“Option Period(s)”).

3. Compensation and Payment. This Agreement is for an amount not to exceed $37,065.94, subject to approved amendments and changes. All pricing must be in accordance with the attached Quote, as shown as Attachment “B” , the content of which is incorporated by reference into this Agreement as if fully set out here in its entirety.

4. Appropriations. This Agreement is subject to, and contingent upon, funds being appropriated by the City Council of City for each fiscal year. If such appropriations are not made, this Agreement shall automatically terminate without penalty to City.

5. Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, policies of insurance as set forth in the attached Attachment "C", incorporated herein by reference. If no insurance is required Attachment “C” will reflect that there are no requirements.

Item 1V - Page 5

4.13.2023

6. Indemnification. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend (at Contractor’s sole cost and expense), indemnify, protect, and hold harmless City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers (collectively the “Indemnified Parties”), from and against any and all liabilities, actions, suits, claims, demands, losses, costs, judgments, arbitration awards, settlements, damages, demands, orders, penalties, and expenses including legal costs and attorney fees (collectively “Claims”), including but not limited to Claims arising from injuries to or death of persons (Contractor’s employees included), for damage to property, including property owned by City, for any violation of any federal, state, or local law or ordinance or in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct committed by Contractor, its officers, employees, representatives, and agents, that arise out of or relate to Contractor’s performance of Services or this Agreement. This indemnification clause excludes Claims arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. Under no circumstances shall the insurance requirements and limits set forth in this Agreement be construed to limit Contractor’s indemnification obligation or other liability under this Agreement. Contractor’s indemnification obligation shall survive the expiration or earlier termination of this Agreement until all actions against the Indemnified Parties for such matters indemnified are fully and finally barred by the applicable statute of limitations or, if an action is timely filed, until such action is final.

7. Notice. Any notice required under this Agreement must be given by fax, hand delivery, or certified mail, postage prepaid, and is deemed received on the day faxed, or hand delivered or on the third day after postmark if sent by certified mail. Notice must be sent as follows:

To City: City of Palm Springs
Attention: City Manager/ City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262

To Contractor: ADVEXURE LLC
Attention: Travis Waibel
9281 Irvine Boulevard
Irvine, CA 92618

8. Compliance with Law. Contractor shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes and ordinances and all lawful orders, rules, and regulations when performing the Services. Contractor shall be liable for all violations of such laws and regulations in connection with this Agreement.

9. Changes. In the event any change or changes in the work is requested by City, Parties shall execute a written amendment to this Agreement, specifying all proposed amendments, including, but not limited to, any additional fees. An amendment may be entered into:

Item 1V - Page 6

4.13.2023
A. To provide for revisions or modifications to documents, work product, or Work, when required by the enactment or revision of any subsequent law; or B. To provide for additional work not included in this Agreement or not customarily furnished in accordance with generally accepted practice in Contractor’s profession.

10. Termination Prior to Expiration of Term. City may terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without cause, upon thirty (30) days written notice to Contractor. Where termination is due to the fault of Contractor and constitutes an immediate danger to health, safety, and general welfare, the period of notice shall be such shorter time as may be determined by the City. Upon receipt of the notice of termination, Contractor shall immediately cease all Services except such as may be specifically approved by the Contract Officer. Contractor shall be entitled to compensation for all Services rendered prior to receipt of the notice of termination and for any Services authorized by the Contract Officer after such notice. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Contractor shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed Services and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of Work. If the termination is for cause, the City shall have the right to take whatever steps it deems necessary to correct Contractor's deficiencies and charge the cost thereof to Contractor, who shall be liable for the full cost of the City's corrective action. Contractor may not terminate this Agreement except for cause, upon 30 days written notice to City.

11. Covenant Against Discrimination . In connection with its performance under this Agreement, Contractor shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of actual or perceived race, religion, color, sex, age, marital status, ancestry, national origin ( i.e., place of origin, immigration status, cultural or linguistic characteristics, or ethnicity), sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, physical or mental disability, or medical condition (each a “prohibited basis”). Contractor shall ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during their employment, without regard to any prohibited basis. As a condition precedent to City’s lawful capacity to enter this Agreement, and in executing this Agreement, Contractor certifies that its actions and omissions hereunder shall not incorporate any discrimination arising from or related to any prohibited basis in any Contractor activity, including but not limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship; and further, that Contractor is in full compliance with the provisions of Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 7.09.040, including without limitation the provision of benefits, relating to non-discrimination in city contracting.

12. Compliance with Economic Sanctions in Response to Russia's Actions in Ukraine. When funding for the services is provided, in whole or in part, by an agency controlled of the State of California, Consultant shall fully and adequately comply with California Executive Order N -6-22 (“Russian Sanctions Program”). As part of this compliance process, Consultant shall also certify compliance with the Russian Item 1V - Page 7

4.13.2023
Sanctions Program by completing the form located in Attachment “D” (Russian Sanctions Certification), attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.

Consultant shall also require any subconsultants to comply with the Russian Sanctions Program and certify compliance pursuant to this Section.

13. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, along with the Cooperative Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties concerning the subject matter of this Agreement and supersedes all prior negotiations, arrangements, agreements and understandings, either oral or written between the parties. In the event of conflict or inconsistency between this Agreement and the Cooperative Agreement, this terms and conditions in this Agreement shall prevail.
[Signature Page Follows]

Item 1V - Page 8

4.13.2023

SIGNATURE PAGE TO COOPERATIVE PURCHASE OF EQUIPMENT AND

ASSOCIATEDSERVICES AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AND ADVEXURE LLC.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below.

CONTRACTOR:

By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ Signature Signature

(2nd signature required for Corporation)

Date: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS:

APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL:

Date: ___9/10/2025_______ Item No. ________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

By: _____________________________ By: _____________________________ City Attorney City Clerk

APPROVED:

By: _____________________________ Date: ____________________________ City Manager – over $50,000
Deputy/Assistant City Manager – up to $50,000
Director – up to $25,000
Manager – up to $5,000
Item 1V - Page 9

4.13.2023

ATTACHMENT A

SCOPE OF WORK

The scope of the services is outlined in the SOURCEWELL – Unmanned Vehicle Systems Contract #011223-ADX. Services include the purchase of equipment and software services, as outlined below.

Item 1V - Page 10

4.13.2023

Item 1V - Page 11

SCOPE OF WORK
for Deploym ,ent of OJI Dock .3 Systems
PREPAREID BY. Advex1.Jre
Date. August 26, 2025
CONIFIIDEN11' AUTY NOTICE:

This document is propr ietary to Adve x:ure and intenclecl solely for the use of our custome rs in insta latfon and setup of the ir DJI Dock 2. Unautho ri:z.ecl 1.1se. r·eproduction . o r d1stribution is strict ly proh ibited. Trad emar ks. includ ing tt,os,e of OJI anal A.clvexure. are ~he pro,perty of di eir respectr,,e o•NTiers and used uncl er license . © 2008-20-24 Adve>W re . LLC. A ll !tights Reserved .

4.13.2023

Item 1V - Page 12

OVERVIEW
This Scope of Work (SOW) ,outlin es t he rol es and respo nsibiliti es of the City ,of Palm Springs an d Adve )(ure fur the dep loym ent ,of DJ Doclk 3 systems . The SOW d efines llhe tasks necessary t,o ensu r,e a succ;essful insta I latio n and w mmi ssion i ng of a DJI Dock 3 syste m .

RESPO S BIL TIES OF CITY OF PALM 'SPRI GS
To faci I itate a smoot h deployment, City of Palm Springs is responsible for the following:

1. E llect rica I Requ • re ments
Pro vide a powe r sou rce that m eets the following specificat ions:
11 OV AC com pliant 'Wiidi I ocal bu i I ding ,co des.

Elecnrical wiring m u stte nninate in a junction box 11 ear the doc k's insta llation site.

Ensu re pro per groun d ing at the insta llation site to com p y w ith el ecl:irical saf ety standards. 2 . Internet Connectivity
Pro vide a w ired Ethern et connec tJion w ith a mini mum of 1() Mb;ps down load and upload speeds .

Ensu r,e netwo rk c;onnectivity is functional and reliable at tlhe doclk location.

Coordin ate with IT personnel to whitJelist d om ains and ports req uired by DJI FlightH ub 2 and/or Dro neSens.e Remote for seam less oµ ernt ion.
3 Si1te Preparation
Prepare tlhe dock insta llation site, ensuring it is:

Safe and sernre fur unattended BVLOS opera tions.

Aaes.s ible for Adve xure tec hni cians..

Arra nge for ,cond uit or split-,loom t ubing for all elec n-ical and Ethernet 'Wiiring to protec t aga inst env ironmental eleme nts.

4. Dock Placement ogjs.tics
Tr an sport t he doc k to its d esignat,ed I ocation from the d elivery po int.

Arrange lifting ,equ ipm ent ,e.g., crane , ladder ) if di e doclk is to be ins.ta lied on a rooftop or hard-to-access area.

Ensure placement is performed w itho ut damage to t he doc k.

5. Safety and Secur irty Measures
Opt ionally insta 11 a sern rity ,cam era to mon itor tlhe do elk site fur obstriuc tiion s or p 01:Jentia I h aza1rds du ring remotJe ope rations..

4.13.2023

Item 1V - Page 13
RES PO SIB I I ES iOF ADVEXU RE
Advex ure will pmViide tJhe follow ing services to ensure a suc,cessful dep loyment:
t. Si1te Ana ysi1s
Conduct a remote or on-s ite analysis to evaluate the s1uitability of the proposed locat ion for DJI Dock 3 ope ratiom.

Provide recommenda tJions for p lacement and confirm adherence to safety and opera tiona l standards .

2. Calibration and Configurat ion
Calibrate t he doc k and b ind it t,o Palm Springs P.olice Depanment 's OJ I Flightl-lub 2 or DroneSense Remote ac,count
Configu re all operat iona l setltings and tJest the dock for m n11ectivity and functionality. 3,, Testing and Certification
Conduct a dock site test fl igjlt to verify operationa l performance.

Comp lete a final insta llation c,ertJification, signed off by representati ves rrom both Adve XJure and City of Palm Springs.

4.. Tra nni~g
Provide on-site train ing for city personne l Ciovering:

DJI Dock 3 ope rations.

DJI i=I ightrl u b 2 func tio1nality (if app lica le).

Dro neSense Remote functiona lity (if app licable~
Basic troub leshoot ing and maintenance proc,edu res.
5·. Support
Prov ide ongo ing tJechnical support as needed during the deployment phase.

4.13.2023

ATTACHMENT B
Item 1V - Page 14

DE IVERABLES
Successfu lly insta lled and configured DJI Dock 3 system(s).

Final installation ,certification.

Training ,com pl eti on do cumentatJion for desi gnated perso nnel.

Access to dep loyment and opera tio11al dooumentation .

EXCLUSIONS
The followin g tasks are not incl uded in th is scope ,of work but may be prov ided by Advexure as add it iona l serv ices upon request:

Successfu lly insta lled a11d configured DJI Dock 3 system(s).

Final installation ,cert ification .

Tra ining ,com pl et i on do cumentatJ ion for d esignated perso nnel.

Access to dep loyment and opera tiona l dooumentation.

ASSUMPTIONS llND DEPENDENCES
City of Palm Springs w ill prov ide a I necessa ry resour ces (pow er, intern et, and ac,cess) to ensure Advexure can comp lete tl, e in stallation as outlined.

Advexure is not responsibl e fur delays or add iti ona l costs resu ltJing rrom incomp lete site prepa rations by City of Palm Spr ings

4.13.2023

QUOTE / PRICING

Pricing is outlined in the SOURCEWELL – Unmanned Vehicle Systems Contract #011223-ADX and detailed below.

Item 1V - Page 15

4.13.2023

Item 1V - Page 16
aev ex ure

COMMERCIALUAS I TRAINING I CONSULTING I SERVICE
William Hutchinson William Hutchi nson
Palm Springs Police Oepartment
200 South Ci\lk Drive
Palm Springs Police Oepartment
200 South Ci\lic Drive
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
United Sta tes United States
I
OJI Dock 3 for Matrice 40 and 4TD
Included: (1) Dock Body ~ncl. Ground Wire)(1)
A
Wmd Speed Gauge Module (4) Expansion Bolt (1)
Ethernet (abl e Connector (1) Power Cable
Connector (6'} Wire Ferrule (1) Screws and Tools
(1) Manuals
~
Adwxure Plat form Stand for OJI Dock 2 & Dock
3 (24x24, ~15")
~
OJI Matrice 4TO for Dock 3
Included: (1) Ma trice 4TO Afrcraft (1) CW
PropellerS (Pair) (1) CCW Propelle rs (Pair)(1)
Screws and washers
OJI Matrice 40 Series Flight Battery
OJI M40 Batte ry
OroneSense Remote for Docks {OFR license)•
1 Year Subscf<iption x 2 = 2 Year Term
Dock for DFR
Oror'M:!Sense Remote. Get there first \Ylth
Oror'M:!Sense Remote for OFR. Launch and ftv a
OJl-01<3
AD-SWP24
DJI-M4 TD- P1
0JI-M40FB
I
•
x 1
x 1
x 1
x 1
-,.] docked drone maooally or autonomously from
~ anywhere. SMre live st reams with internal OS· REM•M x2 years @ o1t0Nuo1:s,r teams or cooperating agencies, providLng __ .., critical bird's- eye views to save lime,
resources. al'M:I lives. ADSB integral iOI\ flrght
logging and telemetry, call for service logs. and
"'deo manag~r.

Advexu re Unmanned Systems
9281 Irvine Blvd
lr\lT.ne. CA 926 18 USA
Tax ID: 47-4174938 J CAGE:BFF59
www.advex. ure.com I {855) 625-2055

SALES QUOTE
I 08434
II 08/26/2 025
7 Days
. •'• Net 30
$ 15,890.00 $ 15,890.00
$ 540.00 $ S<.o.00
$8-389 .00 $8-389 .00
$ 486.00 $486.00
$1,366.66
$5, 200.00 $ 10,400.00

4.13.2023

Item 1V - Page 17

ITEM/ DESCRIPTION
Ill
Adwxure Sup,port Servkes fo r OJI Dock 3
Important Not es: Your Oock 3 will be delivered
via Freight or Common carrier to a ground leYE!'I
loadtng door. Setup OOES NOT include
transport from a receiving location to the
Dock's location. End user is responstble for
positioning of the Dock at its install location.

Setup includes final terminations of electrical.
internet and configuration of the Oock ons.te, in
addition to binding the aircraft in the end user's
()JI FhghtHub 2 account. If the end user ,equires
specific assistance in locating a Dock to a
specific position, or electrical installation to the
Dock site. these se,'1'1:ces can be offered at an
additional charge.

Adwxure Sou rcewell Cooperat ive Purchas ing
Contract #011223 ·ADX {Exp: 3/2027)
Satisfy your l~gal procurement requirements
with Advexure·s Sourcewell gowrnment
contract:., providmg a compliant:., convenient and
competitive pJOCurement solut ion which can
expedite your purchasing process.

Account Name: City of Palm Springs
Account It. 75934
AOV-DK3 x 1
x 1
!:Z,566.66
$ 750.00
$0.00

SUBTOTAL
Sourcewell Contract­
Actount #75934

SHIPPING

SALES TAX

THANK YOU FOR CHOOSING ADVEXURE
Visit us onlme at advexure.com
Questions? Email [email protected]
11 @ a ml
•
$ 750.00
$0.00
$36,455.00
-$ 1,822.75
$ 210.00
$2,223 .69
$37 ,065 .94
The contents of this quotation and any attachments are CONFIDENTIAL for the client listed and may contain sensitive and proprietary information from Advexure LLC. The information may also be legally privUeged. AIYV use. disctosure, reproductiOI\ or dissemination of this transmission is strictly prohibited without prior written consent.

4.13.2023

ATTACHMENT C

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

INSURANCE

1. Procurement and Maintenance of Insurance. Contractor shall procure and maintain public liability and property damage insurance against all claims for injuries against persons or damages to property resulting from Contractor’s performance under this Agreement.

Contractor shall procure and maintain all insurance at its sole cost and expense, in a form and content satisfactory to the City, and submit concurrently with its execution of this Agreement.

Contractor shall also carry workers’ compensation insurance in accordance with California workers’ compensation laws. Such insurance shall be kept in full force and effect during the term of this Agreement, including any extensions. Such insurance shall not be cancelable without thirty (30) days advance written notice to City of any proposed cancellation. Certificates of insurance evidencing the foregoing and designating the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers as additional named insureds by original endorsement shall be delivered to and approved by City prior to commencement of services. The procuring of such insurance and the delivery of policies, certificates, and endorsements evidencing the same shall not be construed as a limitation of Contractor’s obligation to indemnify City, its elected officials, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.

2. Minimum Scope of Insurance. The minimum amount of insurance required under this Agreement shall be as follows:

1. Comprehensive general liability and personal injury with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit coverage per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) general aggregate;

2. Automobile liability insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence;

3. Professional liability (errors and omissions) insurance with limits of at least one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) per occurrence and two million dollars ($2,000,000) annual aggregate is:
_________ required
___X____ is not required;

4. Workers’ Compensation insurance in the statutory amount as required by the State of California and Employer’s Liability Insurance with limits of at least one million dollars $1 million per occurrence. If Contractor has no employees, Contractor shall complete the City’s Request for Waiver of Workers’ Compensation Insurance Requirement form.

3. Primary Insurance. For any claims related to this Agreement, Contractor’s insurance coverage shall be primary with respect to the City and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City and its respective elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers shall be in excess of Contractor’s insurance and shall not contribute with it. For Workers’ Compensation and Employer’s Liability Insurance only, the insurer shall waive all rights of subrogation and contribution it may have against City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

Item 1V - Page 18

4.13.2023

4. Errors and Omissions Coverage. If Errors & Omissions Insurance is required, and if Contractor provides claims made professional liability insurance, Contractor shall also agree in writing either (1) to purchase tail insurance in the amount required by this Agreement to cover claims made within three years of the completion of Contractor’s services under this Agreement, or (2) to maintain professional liability insurance coverage with the same carrier in the amount required by this Agreement for at least three years after completion of Contractor’s services under this Agreement. Contractor shall also be required to provide evidence to City of the purchase of the required tail insurance or continuation of the professional liability policy.

5. Sufficiency of Insurers. Insurance required in this Agreement shall be provided by authorized insurers in good standing with the State of California. Coverage shall be provided by insurers admitted in the State of California with an A.M. Best’s Key Rating of B++, Class VII, or better, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.

6. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish City with both certificates of insurance and endorsements, including additional insured endorsements, affecting all of the coverages required by this Agreement. The certificates and endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All proof of insurance is to be received and approved by the City before work commences. City reserves the right to require Contractor’s insurers to provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies at any time. Additional insured endorsements are not required for Errors and Omissions and Workers’ Compensation policies.

Verification of Insurance coverage may be provided by: (1) an approved General and/or Auto Liability Endorsement Form for the City of Palm Springs or (2) an acceptable Certificate of Liability Insurance Coverage with an approved Additional Insured Endorsement with the following endorsements stated on the certificate:

A. "The City of Palm Springs, its officials, employees, and agents are named as an additional insured…” ("as respects City of Palm Springs Contract No.___" or "for any and all work performed with the City" may be included in this statement).

B. " This insurance is primary and non -contributory over any insurance or self - insurance the City may have..." ("as respects City of Palm Springs Contract No.___ " or "for any and all work performed with the City" may be included in this statement).

C. " Should any of the above-described policies be canceled before the expiration date thereof, the issuing company will mail 30 days written notice to the Certificate Holder named. " Language such as, “endeavor to” mail and "but failure to mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representative" is not acceptable and must be crossed out.

D. Both the Workers’ Compensation and Employers' Liability policies shall contain the insurer's waiver of subrogation in favor of City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers.

In addition to the endorsements listed above, the City of Palm Springs shall be named the certificate holder on the policies.

All certificates of insurance and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. All certificates of insurance must be authorized by a person with authority to bind coverage, whether that is the authorized agent/broker or insurance underwriter. Failure to Item 1V - Page 19

4.13.2023
obtain the required documents prior to the commencement of work shall not waive the Contractor’s obligation to provide them.

7. Deductibles and Self -Insured Retentions . Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City prior to commencing any work or services under this Agreement. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions with respect to the City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers; or (2) Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses. Certificates of Insurance must include evidence of the amount of any deductible or self-insured retention under the policy. Contractor guarantees payment of all deductibles and self-insured retentions.

8. Severability of Interests (Separation of Insureds) . This insurance applies separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought except with respect to the limits of the insurer’s liability.

Item 1V - Page 20

4.13.2023

ATTACHMENT D
EXECUTIVE ORDER N-6-22 CERTIFICATION

Executive Order N -6-22 issued by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 4, 2022, directs all agencies and departments that are subject to the Governor’s authority to (a) terminate any contracts with any individuals or entities that are determined to be a target of economic sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals; and (b) refrain from entering into any new contracts with such individuals or entities while the aforementioned sanctions are in effect.

Executive Order N-6-22 also requires that any contractor that: (1) currently has a contract with the City of Palm Springs funded through grant funds provided by the State of California; and/or (2) submits a bid or proposal or otherwise proposes to or enter into or renew a contract with the City of Palm Springs with State of California grant funds, certify that the person is not the target of any economic sanctions against Russia and Russian entities and individuals.

The contractor hereby certifies, SUBJECT TO PENALTY FOR PERJURY, that a) the contractor is not a target of any economic sanctions against Russian and Russian entities and individuals as discussed in Executive Order N -6-22 and b) the person signing below is duly authorized to legally bind the Contractor. This certification is made under the laws of the State of California.

Signature:

Printed Name:

Title:

Firm Name:

Date:

Item 1V - Page 21

ATTACHMENT B
Item 1V - Page 22
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS – PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

(Revised 09 13 18)

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

1. Name of Entity

2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)

3. Local or California Address (if different than #2)

4. State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State If other than California, is the Entity also registered in California?  Yes  No

5. Type of Entity
 Corporation  Limited Liability Company  Partnership  Trust  Other (please specify)

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers , Trustees, Other Fiduc iaries (please specify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity _________________________________________________  Officer  Director  Member  Manager [name]
 General Partner  Limited Partner
 Other ____________________________________
_________________________________________________  Officer  Director  Member  Manager [name]
 General Partner  Limited Partner
 Other ____________________________________
_________________________________________________  Officer  Director  Member  Manager [name]
 General Partner  Limited Partner
 Other ____________________________________
Advexure LLC
9281 Irvine Blvd Irvine, CA 92618
Wisconsin
Travis Waibel
Daniel Waibel
Item 1S - Page 22
Item 1V - Page 23
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS – PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

(Revised 09 13 18)

7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in the Applicant Entity or a related entity

EXAMPLE

JANE DOE
[name of owner/investor]
50%, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
A.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
B.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
C.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
D.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
E.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signature of Disclosing Party, Printed Name, Title Date Travis Waibel, CEO
7/1/2024
Travis Waibel
100%
Item 1S - Page 23
Item 1V - Page 24
IL W.11,,tL

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT: RECEIVE AND FILE AMENDMENT TO I NLAND EMPIRE HEALTH PLAN AGREEMENT (24F208)

FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager

BY: Jeff Ballinger, City Attorney
Teresa Gallavan, Assistant City Manager

SUMMARY:

This agenda item is a Receive and File item, so that the City Council and public are informed of an amendment to the agreement between the City and the I nland Empire Health Plan (IEHP) agreement 24F208, regarding the Palm Springs Blue Zones project.

The amendment provides for additional transparency and fiscal oversight of the Palm Springs Blue Zones project.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive and file staff report and amendment to the IEHP agreement for the Palm Springs Blue Zones project.

BACKGROUND:

On July 9, 2024, City Council approved entering into an agreement with IEHP for three years to support the Palm Springs Blue Zones project. “Blue Zones” are places where entire communities live significantly longer, healthier, and more active lives. The 2024 agreement provided City sponsorship support in the amount of $180,000 over a period of three years and nine months. In addition to the City’s sponsorship of the Blue Zones project, Riverside University Health System (RUHS) has been seeking funding for the transformation phase of the project for all participating cities, in the amount of $34 million, from IEHP, Kaiser, and Molina.

Earlier this year, following the departure of the local Executive Director for the Palm Springs Blue Zones project, the City engaged IEHP and proposed several amendments to the 2024 agreement, in order to increase transparency and fiscal oversight of the Blue Zones project within the City.

Item 1W - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025 -- Page 2
1st Amendment to MOU with IEHP (Blue Zones)

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The proposed amendment to the 2024 agreement with IEHP provides the following provisions:

• IEHP is required to provide detailed written progress reports and program updates in the form of monthly operations reports.
• IEHP is required to provide in-person updates, up to two times per calendar year, to the City.
• Clarifies that minimal City resources (City staff, City facilities, etc.) are to be used and that the majority of project staffing costs will be provided by the Blues Zones project itself; not the City.
• Provides the City with the right to participate as a voting member of the Blue Zones selection committee for the selection of the Palm Springs Blue Zones Executive Director.
• Provides that the initiatives, programs, and strategic efforts undertaken as part of the Blue Zones Project are consistent with, and supportive of, the health and wellness goals, policies, initiatives, and priorities of the City of Palm Springs. • Provides that, in addition to the City’s right to terminate the sponsorship agreement, both the City and IEHP have the right to review and propose amendments to address operational needs, oversight responsibilities or other considerations.

The amendment contains no additional fiscal obligations on the City’s part. City staff worked with the City Attorney’s Office to draft the proposed amendment.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no additional impact created by the amendment. The agreement approved on July 9, 2024, is for $180,000 over a three-year term and is included in the approved two- year budget.

REVIEWED BY:

Assistant City Manager: Teresa Gallavan
City Attorney: Jeff Ballinger
City Manager: Scott Stiles

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Amendment No. 1 to IEHP Agreement
B. Public Integrity Disclosure

Item 1W - Page 2

ATTACHMENT A

Item 1W - Page 3
55575.18165\43803020.4

AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FUNDING LETTER AGREEMENT 24F208

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AND THE IEHP FOUNDATION

1. Parties and Date.

This Amendment No. 1 to Funding Letter Agreement 24F208, is made and entered into as of this ____ day of __________________, 2025, by and between the City of Palm Springs , a California charter city and municipal corporation (“City” or “Sponsor”), and the IEHP Foundation, a California non-profit corporation with its principal place of business at 9500 Cleveland Ave., Suite 180, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 (the “IEHP Foundation”) . City and the IEHP Foundation are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties.”

2. Recitals.

2.1 Agreement. City and the IEHP Foundation entered into an agreement titled “Funding Letter Agreement 24F208,” dated October 30, 2024 (“Agreement”) for the purpose of sponsoring and supporting the Blue Zones Project (as defined in the Agreement) in the amount of $180,000.00 and for a term of Three (3) years and Nine (9) months.

2.2 Amendment Purpose. City and the IEHP Foundation now desire to amend the Agreement for the purposes of adding additional terms and conditions.

3. Terms.

3.1 Amendment. Section K of the Agreement is hereby added to the Agreement and shall read as follows:

“(K) Reporting, Updates, and Financial Accounting. The IEHP Foundation shall provide Sponsor with detailed written progress reports and program updates in the form of Blue Zones Project monthly operational reports during the Term of this Agreement. In addition, upon Sponsor’s reasonable request, at dates and times mutually agreed upon by the parties , the IEHP Foundation shall provide in-p erson updates, not to exceed two (2) such in-person updates per calendar year. The IEHP Foundation shall also provide Sponsor with an executive level financial summary report for all project costs for the prior fiscal year, which shall include a detailed accounting of use of funds specifically contributed by Sponsor.”

3.2 Amendment. Section L of the Agreement is hereby added to the Agreement and shall read as follows:

“(L) Limited Use of City Resources. Sponsor and the IEHP Foundation acknowledge and agree that the IEHP Foundation shall use minimal City resources in connection with the Blue Zones Project. For purposes of this Section, “City resources” means any property, funds, equipment, personnel, or services provided or funded by the City of Palm Springs .

The parties further acknowledge and agree that the majority of project staffing and costs will be provided directly by the Blue Zones Project; however, to complete project objectives and ensure alignment with City priorities, engagement of City staff will be necessary to successfully achieve Blue Print metrics.”

Item 1W - Page 4
55575.18165\43803020.4

3.3 Amendment. Section M of the Agreement is hereby added to the Agreement and shall read as follows:

“(M) Sponsor Approval of Executive Director. Sponsor shall have the right to participate as a voting member of the selection committee in the selection of any new or successor Executive Director of the Blue Zones Project. Prior to any such appointment, the IEHP Foundation shall provide Sponsor’s designated representative, Mayor Pro Tem Naomi Soto (the “Sponsor Representative”) , with the proposed candidate’s name and relevant qualifications, and Sponsor ’s representative shall respond within ten (10) calendar days of receipt thereof. All feedback of Sponsor Representative shall be taken into account in the appointment of the Executive Director. If Sponsor ’s Representative does not respond in writing within such period, Sponsor’s voting rights shall be deemed forfeited. For purposes of this Section, “ Executive Director” includes any individual serving in an interim or permanent leadership role with primary responsibility for oversight of the Blue Zones Project for the Palm Springs community . Sponsor may terminate this Agreement, within forty five (45) calendar days of IEHP’s Executive Director selection decision, if Sponsor does not agree with said decision.

3.4 Amendment. Section N of the Agreement is hereby added to the Agreement and shall read as follows:

“(N) Project Alignment with City Goals . The Parties agree to make best efforts to ensure that all initiatives, programs, and strategic efforts undertaken as part of the Blue Zones Project are consistent with, and supportive of, the health and wellness goals, policies, initiatives, and priorities of the City of Palm Springs, as may be communicated by Sponsor from time to time. Sponsor, as part of the steering committee, will be provided the opportunity to confirm such alignment and provide recommendations for identifying and modifying activities and/or Blue Print priorities as necessary to maintain consistency with the City of Palm Springs’ evolving goals and objectives.

3.5 Amendment. Section O of the Agreement is h ereby added to the Agreement and shall read as follows:

“(O) Right to Review and Amend the Agreement. Either Sponsor or IEHP Foundation shall have the right, upon written notice to the other party, to review and propose amendments to the Agreement to address operational needs, oversight responsibilities, or other relevant considerations. Both parties shall engage in good faith discussions regarding any such proposed amendments, and no amendment shall be effective unless set forth in a written instrument signed by both Sponsor and the IEHP Foundation.

3.6 Continuing Effect of Agreement . Except as amended by this Amendment No. 1, all other provisions of the Agreement remain in full force and effect and shall govern the actions of the parties under this Amendment No. 1. From and after the date of this Amendment No. 1, whenever the term “Agreement” or “Contract” appears in the Agreement, it shall mean the Agreement as amended by this Amendment No. 1.

3.7 Adequate Consideration. The Parties hereto irrevocably stipulate and agree that they have each received adequate and independent consideration for the performance of the obligations they have undertaken pursuant to this Amendment No. 1.

Item 1W - Page 5
55575.18165\43803020.4

3.8 Severability. If an y portion of this Amendment No. 1 is declared invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and effect.

3.9 Counterparts. This Amendment No. 1 may be executed in duplicate originals, each of which is deemed to be an original, but when taken together shall constitute but one and the same instrument.

Item 1W - Page 6
55575.18165\43803020.4

SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO FUNDING LETTER AGREEMENT 24F208

BETWEEN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS AND THE IEHP FOUNDATION

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the dates stated below.

THE IEHP FOUNDATION:

By: ____________________________
Gregory Bradbard
Chief Executive Officer

Date:

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS:

APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL:

Date: _______ Item No.

APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:

By: ___________________________ By: _______________________________ Jeffrey S. Ballinger Brenda Pree
City Attorney City Clerk

APPROVED:

By: _______________________________ Date:

Scott Stiles
City Manager

Item 1W - Page 7

ATTACHMENT B

Item 1W - Page 8
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS – PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

(Revised 09 13 18)

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

1. Name of Entity

2. Address of Entity (Principle Place of Business)

3. Local or California Address (if different than #2)

4. State where Entity is Registered with Secretary of State If other than California, is the Entity also registered in California?  Yes  No

5. Type of Entity
 Corporation  Limited Liability Company  Partnership  Trust  Other (please specify)

6. Officers, Directors, Members, Managers , Trustees, Other Fiduc iaries (please specify) Note: If any response is not a natural person, please identify all officers, directors, members, managers and other fiduciaries for the member, manager, trust or other entity _________________________________________________  Officer  Director  Member  Manager [name]
 General Partner  Limited Partner
 Other ____________________________________
_________________________________________________  Officer  Director  Member  Manager [name]
 General Partner  Limited Partner
 Other ____________________________________
_________________________________________________  Officer  Director  Member  Manager [name]
 General Partner  Limited Partner
 Other ____________________________________
IEHP Foundation
9500 Cleveland Ave, Suite 120, Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 See attached list
California
Item 3F - Page 6
Item 1W - Page 9
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS – PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM

(Revised 09 13 18)

7. Owners/Investors with a 5% beneficial interest in the Applicant Entity or a related entity

EXAMPLE

JANE DOE
[name of owner/investor]
50%, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
[percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
A.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
B.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
C.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
D.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity
and name of entity]
E.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of entity]

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

Signature of Disclosing Party, Printed Name, Title

Date
N/A
Randee Roberts, Sr. Finance Director
6/26/24
Item 3F - Page 7
Item 1W - Page 10

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: S EPTEMBER 10, 2025 CONSENT CALENDAR

SUBJECT: APPROVE RESPONSE TO CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT

FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager

BY: City Attorney’s Office

SUMMARY:

On June 23, 2025, the City of Palm Springs received a Riverside County Civil Grand Jury report. The report entitled “City of Palm Springs Lacked Proper Procedures for Vetting and Monitoring of Grants” accompanies this staff report as Attachment A. The report was made available to the public after the close of business on June 26, 2025.

This agenda item provides the City Council with an opportunity to review the report and provide the City’s response, as provided for under California law.

RECOMMENDATION:

It is recommended the City Council review the accompanying civil grand jury report, approve the response, and author ize the City Manager to deliver the City’s written response to the Grand Jury Report.

BACKGROUND:

Every year, a group of citizens agree to voluntarily serve as civil grand jurors. The civil grand jury is separate and apart from a criminal grand jury, which investigates potential crimes. This agenda item involves the civil grand jury; not a criminal grand jury. In California, civil grand juries are authorized to “investigate and report upon the operations, accounts, and records of the officers, departments, functions, and the method or system of performing the duties of any such city or joint powers agency and make such recommendations as it may deem proper and fit.” (Cal. Penal Code §925(a) .) Each civil grand jury determines which officers, departments and agencies it will review.

Once a civil grand jury issues a report to a local public agency, a response is due from that agency within 90 days after issuance of the report. Most civil grand jury reports contain two sections: findings and recommendations. The City Council must address the findings (Cal. Penal Code § 933.05(a)) and recommendations (Cal. Penal Code § Item 1X - Page 1
933.05(
b)) to the Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, the Riverside County Grand Jury office, and the Riverside County Clerk-Recorder.

As to each grand jury finding, the City must indicate one of the following:
• The City agrees with the finding; or
• The City disagrees wholly or partially with the finding, in which case the response must specify the portion of the finding that is disputed and must include an explanation of the reasons therefor.

As to each grand jury recommendation, the City must respond with one of the following actions:
• The recommendation has been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action; or
• The recommendation has not yet been implemented, but will be implemented in the future, with a timeframe for implementation; or • The recommendation requires further analysis, with an explanation and the scope and parameters of an analysis or study, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion by the City Council. This timeframe must not exceed six (6) months from the date of publication of the grand jury report; or
• The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable, along with the City’s explanation.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

On June 23, 2025, the Riverside County Grand Jury issued its report entitled “City of Palm Springs Lacked Proper Procedures for Vetting and Monitoring of Grants” (“Report”). The Report focuses on the alleged lack of adequate policies and procedures for processing and monitoring grants and contracts to ensure public funds are used appropriately. This investigation was initiated at the request of the District Attorney after the indictment of the CEO of Queer Works. The City entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with Queer Works and Desert AIDS Project to provide financial support for the purpose of conducting due diligence in pursuing a State grant for a possible guaranteed income pilot program targeting transgender and/or non-binary individuals.

Below are the civil grand jury’s findings and recommendations, each of which is followed by City staff’s recommended responses. Per State statute, the City’s response is due no later than September 24, 2025.

FINDINGS

F1. The City of Palm Springs lacked comprehensive guidelines and procedures for processing and monitoring grants and contracts. This absence of clear rules or standards did lead to inefficiencies, mismanagement, and misuse of funds.

Item 1X - Page 2
F1 R
esponse: The City agrees with this finding. In response to the Queer Works matter, City staff developed a set of grant management and fund disbursement processes and protocols, which was approved by the City Council at its meeting of November 21, 2024. The new processes serve to increase accountability and create fiscal safeguards around the distribution of City funds for grants and sponsorships.

F2. There is no formal training in fraud prevention or detection for those responsible for reviewing grant claims in the City of Palm Springs.

F2 Response : The City agrees with this finding ; however, the City is currently working with the City Attorney’s office to schedule formal fraud prevention training to City staff, which will be implemented by December 31, 2025.

F3. The City Council of Palm Springs did not request the monthly reports and invoices as required by the Memorandum of Understanding contract with Queer Works and Desert Aids Project (DAP) Health of Palm Springs.

F3 Response: The City disagrees with this finding. The City requested invoices and progress reports and issued the first $200,000 in several payments with varying amounts.

F4. The Memorandum of Understanding contract allowed for two large lump sums payments.

F4 Response : The City disagrees with this finding. The City paid out the first $200,000 authorized by the City Council in several payments with varying amounts based on invoices and progress reports sent.

F5.

The City of Palm Springs lacked proper auditing procedures, reviews, and monthly updates from a Non-Governmental Organization.

F5 Response: The City disagrees with this finding. The City did and does possess proper auditing procedures and reviews. In response to concerns raised about Queer Works in late 2023, t he City requested the proper data to audit the program numerous times. However, despite repeated requests, Queer Works did not send the necessar y data for the City to conduct an audit.

F6.

The City of Palm Springs heavily relied upon the endorsement by Desert A IDS Project (DAP) Health of Palm Springs to approve the Queer Works grant.

F6 Response: The City agrees with this finding.

F7. A City Council Member informed the Palm Springs City Council of their suspicion regarding Queer Works’ possible wrongdoing.

Item 1X - Page 3
F7 R
esponse: The City disagrees with this finding. A City Council member informed City Staff of their suspicion of Queer Works possible wrongdoing . This information led City Staff to seek an audit of the Queer Works program.

F8. The receipts submitted by Queer Works revealed inconsistencies in their financial statements to the City of Palm Springs.

F8 Response: The City disagrees with this finding. The City never received financial statements from Queer Works.

F9. The City of Palm Springs’ inadequate oversight resulted in a loss of over $700,000.

F9 Response: The City disagrees with this finding. DAP Health was able to complete the pilot program, and the City is unable to reconcile a specific amount of loss.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R1. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council develop comprehensive guidelines and procedures for processing and monitoring grants and contracts, implemented no later than December 31, 2025.

R1 Response: This recommendation has been implemented. At the Palm Springs City Council meeting of November 21, 2024, the City Council approved a new set of grant management and fund disbursement processes and protocols to strengthen the City’s process related to grants and sponsorships, that would apply to any organization requesting funds directly from the City Council, either during the course of the budget process or raised at a City Council meeting. The new policy changes outlined seven areas of improvement and provided actionable recommendations to address them. See Attachment B.

R2. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council mandate annual fraud detection training for city employees who monitor grants and contracts, implemented no later than December 31, 2025.

R2 Response: This recommendation is in the process of being implemented by the City. The City is currently working with the City Attorney’s office to schedule formal fraud prevention training to City staff, which will be implemented by December 31, 2025.

R3. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council ensure all contract Non- Governmental Organizations receiving funding above $50,000 have the payments distributed in multiple installments, to be implemented no later than December 31, 2025.

R3 Response: This recommendation has been implemented. As outlined in the City’s Processes and Procedures for City Grant Management and Funds Item 1X - Page 4
Di
sbursement approved by City Council on November 2 1, 2024, the approved policy eliminates lump sum payments for any grant funding of $75,000 or greater.

The City used the threshold of $75,000 as that amount was the limit of the City Manager’s signature authority. Any payment of $75,000 or greater must be split into a minimum of two payments, with each payment distributed at least three months apart.

R4. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council establish clearly defined written vetting processes for city employees to use when evaluating Non-Governmental Organization program proposals, to be implemented no later than December 31, 2025.

R4 Response: This recommendation has been implemented. As outlined in the City’s Processes and Procedures for City Grant Management and Funds Disbursement approved by City Council on November 21, 2024, there is a vetting process for organizations seeking City grant funding. Funding recipients must meet minimum eligibility requirements which includes:

1. Be located in the City of Palm Springs or provide services to Palm Springs residents.

2. Meet the definition of a Nonprofit Organization and provide the organization’s IRS 501(c) tax designation letter.

3. Provide a list of board members ( required by the California Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts) to confirm legitimacy.

4. Have the ability to provide the organization’s 990 and 990- F federal tax returns and/or audited financial statements.

5. Include documentation on disbursement and check approval processes.

6. Possess a valid City of Palm Springs Business License, as applicable.

7. Be found in good financial standing with the City of Palm Springs.

8. Be found in good legal standing.

9. Provide a proposal that will benefit those living in the City of Palm Springs.

10. Meet all criteria outlined in the grant application.

11. Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes and ordinances, and all lawful orders, rules and regulations when performing grant-funded services.

12. Grantee shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant per the provisions of the Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 7.09.040.

13. The City should not be the primary source of funding for the organization.

All nonprofit organizations, including those with whom the City has historically partnered, must meet minimum eligibility requirements, be in compliance with and in good standing with the following agencies:
• IRS Verified Nonprofit Status
• California Secretary of State
• California Department of Justice, Attorney General’s Registry of Charitable Trusts
• California Franchise Tax Board
Item 1X - Page 5
• C
ity Department of Finance
• City Code Enforcement

R5. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council review and redefine its policies and procedures related to making lump sum payments to the Non- Governmental Organization programs including assessing associated risks, to be implemented by December 31, 2025.

R5 Response: This recommendation has been implemented. As outlined in the City’s Processes and Procedures for City Grant Management and Funds Disbursement approved by City Council on November 2 1, 2024, the approved policy eliminates lump sum payments for any grant funding of $75,000 or greater.

The City used the threshold of $75,000 as that amount was the limit of the City Manager’s signature authority. Any payment of $75,000 or greater must be split into a minimum of two payments, with each payment distri buted at least three months apart.

R6. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council hire an independent auditing firm to conduct an internal operational audit (key processes, procedures, and internal controls) and provide improvement suggestions to the Palm Springs City Council by June 30, 2026.

R6 Response: The City agrees with this recommendation and will work to engage an auditing firm to initiate this engagement by the requested date.

R7. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council establish a policy that mandates an independent auditing firm to conduct an internal operational audit (key processes, procedures, and internal controls) every two fiscal years by June 30, 2026.

R7 Response: The City agrees with this recommendation and will prepare a policy for City Council approval by the requested date.

R8. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council review and update its policies, regulations, and procedures related to its fraud, waste, and misuse hotline (i.e., “Whistleblower Hotline”) by December 31, 2025.

R8 Response: The City agrees with this recommendation.

R9. The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council utilize various media channels to announce, at least quarterly, the purpose and availability of its city “Whistleblower Hotline” no later than December 31, 2025.

R9 Response: The City agrees with this recommendation.

Item 1X - Page 6
R10. T
he Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council contract with an independent firm to conduct a forensic audit of all city departments vetting and monitoring contracts and grants no later than June 30, 2026.

R10 Response: The City will not implement this recommendation. The City feels this recommendation is not warranted or reasonable but instead is excessive due to the implementation of additional audit s that will cover internal controls for the monitoring and vetting of grants. (See Responses R6 and R7).

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

There is no potential for any environmental impact associated with this report.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:

The response to the civil grand jury aligns with the City Council’s major themes/principles of optimizing basic services and facilities and focusing on issues that most impact quality of life.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no direct fiscal impact associated with responding to the Grand Jury Report.

REVIEWED BY:

Director of Finance & Treasurer: Kristopher J. Mooney
City Attorney: Jeffrey S. Ballinger
City Manager: Scott Stiles

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Riverside County Civil Grand Jury 2024-2025 report: “City of Palm Springs Lacked Proper Procedures for Vetting and Monitoring of Grants,” dated June 16, 2025.

B. City of Palm Springs Staff Report of November 21, 2024, Updating Processes and Procedures for City Grant Management and Funds Disbursement.

Item 1X - Page 7

ATTACHMENT A

Item 1X - Page 8

Riverside County Civil Grand Jury 2024-2025
June 16, 2025

City of Palm Springs
Lacked Proper Procedures for Vetting
and Monitoring of Grants

Item 1X - Page 9
1 SUMMARY
Following the indictment of the CEO of Queer Works (QW), a nonprofit organization, on 53 criminal counts, the District Attorney requested that the Riverside County Civil Grand Jury (RCCGJ) investigate potential government malfeasance or misconduct in the administration of these contracts. The RCCGJ found evidence that the City of Palm Springs lacked adequate policies and procedures to safeguard taxpayer funds from fraudulent use by nonprofits.1

BACKGROUND
Mayors for a Guaranteed Income (MGIP) was founded in June, 2020 by Stockton, California Mayor Michael Tubbs. It is, generally, an anti-poverty program. Its purpose is for City Mayors to come together in a network to advocate for a Guaranteed Income “To lift all the communities and build a resilient, just America”.2
On March 24, 2022, in the City Council of Palm Springs considered and approved a request by Desert Aids Project (DAP) Health, a non-profit organization and Queer Works (QW), a non- profit corporation, to provide financial support for the purpose of pursuing a State grant for an income pilot program or Universal Basic Income (UBI) program.3 This UBI program was to support transgender and nonbinary individuals with support for employment, homelessness, assault and discrimination.4
The MGIP program provides a monthly cash payment given directly to individuals to help supplement their income or lack thereof. MGIP’s are a way to test the impact of these payments, while also providing a service to help financially stabilize community members and acquire information to help create future, evidence-based policies, and programs. The City Council of Palm Springs on March 24, 2022, initially approved $200,000 by signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between DAP and QW. It was also understood that an additional $500,000 would be issued if QW met the requirements of the initial MOU from the City.

In late 2023, a Palm Springs City Council member became concerned with the activities of QW and the lack of required financial information reporting to the City.

1 Grand jury indicts Queer Works CEO on multiple fraud charges ⋆ The Palm Springs Post 2 About — Mayors for a Guaranteed Income
3 City Council - Mar 24 2022 : City of Palm Springs, CA : Free Download, Borrow, and Streami ng : Internet Archive
4 Guaranteed Income Pilot Program
Item 1X - Page 10
2 WHAT IS DAP HEALTH & MISSION?
“For four decades, DAP Health has remained committed to its founding principles based on equitable access to health care. Guided by the voices and needs of the diverse communities it serves, the nonprofit has protected and expanded access to quality programs and services for people of all ages, genders, ethnicities, orientations, and socioeconomic statuses”.5

HISTORY OF QUEER WORKS AKA QUEERWORKS: MISSION STATEMENT “Queer Works was originally formed in 2018. Queer Works was founded and is led by Jacob Rostovsky, MA, LMFT. Jacob is a therapist and an out transgender man whose personal experiences facing rejection and discrimination in healthcare inspired the creation of the organization. We are based completely virtual throughout California.

In 2024, we have decided to move our mission completely towards mental health care and access for the TGI community.

Our primary focus is our free mental health program designed to promote health equity within the transgender and gender non-binary (TGI) community. We aim to provide accessible mental health services by connecting TGI individuals with licensed therapists who have expertise in working with the community's unique needs.

The therapy services we offer are available for free to those who are unable to afford them. Our program also includes support groups and workshops to promote mental wellness and community-building among TGI individuals.

At Queer Works, we understand the unique challenges that TGI individuals face when seeking mental health services. Our goal is to empower the community by providing the support and resources they need to take control of their mental health and advocate for their well-being”.6
Definition for the acronym TGI:

Transgender, Transsexual, Gender-Diverse, and Intersex (TGI): This term encompasses a range of identities, including male-to-female (MtF), female-to-male (FtM), and others, indicating that the assigned sex at birth may not accurately describe one's gender identity1.7

5 About Us - DAP Health
6 About Queer Works — Queer Works & The TransPower Project 7 TGI Network of RI - What is TGI?
Item 1X - Page 11
3 METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury obtained information for this report through the review of documents, testimony of officials, site visitations and websites.

Interviews-The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury conducted 14 interviews • 2022 Palm Springs City Council Members
• 2022 Palm Springs City Manager
• 2024 Palm Springs City Council Members
• 2024 Palm Springs City Manager
• 2024 Palm Springs Director of Finance & Treasurer
• 2024 Palm Springs Chief Deputy Clerk
• 2024 Palm Springs City Attorney
• CEO of Desert Aids Project (DAP) Health Palm Springs
• Staff Members County of Riverside - Housing and Workforce Solutions • Forensic Accountant

Documents
• March 24, 2022, Palm Springs City Council Meeting approves $200,000 in funding to Desert Aids Project and Queer Works to submit a proposal for State Funding of a Universal Basic Income program.
• May 12, 2022, Memorandum of Understanding Between the City of Palm Springs, Desert Aids Project and Queer Works was signed.
• July 28, 2022, Palm Springs City Council board meeting approved an additional $500,000 in funding to Desert Aids Project and Queer Works. • October 5, 2022, the First Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of Palm Springs and Queer Works was signed.
• July 11, 2024, Agreement of Separation between Queer Works and the City of Palm Springs.
• July 11, 2024, Agreement Desert Aids Project to assume all obligations of Queer Works under Universal Basic Income program.
• 2022-2024, City of Palm Springs Invoices received from Queer Works for payment. • 2022-2024, Palm Springs City Council Staff Reports.
• 2022-2024, Multiple Palm Springs City documents.
• County of Riverside Department of Housing, Homelessness Prevention and Workforce Solutions (HHPWS). Queer Works Trans Power Project-Street Outreach ESC-CV2, HHPWSCoC-ESGCV2-13.
• Mayors for a Guaranteed Income (MGIP).
• Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt from Income Tax 2022 Queer Works.

Item 1X - Page 12
4 • Form 990 Returns of Organization Exempt from Income Tax 2022 and 2023 Desert Aids Project.

Palm Springs City Council Online Meetings
• City Council Meeting: March 24, 2022
• City Council Meeting: May 12, 2022
• City Council Meeting: July 28, 2022
• City Council Meeting: November 9, 2023

Visits
• Palm Springs City Hall
• Desert Aids Project (DAP) Palm Springs

Subpoena
• Two issued

Websites
• City of Palm Springs:
o Government | City of Palm Springs
• City of Palm Springs City Council Meetings:
o https://www.palmspringsca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/23820/1 464?npage=5
o https://www.palmspringsca.gov/Home/Components/Calendar/Event/24258/1 464?npage=4
• The Palm Springs Post Press release February 27, 2023- Queer Works and Dap Health join forces with the City of Palm Springs to launch Universal Basic Income Program:
o Applications for basic income pilot project opening in mid-March; members of transgender, non-binary community especially encouraged to apply ⋆ The Palm Springs Post
• Palm Springs seeks to tighten nonprofit grant controls after pilot program issues:
o Palm Springs seeks to tighten nonprofit grant controls after pilot program issues ⋆ The Palm Springs Post
• Public Announcement by District Attorney Office:
o CRIMINAL GRAND JURY INDICTS NONPROFIT CEO ON 53 FELONY

COUNTS IN FRAUD SCHEME INVOLVING THEFT OF MORE THAN
$940,000 IN PUBLIC FUNDS | Riverside County District Attorney Item 1X - Page 13
5 • Queer Works 990 form for 2022:
o Queer Works - Form 990, Schedule A - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica • DESERT AIDS PROJECT, INC. DBA DAP HEALTH INC 990 forms for 2023 and 2024:
o Dap Health Inc - Nonprofit Explorer - ProPublica

DISCUSSION
In March 2022 the Palm Springs City Council approved a request to allocate $200,000 in financial support to pursue a State grant for a potential Universal Basic Income Project.8 The program aimed to secure state funding from the $35 million allocated in 2021 for guaranteed income programs across California, with an expected launch between October 2022 and February 2023.9 Palm Springs residents could apply for the city's Universal Basic Income pilot program, which would provide 30 residents with a monthly cash payment of $800 for 18 months.

Additionally, the program would offer some transgender and nonbinary residents a monthly payment as part of a guaranteed basic income pilot initiative.

In May 2022 all parties entered a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in which the City of Palm Springs agreed to provide up to $200,000 for operational costs necessary for the startup of the project, on a reimbursement basis.10 On July 28, 2022, the Palm Springs City Council approved a request for a First Amendment to the existing MOU, adding an additional $500,000.11 Interviews revealed that both MOU contracts were approved and signed by the Palm Springs City Attorneys.

In late 2023, a Palm Springs Council member raised concerns about the activities of Queer Works and the lack of required reporting documents to the City, as agreed upon in the MOU by QW and DAP. The agreement included the following commitments:

1. Exercise good faith to remain within the estimated budget

2. Keep the City apprised of changes made to the program, state grant opportunities, fundraising and other information pertinent to execution of the scope of work

3. Provide the City Manager with monthly updates, unless otherwise indicated in writing by the City Manager, outlining activities and progress.

8 City Council - Mar 24 2022 : City of Palm Springs, CA : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
9 2021 toward guaranteed income programs across California with an expected launch betw een October and February 2023. - Search
10 Palm Springs funds universal basic income effort for trans residents 11 City Council Regular Meeting | City Council Agenda Archive | City of Palm Springs Item 1X - Page 14
6 The RCCGJ discovered through multiple interviews that the Palm Springs City Council ceased receiving financial updates or progress reports from either QW or DAP after the specified date, as per the MOU agreement. Online correspondence was sent to both QW and the CEO of DAP, expressing concerns about the handling of funds and requesting updates on the progress of the pilot program. The City of Palm Springs received a total of six progress reports starting from 2022, with the last report dated April 12, 2023.

The RCCGJ discovered that a call took place on May 23, 2022, between a Palm Springs Council Member and a DAP staff member, regarding concerns about QW operations. The DAP member informed the council member that no evidence of wrongdoing was found. Subsequently, the RCCGJ's investigation discovered that the City of Palm Springs lacked proper vetting procedures, including detailed background checks, training in fraud recognition, the review of IRS 990 forms (Return of Organization Exempt from Federal Tax), and the omission of monthly updated progress reports.

The RCCGJ investigation revealed through the interviews that councilmembers were basing their decisions on staff reports containing information by QW and DAP, who was a partner. Without DAP’s endorsement for QW, the City of Palm Springs indicated it would not have supported the funding for QW.12
This case highlights the importance of stringent oversight and accountability when cities collaborate with nonprofits to ensure that public funds are used appropriately and effectively. In response the City of Palm Springs updated its current policy and procedures in September 2024, to include the following:13
• Requiring reimbursement-based payments or split payments for projects over $75,000 • Mandating regular progress reports and invoices
• Establishing minimum eligibility requirements for nonprofits • Requiring annual independent audit reports
• Designating specific city departments and staff to oversee each grant As a result of the alleged misappropriation of funds, by QW, DAP undertook full responsibility and control of the program on July 11, 2024.14

12 3662_3A_-_OCR.pdf
13 Palm Springs seeks to tighten nonprofit grant controls after pilot program issues ⋆ The Palm Springs Post 14 DAP Health: $30K of $700K meant for UBI program available when it assumed control this month ⋆ The Palm Springs Post
Item 1X - Page 15
7 It appeared the City didn’t receive any tangible results for its investment of $700,000 and the City could have their exercised right to review the accounts of QW and DAP as mandated by the MOU.

FINDINGS
F1. The City of Palm Springs lacked comprehensive guidelines and procedures for processing and monitoring grants and contracts. This absence of clear rules or standards did lead to inefficiencies, mismanagement, and misuse of funds.

F2. There is no formal training in fraud prevention or detection for those responsible for reviewing grant claims in the City of Palm Springs.

F3. The City Council of Palm Springs did not request the monthly reports and invoices as required by the Memorandum of Understanding contract with Queer Works and Desert Aids Project (DAP) Health of Palm Springs.

F4. The Memorandum of Understanding contract allowed for two large lump sums payments.

F5. The City of Palm Springs lacked proper auditing procedures, reviews, and monthly updates from a Non-Governmental Organization.

F6. The City of Palm Springs heavily relied upon the endorsement by Desert Aids Project (DAP) Health of Palm Springs to approve the Queer Works grant.

F7. A City Council Member informed the Palm Springs City Council of their suspicion regarding Queer Works' possible wrongdoing.

F8. The receipts submitted by Queer Works revealed inconsistencies in their financial statements to the City of Palm Springs.

F9. The City of Palm Springs' inadequate oversight resulted in a loss of over $700,000.

RECOMMENDATIONS

R1 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council develop comprehensive guidelines and procedures for processing and monitoring grants and contracts, implemented no later than December 31, 2025.

Based on Findings: F1 through F9
Financial Impact: Minimal
Item 1X - Page 16
8 R2 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council mandate annual fraud detection training for city employees who monitor grants and contracts, implemented no later than December 31, 2025.

Based on Findings: F2, F3, F4, and F8
Financial Impact: Minimal

R3 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council ensure all contract Non-Governmental Organizations receiving funding above $50,000 have the payments distributed in multiple installments, to be implemented no later than December 31, 2025.

Based on Findings: F1. F2, F3. and F4
Financial Impact: Minimal

R4 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council establish clearly defined written vetting processes for city employees to use when evaluating Non-Governmental Organization program proposals, to be implemented no later than December 31, 2025.

Based on Findings: F1, F3, F4 and F5
Financial Impact: Minimal

R5 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council review and redefine its policies and procedures related to making lump sum payments to the Non-Governmental Organization programs including assessing associated risks, to be implemented by December 31, 2025.

Based on Findings: F1, F3, F4 and F5
Financial Impact: Minimal

R6 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council hire an independent auditing firm to conduct an internal operational audit (key processes, procedures, and internal controls) and provide improvement suggestions to the Palm Springs City Council by June 30, 2026.

Based on Finding: F1 through F9
Financial Impact: Moderate-High

Item 1X - Page 17
9 R7 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council establish a policy that mandates an independent auditing firm to conduct an internal operational audit (key processes, procedures, and internal controls) every two fiscal years by June 30, 2026.

Based on Finding: F1 through F9
Financial Impact: Moderate-High

R8 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council review and update its policies, regulations, and procedures related to its fraud, waste, and misuse hotline (i.e., 'Whistleblower Hotline”) by December 31, 2025.

Based on Findings: F1 through F9
Financial Impact: Minimal

R9 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council utilize various media channels to announce, at least quarterly, the purpose and availability of its city 'Whistleblower Hotline” no later than December 31, 2025.

Based on Findings: F1 through F9
Financial Impact: Minimal

R10 The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury recommends that the Palm Springs City Council contract with an independent firm to conduct a forensic audit of all city departments vetting and monitoring contracts and grants no later than June 30, 2026.

Based on Findings: F1 through F9
Financial Impact: Moderate-High

Item 1X - Page 18
10 REQUIRED AND INVITED RESPONSES
Under California Penal Code §933, governing bodies are required to respond to grand jury report findings and recommendations within 90 days. California Penal Code §933.05 specifies how these governing bodies must respond.

Required Responses-Due in 90 Days
Location Findings Recommendations
Palm Springs City Council F1 - F9 R1 - R10
Invited Responses
Location Findings Recommendations
Palm Springs City Manager F1 - F9 R1 - R10
CEO Desert AIDS Project (DAP)
Health
F1 - F9 R1 - R10
County Counsel, County of Riverside F1 - F9 R1 - R10

DISCLAIMER
The Riverside County Civil Grand Jury has made no attempt to determine the guilt or innocence of any parties in any impending criminal cases. Our investigation was based solely into the policies and actions of the City of Palm Springs in their processing of contracts of Non- Governmental Organizations. This report is solely limited to the City of Palm Springs.

Report Issued Date:

Report Public Date:

Response Due Date:
6/23/2025
6/26/2025
9/26/2025
Item 1X - Page 19

ATTACHMENT B

Item 1X - Page 20

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DAT
E: NOVEMBER 21, 2024 CONSENT CALENDAR
SUBJECT: UPDATING PROCESSES AND PROCEDURES FOR CITY GRANT

MANAGEMENT AND FUNDS DISBURSEMENT
FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager
SUMMARY:

In a c
ontinuing effort for the City to be more transparent in its use of City funds, the City Manager and staff have developed a set of grant management and fund disbursement processes and protocols. Staff wishes to share their ongoing recommendations for City Council consideration.

RECOMMENDATION:

St
aff recommends Council approve the proposed updated procedures.

BACKGROUND:

Thr
oughout its history, the City of Palm Springs has provided small grants to nonprofit organizations providing services for the betterment of the community and large grants for marquee events. Upon review of current practices and at the request of Council members, the City Manager initiated a review of City policies and has proposed adjustments to the policies to better manage and safeguard taxpayer dollars while continuing to serve Palm Springs residents through community grants and funding.

STAFF ANALYSIS:

The pr
oposed policy changes (Attachment A) serve to increase accountability and create safeguards around the distribution of City funds. The changes do so without creating unnecessary burden on City Staff or applicant organizations. Changes include:
• Eliminating lump sum payments for any funding above $75,000, requiring contracts to either move to a reimbursement- based payment system or split payments up over time
• Requiring semi -annual submission of progress reports and invoices for funding above $75,000
• Strengthening the due diligence process for investigating organizations that have Item 1X - Page 21
not received funding from the City before
• Requiring organizations receiving over $75,000 to submit an annual independent audit
• Identifying a sponsoring City department and individual point person on City staff assigned to coordinate, oversee, and audit each program/contract. • Establishing training modules for City staff on policies and procedures for grant management and funds distribution
• Updating the City Council annually on how funds are spent and organizations’ impacts on the communities they serve.

These policy recommendations apply to organizations requesting funds directly from the City Council, either during the course of the budget process or raised at a City Council meeting. These policies do not apply to the Small Grants and Sponsorships program, which is administered by staff and has established its own rigorous policies.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:

Updating City policies will empower the City Council to better serve residents through City-funded projects, while advancing Palm Springs’ mission to provide excellent, responsive public services that enhance the quality of life for current and future generations.

FISCAL IMPACT
:

Policies will change fiscal processes but will not incur any additional expense.

REVIEWED BY:

Assistant City Manager: Teresa Gallavan
City Manager: Scott Stiles

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Processes and Procedures for City Grant Management and Funds Disbursement.

Item 1X - Page 22

ATTACHMENT A

Item 1X - Page 23

MEMORANDUM

To: Palm Springs City Council Members
From: Scott Stiles, Palm Springs City Manager
Date: November 18, 2024
Subject: Processes and Procedures for City Grant Management and Funds Disbursement

In an effort for the City of Palm Springs to be more transparent in its use of City funds, my staff has developed a new set of grant management and fund disbursement processes and protocols for the City Council to review. This policy memo identifies seven areas for improvement and provides actionable recommendations to address them.

These policy recommendations apply to any organization requesting funds directly from the City Council, either during the course of the budget process or raised at a City Council meeting.

These policies do not apply to the Small Grants and Sponsorships program, which is administered by staff and has established its own rigorous policies, nor does this policy apply to standard City contracts for goods and services.

I am presenting this proposal and asking that the Council approve these policy changes so that we can collectively agree to strengthen our processes.

Funding Large Projects in Lump Sum

Current Policy: Most funding from the City Council has been distributed in a lump sum.

Proposed Policy: Eliminate lump sum payments for any funding above $75,000. Grants and funding will be paid through reimbursement. The applicant organization is required to prepare an invoice and progress report showing work completed.

If reimbursement will not work for a particular project, the City Manager is authorized to instead split funds into a minimum of 2 payments, with each payment distributed at least 3 months apart. For funds totaling more than $200,000, funds will be split into a minimum of four payments, with each payment distributed at least 3 months apart with the receipt of progress reports and financial documentation.

If cases occur where organizations need emergency funding and they make a request to appeal to funding protocols, the request will be reviewed by the City Manager, Finance Director, and City Attorney.

Item 1X - Page 24

Achieved through: Approval by the City Council. The Staff Report template and Grant Agreement will be updated to reflect changes.

Regular Reports and Invoices

Current Policy: Most City contracts reserve the right to ask for financials or progress reports at any time in the contract. However, it does not mandate them or establish a timeline for when and how many reports should be received.

Proposed Policy: The City will require progress reports and invoices consistent with the proposed policy regarding Funding Large Projects in Lump Sum. For contracts within the reimbursement program, regular reports and invoices are necessary to receive funding. For contracts in which funds are split over time, the City will not release funds until receipt of required documentation. This will be outlined in the organization’s contract with the City.

Additionally, City staff should maintain documentation on the organization’s disbursement and check approval processes and verify that the disbursement of funds aligns with the reports and invoices received from the organization.

In the event that any internal changes occur within the organization seeking grant funds from the City of Palm Springs, the City must be notified. This includes changes in the organization personnel responsible for grant management; changes to policies or violations, along with corrective actions taken; or any other event affecting the organization’s operations.

Achieved through: Approval by the City Council.

Vetting Process for New Organizations

Current Policy: There is a vetting process for organizations seeking funding through the Small Grants and Sponsorships Program. Grant funding outside the Small Grants and Sponsorship Program, above $75,000, requires City Council approval.

Proposed Policy: Funding recipients must meet minimum eligibility requirements to receive City grant funding. This includes:

1. Be located in the City of Palm Springs or provide services to Palm Springs residents.

2. Meet the definition of a Nonprofit Organization and can provide the organization’s IRS 501(c) tax designation letter.

3. Provide a list of board members (required by the Secretary of State and charitable trust) to confirm legitimacy.

4. Have the ability to provide the organization’s 990 and 990-F federal tax returns, and/or audited financial statements.

5. Include documentation on disbursement and check approval processes.

6. Possess a valid City of Palm Springs Business License, as applicable.

7. Be found in good financial standing with the City of Palm Springs.

8. Be found in good standing from a legal perspective by the City Attorney.

Item 1X - Page 25

9. Provide a proposal that will benefit those living in the City of Palm Springs.

10. Meet all criteria outlined in the grant application.

11. Compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, statutes, and ordinances, and all lawful orders, rules, and regulations when performing grant-funded services.

12. Grantee shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant per the provisions of the Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 7.09.040.

13. The City should not be the primary source of funding for the organization.

All nonprofit organizations, including those with whom the City has historically partnered, must meet minimum eligibility requirements, be in compliance and in good standing with the following agencies:

● IRS Verified Non-Profit Status
● California Secretary of State Good Standing
● DOJ Registry of Charitable Trusts
● Franchise Tax Board Status
● City Department of Finance
● City Code Enforcement

Achieved through: City Council approval of policy revision.

Independent Audit

Current Policy: The current policy does not require organizations to submit audit documentation to the City.

Proposed Policy: Require organizations receiving over $75,000 to submit an independent audit every year. Most organizations should already be performing an annual audit, so the burden of this requirement is low.

To assist smaller organizations in meeting proper auditing standards, organizations may request to conduct a scaled-down audit focused on internal controls, which will be approved at the Finance Director’s discretion.

Achieved through: City Council approval of policy revision, which is included in the minimum eligibility requirements.

Identifying the Responsible Party on Staff

Current Policy: There has been ambiguity about designating the staff person responsible for overseeing a program or contract.

Proposed Policy: A sponsoring City department and individual point person on City staff will be assigned to coordinate and provide oversight of the grantee and audit the program/project expenses upon receipt. The point person is responsible for writing the staff report, overseeing the program and contract, auditing supporting documentation, and raising any issues with appropriate staff and/or Council Members.

Item 1X - Page 26

Achieved through: Policy directive from the City Manager to staff.

Staff Training

Current Policy: Training on grants and contracts among City staff is limited and informal.

Proposed Policy: All City staff who, as part of their normal duties, may oversee a program or contract related to grants or sponsorships must be trained on policies and procedures for approving funding and overseeing a contract. This includes best practices, review of the staff report template, due diligence, documentation, disbursement procedures, finance, internal controls, and fraud risk. The City’s Finance Department will be responsible for conducting this training, in coordination with the City Attorney’s office.

Achieved through: Policy directive from City Manager and/or Department Director to staff.

Current Funding Programs over $75,000

Name Funding Program Staff Assigned
Palm Springs
International Film
Festival
$350,000; current
Agreement in place,
expiring June 2028
Annual Film Festival Cindy Cairns
City Manager’s Office
Palm Springs Art
Museum
$300,000 budgeted
this FY
Free Thursday
Evenings Program
Cindy Cairns
City Manager’s Office
Greater Palm Springs
Pride
$125,000 in-kind City
support; current
Agreement in place,
expiring June 2027
Annual Pride Festival
and Parade
Jasmine Waits
Special Events Manager
Desert X $75,000 budgeted this
FY
Desert X Art
Exhibitions in Palm
Springs
Jay Virata
Community Development
Director

# # #
Item 1X - Page 27

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE

SUBJECT: DESIGNATION OF AN ALTERNATE APPOINTEE FOR THE SUNLINE

TRANSIT AGENCY JPA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager

BY: Office of the City Clerk

SUMMARY:

In accordance with the Sun Line JPA Transportation Agreement No. 1281 , member entities are obligated to appoint a primary member and an alternate member to the board.

The role of the alternate member is to serve in the absence of the primary member. The City appointed its primary member on January 9, 2025; however, the City Council has not designated an alternate member, as reflected in the current roster (Attachment A), which is a requirement of the JPA agreement.

RECOMMENDATION:

Designate an alternate appointee to the SunLine Transit Agency’s JPA Board of Directors, and update the Roster of City Council Subcommittees, Appointees, Liaisons, and Representatives to External Organizations.

BACKGROUND:

The City Council routinely appoints Councilmembers to serve on standing or ad hoc subcommittees, or individual Councilmembers may volunteer to serve as liaisons to study various topics. The City Council also appoints representatives to external organizations as needed. On an annual basis, the City Council reviews the roster of appointments and makes adjustments as necessary.

SunLine Transit Agency was established under a Joint Powers Authority (JPA) in 1977.

SunLine is a public agency created by the nine cities of the Coachella Valley and Riverside County. The JPA's governing board consists of one elected official from each member entity and one county supervisor. The Board of Directors is responsible for setting Agency policy.

Item 3A - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025 – Page 2
Designation of an Alternate Appointee to the SunLine Transit Agency Board of Directors

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

REVIEWED BY:

Department Director: Brenda Pree
City Manager: Scott Stiles

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Current Roster of City Council Subcommittees, Appointees, Liaisons, and Representatives to External Organizations
B. Board Meeting Schedule
C. Excerpt from SunLine JPA Transportation Agreement No. 1281 Item 3A - Page 2

ATTACHMENT A
Item 3A - Page 3
Office of the City Clerk Rev. 1/16/2025

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
Roster of City Council Subcommittees 2025
Committee Status Meetings Member Member
Finance Standing Committee (R-
12147) * Standing As Needed
(MAYOR)
deHarte
(MPT)
Soto
Board & Commission Interviews
Ad Hoc Subcommittee * Ad Hoc As Needed (MAYOR)
deHarte
(MPT)
Soto
Mayor’s Council on Economic
Development Standing As Needed Bernstein deHarte
Parks & Recreation Master Plan
Task Force (Approved 10/26/23) * Task Force As Needed Soto Bernstein Arts & Culture Roundtable Task
Force * Task Force As Needed Bernstein Garner
Blue Zones Steering Committee Standing As Needed Ready Soto Roster of City Council
Appointees to External Organization 2025
External Organizations Meetings Appointee Alternate
Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG): (SE/, Form 700 required) Executive Committee
(Agendize assignment at the end of each FY)
Last Monday,
4:30 p.m.
(MAYOR)
deHarte
(MPT)
Soto
Energy & Environmental Resources 2nd Thursday,
Noon deHarte N/A
Homelessness 3rd Wednesday,
10 a.m. deHarte Soto
Public Safety 2nd Monday,
9a.m. Garner Bernstein
Transportation 1st Monday,
10 a.m. Ready Garner
California Coalition of Mayors 1st & 3rd Friday,
12:30 p.m. deHarte N/A
Coachella Valley Conservation
Commission
(SE/, Form 700 required)
2nd Thursday,
10:30 a.m. deHarte N/A
Coachella Valley Economic Partnership 3rd Wednesday
8 a.m. Garner Soto
Coachella Valley Mountains
Conservancy Bd.
(SE/, Form 700 required)
2nd Monday (4 mtgs a year)
3 p.m. Garner N/A
Desert Community Energy Board
(SE/, Form 700 required)
3rd Monday,
3:00 p.m. Bernstein N/A
Eastern Riverside County
Interoperable Communications
Authority
April 10, 2025 – Final
Meeting to disband.
(2nd Thursday, 4 p.m.)

N/A N/A
Item 3A - Page 4
Office of the City Clerk Rev. 1/16/2025
External Organizations Meetings Appointee Alternate
Friends of PS Animal Shelter Varies Bernstein Ready
Visit Greater Palm Springs
(SE/, Form 700 required) Varies Bernstein deHarte
League of California Cities Varies Ready N/A
Main Street/Uptown Business
Association
1st Tuesday,
8:30 a.m. Ready N/A
Palm Springs Chamber of Commerce 3rd Thursday,
8 a.m. Bernstein N/A
Palm Springs Tourism & Hospitality Organizations
Hotel General Managers Weekly
Meeting
Wednesdays
8 a.m. deHarte Soto
PS Hospitality Association Member
Meeting
3rd Thursday
9:30 a.m. Bernstein deHarte
PS Resorts Meetings Varies deHarte Ready
Plaza Theater Restoration
Fundraising Committee Varies / 4:30PM Bernstein Ready
Office of Neighborhood
Involvement (One-PS)
1st
Tuesday,
4:30 p.m.
deHarte
Bernstein
Riverside County Transportation
Commission
(SE/, Form 700 required)
2nd Wednesday,
9 a.m. Ready Garner
So. California Association of
Governments Conference &
General Assembly Meeting
(SE/, Form 700 required)
May 1-2, 2025 Ready N/A
Sunline Transit Agency
(SE/, Form 700 required)
4th Wednesday,
Noon Garner N/A
* Meetings are held on an as-needed basis.

Item 3A - Page 5

ATTACHMENT B
Item 3A - Page 6
SunLine Transit Agency/SunLine Services Group
Board Meeting Schedule for 2025
NOTE: The majority of all Board meetings are held at noon on the 4 th Wednesday of the month with a few exceptions. The Board of Directors go dark in August and November.

Special Board meetings may be called by the Chairman if needed. All Regular meetings are held in the Board Room at the SunLine Transit Agency Thousand Palms headquarters.

October 22
December 3
March 26
April 23
May 28
June 25
July 23
September 24
January 22
February 26
Item 3A - Page 7
8unl1nc Sunl1nc

TRANSIT AGENCY SERVICES GROUP

ATTACHMENT C

Item 3A - Page 8

Excerpt from SunLine JPA Transportation Agreement No. 1281 (pages 139 – 140).

Item 3A - Page 9
27 28
IVAN . JR.
1 2
3 4
5 6
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14
A. MEMBERSHIP OF THE BOARD
Each party to this Agreement shall be authorized to appoint and shall appoint one member of the Board as follows:
1) Each municipality shall appoint as its
respective Board member a member of its city
Council;
2) me county of Riverside shall appoint as its
member to the Boar~ a member of the County of
Riverside Board of Supervisors.
3) Any other public agency participating in
this Agreement shall appoint as its member to
the Board a member of its legisla .tive governing
body.
~e members so appointed shall be known as primary members.

B. ALTERNATE MEMBERS TO 'lHE BOARD
15 Each party to this Agreement shall appoint an alternate 16 member to the Board to serve in the absence of that party• s 17 primary member,. Alternate members sha.lJ. be appointed 18 subject to the same criteria as primary members, as set forth 19 i n sub,section A., above.

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2025 BUSINESS & LEGISLATIVE

SUBJECT: AN APPEAL BY JOSEPH PRANEVICIUS AND THE CARNELIAN RED TRUST DTD 6 -6-2018, OWNERS / APPELLANTS, OF AN ACTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE (“ARC”) DENYING AN APPEAL (CASE APPL -2024-0001) OF CERTAIN CONDITIONS OF

APPROVAL RELATED TO AN APPROVAL OF THE DIRECTOR OF
PLANNING SERVICES FOR CASE AR -2024-0046: A PROPOSED

ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING SHADE STRUCTURE
LOCATED AT 1100 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ( ZONE C- 1,

GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION TOURIST RESORT
COMMERCIAL (“TRC”), CASE APPL-2025-0001

FROM: Scott C. Stiles, City Manager

BY: Department of Planning Services

SUMMARY:

On July 30, 2024, the Director of Planning Services approved (with conditions) an application proposing a roughly 715- square foot addition to an existing shade canopy structure located at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive (Case AR-2024-0046).

On August 13, 2024 pursuant Zoning Code Section 94.04.00 (D,2,c) the applicant appealed the staff level approval to the ARC, demanding removal of most of the conditions of approval (Case APPL-2024-0001).

On March 17, 2025 the ARC considered the appeal and voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the Planning Director.

On March 18, 2025 staff notified the appellant in writing of the action of the ARC.

On March 31, 2025, pursuant Municipal Code Section 2.05, the applicant appealed the ARC’s decision to the City Council

1. 1 An appeal must be filed no later than 10 days following the notice of action, which would have been Friday 3-28-25. Since City Hall is closed on Fridays, it is the City’s standard practice to extend the deadline to the next business day, which was 3-31-25, thus the notice of appeal was filed within the required deadline.

Item 3B - Page 1
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025 -- Page 2
Case APPL-2025-0001 – Appeal of an action of the ARC – 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive

RECOMMENDATION:

Deny the appeal and uphold the decision of the ARC, upholding the approval of the Planning Director with all standard and required conditions of approval.

BUSINESS PRINCIPAL DISCLOSURE:

A Public Integrity Disclosure form is attached to this staff report.

BACKGROUND:

The project site is 0.24 acres in size, located at the southeast corner of South Palm Canyon Drive and Palo Verde Avenue. There are three existing structures on the site that have been vacant for many years: a single- family residence, a commercial building built as an automobile service station around 1959, and a steel shade canopy structure located where the gasoline fueling pumps were located (pumps were removed many years ago).

Below is a summary of related relevant City actions, and on page 2 of the attached ARC Staff report dated 3-17-25 is additional background information.

Related Relevant City Actions
7-22-15 Vacant Building registration (expired)
5-14-19 HSPB approved demolition of all three buildings on the site. 10-28-20 Planning approval of Case MAA 3.2161 to repaint / repair fire damaged former automobile service station building and adjacent dwelling (Related Bldg. Permit #2020-2066-95794.)
2020 Several expired residential building permits related to the dwelling on the parcel (addressed as 111 E Palo Verde Av) for a reroof, plumbing, mechanical and electrical.
8-1-22 Planning staff approval of Case MAA 3.2161 to modify the existing shade canopy to enclose most of the area beneath it for “Merchandise Display use”, based on drawings dated 4-2022. The approval was later rescinded on or around 9- 27-22 due to encroachment of the existing canopy into the public right-of-way and required conditions of approval triggered by the scope of the proposed project.
4-24-24
The Planning Department reviewed a building permit application #BLDC-2024-0728 to modify the existing shade canopy to enclose most of the area beneath it (based on drawings dated 3- 29-24 & 4-1- 24). Planning placed a hold on the building permit application, noting encroachment issues and the requirement pursuant Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(C,3,a) for staff level Minor Architectural Approval prior to filing a building permit.
5-29-24
The appellant submitted a revised Minor Architectural Application (Case AR-2024-0046) to modify the existing shade canopy structure to enclose most of the area beneath it.

Item 3B - Page 2
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025 -- Page 3
Case APPL-2025-0001 – Appeal of an action of the ARC – 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive

Related Relevant City Actions
6-14-24
Engineering reviewed building permit #BLDC-2024-0728 and placed a hold on the permit pending incorporation of Engineering Conditions of Approval.
7-30-24
Planning approval of Case AR -2024-0046 with conditions (based on drawings dated 3-29-24 & 4-1-24) to modify the existing shade canopy structure to enclose most of the area beneath it.
8-13-24 Applicant filed an appeal of the Planning Director’s 7-30-24 approval of Case AR-2024-0046.
10-24-24 The City scheduled the appeal to be heard by the ARC on this date, which was postponed at the appellant’s request.
11-4-24 City offered to schedule the appeal to be heard by the ARC on this date, which the appellant declined.
11-27-24
Planning Staff met with Appellant’s architect to clarify project scope and requirements of the Zoning Code for off -street parking and trash enclosures. ( Written s ummary of this meeting dated 3- 17-24 is attached to the ARC packet.)
1-6-25 The City scheduled the appeal to be heard by the ARC on this date, which was postponed again by the appellant.
3-17-25
City and appellants’ legal counsel agreed to schedule the appeal to be heard by the ARC on this date. Again, the appellant requested postponement, which the City denied.
3-17-25
ARC considered the appeal and voted unanimously to uphold the approval of the Planning Director as conditioned and deny the appeal.

The appellant did not attend the hearing.
3-18-25 Written notice of the ARC’s decision was sent to the applicant and his legal counsel.
3-31-25 Applicant submitted an appeal to City Council of the ARC action.

BASIS OF THE APPEAL & STAFF ANALYSIS:

Pursuant PSMC 2.05.030 (Filing an Appeal), in filing this appeal,

• the appellant summarized the specific action being appealed (the action of the ARC taken 3-17-25 on the appeal of the Planning Director’s project approval on 7- 30-24),
• the grounds for the appeal (are as outlined in the appeal letters dated 8-13-24 and 3-31-25),
• the relief being sought ( the removal of all conditions of approval, except ENG COA’s 19, 20, & 21, and FIR 1 through 6).

Specific Content of the Appeal:

Section III “Appealed Conditions of Approval”, of the appeal letter dated August 13, 2024, which begins on page 4, identifies the specific conditions being appealed and the remedy Item 3B - Page 3
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025 -- Page 4
Case APPL-2025-0001 – Appeal of an action of the ARC – 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive

sought. A full analysis of the specific content of the appeal with staff’s response to each item is provided in the ARC staff report dated March 17, 2025 located here:
https://www.palmspringsca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/90954/63877457167873 0000

Regarding the letter of appeal to the City Council dated March 27, 2025, there are mischaracterizations of the processing of the application. S taff offers the following clarification:

• Section I “Introduction”: seems to imply Building Permit #BLDC -2024-0728 was approved with conditions. At no time was the building permit approved. T he approval with conditions was made by the Planning Director on the Minor Architectural application: Case AR-2024-0046 on July 30, 2024.

• Page 2; the appellant asserts “…the City insists upon treating this like a complete redevelopment of the Property,…and “…(the project) does not trigger any need for off-site improvements, etc.”

RESPONSE: The City is not treating this project as a full redevelopment of the site.

The project is an addition to a n existing non-conforming structure. The proposed addition interferes with the existing on- site vehicular circulation and impacts the quantity and location of off -street parking. The parking as proposed on the preliminary conceptual site plan shows bay parking taking access off Palo Verde Drive. The drawings are not compliant with the off -street parking requirements of the Zoning Code Section 93.06.00. The parking and many other aspects of the project will require off-site improvements for which the conditions of approval are appropriate and required by law.

• Section III, Pg. 3: “The ARC hearing violated due process.”

RESPONSE: As noted above, the original appeal of the director’s approval to the ARC was received August 13, 2024. Staff attempted to schedule the ARC meeting within the usual 45- day time limit established by PSMC 2.05.060; however, the appellant’s attorney was unavailable and agreed to waive the time limits. Several times staff attempted to schedule the ARC hearing (October 21, 2024, November 4, 2024, January 6, 2025, March 17, 2025). Each time the appellant’s attorney requested further delays. After nearly five months of delays and the City’s repeated accommodation of the appellant and the appellant’s attorney, the City did not agree to any further delays and held to the firm date of March 17, 2025, for the ARC hearing, which had been arranged between the parties since December of 2024.

Due process and reasonable accommodation in scheduling the ARC hearing was provided.

• Section IV, Pg. 4: “Mr. Praner has made all reasonable efforts to work this out with the City.” “Mr. Praner has been trying to work out a reasonable solution… … for years.”
Item 3B - Page 4
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025 -- Page 5
Case APPL-2025-0001 – Appeal of an action of the ARC – 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive

RESPONSE: Mr. Praner submitted two Planning applications regarding the proposed addition: One submitted August 1, 2022 (approved in error on 8-1- 22, rescinded in September 2022), and the second on May 29, 2024 (approved July 30, 2024, with conditions, which is the subject of this appeal.)

“Mr. Praner has made extensive and good faith efforts to work collaboratively with City Personnel…” “Those effort s… were either ignored, denied, or rendered fruitless by shifting demands.”

RESPONSE: Following the Planning approval on July 30, 2024, the applicant filed the appeal on August 13, 2024 demanding nearly all conditions of approval be waived. Planning staff explicitly identified in the July 30, 2024 approval the zoning code sections to which the off-street parking and trash enclosures are required to conform. On November 27, 2024, Planning staff met with the applicant’s architect going over again in detail what wa s required and how the application materials were deficient (this meeting was memorialized in a detailed 4- page e- mail on December 10, 2024, to the applicant’s architect, Mr. George Klisak) . As of this date, the applicant has still not provided drawings showing code-compliant parking or trash enclosures. These are standard requirements of any development in the City and are required by the Zoning Code. At no time did staff ignore correspondence from the applicant, his architect or his attorney and there have been no “shifting demands” – the conditions have remained unchanged since the July 30, 2024 Planning Director approval.

Pg. 4: “From the very start, the City approved Mr. Praner’s original plans… with no conditions relating to parking, offsite improvements or any other conditions.”

RESPONSE: This is correct relative to the August 1, 2022 submittal and approval.

The City Planning Department quickly rescinded the August 1, 2022 approval because it was erroneously made without knowledge of the existing encroachment into the public right -of-way, and other related issues that were subsequently identified by both Planning, Engineering, and Fire Department staff. Once the new application was submitted on May 19, 2024, it was processed routinely by staff in Planning, Engineering and Fire, and the appropriate conditions of approval were provided. It is important to note that an encroachment permit is required by the Municipal Code to shield the City from liability of having a private structure in the City’s right-of-way.

“It appears that the approval was revoked because the City planning staff had decided that this simple minor improvement project …should be used to extract a ROW easement…”

RESPONSE: This statement has no basis in fact. As noted above, the application was processed routinely and objective criteria and conditions were imposed based upon the scope of the project and the respective sections of the Zoning and Municipal codes as well as relevant State and Federal regulatory requirements.

Item 3B - Page 5
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025 -- Page 6
Case APPL-2025-0001 – Appeal of an action of the ARC – 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive

“On January 29, 2024, I sent City counsel Ryan Guiboa a letter… attached as Index #3. Mr. Guiboa responded… that the City would insist on taking the additional ROW in exchange for Plan approval.”

RESPONSE: No such letter was included in the documents that comprise this appeal. City staff does not issue approvals on a quid pro quo basis. Projects are evaluated based on the scope, and conditions of approval are based on applicable local, state and federal law.

“…the City is attempting to punish Mr. Praner for refusing to give away his property rights for free.”

RESPONSE: This statement has no basis in fact. The project submitted on May 17, 2024 was approved with objective conditions – conditions imposed on all development throughout the City – that are required for the project to conform with the various City, State and Federal codes and regulations.

Pg 4: “…on or about April 15, 2024 Mr. Praner submitted the revised plans…” and “… we waited months to finally receive an approval…”

RESPONSE: The Minor Architectural Application that is the subject of this appeal was submitted to the City on May 29, 2024. The approval was granted on July 30, 2024 (34 working days after receipt) . This reflects an expedited timeframe for processing an application that had reviews required from three departments (Planning, Engineering and Fire).

Pg 4: “The revised plans (submitted May 29, 2024) were for a structure that does not touch or modify the grandfathered overhang.”

RESPONSE: The project scope does modify the existing open shade structure and the site by proposing to enclose the open area beneath it with a building, thereby establishing new floor area . The proposed building will need electrical power brought to it from the existing canopy and other aspects that modify the existing structure. The project modifies the canopy from an open shade structure to an enclosed building which interferes with vehicular circulation on the site and requires additional off -street parking per the regulations established in the City’s Zoning Code. The proposed location for off -street bay parking along Palo Verde Drive, in turn requires off -site improvements for which conditions of approval are required.

Pg. 5: ‘(Mr. Klisak and Mr. Lyon ) eventually did have a meeting… but apparently this did not resolve any of the issues.”

RESPONSE: A resolution did not occur – n ot because the City refused – but because the applicant’s architect has never submitted a site plan that meets the Item 3B - Page 6
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025 -- Page 7
Case APPL-2025-0001 – Appeal of an action of the ARC – 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive

Zoning Code’s parking requirements – both in terms of design details but also quantity. The submitted drawings show inconsistent information on the proposed uses and do not indicate the parking required for this project to meet current minimum standards.

Pg 5: “…we were suddenly issued a blank edict to submit “revised project plans that are compliant with the code”. “…this…appears to be a new condition for approval that we had not heard or seen before.”

RESPONSE: This was not a new condition of approval ; rather, Conditions of approval PLN 1 and PLN 2 that were part of the July 30, 2024 approval clearly stated, “ Off-street parking is required pursuant PSZC 93.06.00”, and “A trash enclosure is required pursuant PSZC 93.07.02.” Furthermore, correspondence to the applicant clearly outlined the requirements of the parking code and included a copy of the code requirement for trash enclosures. Submittals from the applicant conforming to the minimum requirements of these code section s were never provided to the City. The requirement to submit plans that are compliant with the code has, to date, still not been submitted.

In the months following receipt of the applicant’s appeal of the ARC decision, City staff met with the applicant and his legal counsel in an effort to resolve the issues leading to this appeal:

• The City Engineer offered deferral to covenant of a number of conditions of approval.
• Concessions were offered on matters in which the Zoning Code grants the Planning Director authority to offer administrative relief to certain design and development standards in the off-street parking code. These include:
o Waiving the requirement for parking lot lighting,
o Reducing the number of required off-street parking spaces, o Reducing the minimum dimensions of individual parking spaces, o Waiving the requirement for parking lot shade trees,
o Waiving landscape screening of the parking area from the public right -of- way,
o Waiving the provision of bicycle parking,
o Reducing the distance and landscape buffer between parking spaces and the abutting residential zone, and
o Waiver of the requirement for EV charging stations.

Despite offering these concessions and waivers, the City and the appellant were unable to reach resolution and agreement prior to this hearing.

CONCLUSION:

The staff approval and the conditions of approval dated July 30, 2024 are reasonable, fair, and both an appropriate and proportionate set of typical conditions given the scope Item 3B - Page 7
City Council Staff Report
September 10, 2025 -- Page 8
Case APPL-2025-0001 – Appeal of an action of the ARC – 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive

of the project and potential impacts caused both to on-site and off -site existing improvements and use of the site. These are standard conditions applied to development throughout the City as required by local, state and federal law.

Staff attests that t here is a clear and reasonable nexus for the City to impose the conditions.

As noted, w hile these standard conditions cannot be waived on a case- by-case basis without broader revision to applicable City regulations, staff has offered to defer implementation of several of the appealed conditions for the benefit of the owner (noted as “deferred to covenant”). The appellant has objected to this.

City staff are prepared to objectively review and approve any new submittals that the appellant is required to submit based on the conditions of approval and the minimum requirements of the codes and regulatory requirements that apply.

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT
:

The proposed project which is the subject of this appeal is considered “a project” pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The action to approve the project on July 30, 2024 has been determined to be categorically exempt from further analysis under CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3, New construction or the conversion of small structures.

ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING:

Not applicable.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None.

REVIEWED BY:

Department Director: Christopher Hadwin
Deputy City Manager: Flinn Fagg
City Manager: Teresa Gallavan for Scott Stiles

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Vicinity Map
B. Draft City Council Resolution
C. Public Integrity Disclosure Form
D. Letter of appeal to the City Council dated March 31, 2025 with attachments E. ARC Staff Report dated 3-17-25 w/Minute excerpt
Item 3B - Page 8

ATTACHMENT A
Vicinity Map

Item 3B - Page 9

Department of Planning Services
Vicinity Map

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
1100 S PALM CANYON DR

Item 3B - Page 10
" 11'
•
. .

W E . .
.
s

SAN LORENZO RD
I L __ _L __ __:::~~~±~=.i_l_-,,-l___l____l__L__L_L_L_L_L__L__L_~ 1---------~ id MORONGORD
Legend
m Site
D 500-Foot Radius
~ Parcels
"' ~-------..

AVEN IDA_F!II LMERA

ATTACHMENT B
Draft CC Resolution

Item 3B - Page 11
RESOLUTION NO. _____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING AN APPEAL BY

JOSEPH PRANEVICIUS AND THE CARNELIAN RED
TRUST DTD 6/6/2018, OWNERS / APPELLANTS, AND

UPHOLDING AN ACTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL

REVIEW COMMITTEE TO DENY AN APPEAL AND
UPHOLD AN APPROVAL DATED JULY 30, 2024 BY THE
DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES OF CASE AR-2024-
0046: A PROPOSED ADDITION TO AN EXISTING NON -
CONFORMING SHADE STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 1100
SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE C -1, GENERAL

PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION TOURIST RESORT
COMMERCIAL (“TRC”); CASE APPL 2025-0001.

WHEREAS, on July 30, 2024, the Director of Planning Services approved (with conditions) an application proposing a roughly 715- square foot addition to an existing non-conforming shade canopy structure located at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive (Case AR-2024-0046; and

WHEREAS, on August 13, 2024 pursuant to Zoning Code Section 94.04.00 (D,2,c), the applicant timely appealed the staff level approval to the City’s Architectural Review Committee (“ARC”), requesting removal of most of the conditions of approval (Case APPL-2024-0001); and

WHEREAS, on March 17, 2025, the ARC considered the appeal and voted unanimously to deny the appeal and uphold the action of the Planning Director; and

WHEREAS, on March 31, 2025, pursuant to Municipal Code Section 2.05, the applicant timely appealed the ARC’s decision to the City Council; and

WHEREAS, on September 10, 2025 , the City Council held a public meeting in accordance with applicable law to consider the appeal; and

WHEREAS, at said meeting the City Council considered all of the evidence related to the case including but not limited to the staff report, the written material related to the appeal application and all other related written and oral testimony.

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. T hat the foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.

SECTION 2. Pursuant the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) the proposed project which is the subject of this appeal is considered “a project” pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”). The action to approve Item 3B - Page 12
Resolution No. _____

the project on July 30, 2024 has been determined to be categorically exempt from further analysis under CEQA pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines (Class 3, New construction or the conversion of small structures.

SECTION 3. The City Council accepts the facts , analysis and arguments presented in the staff report, does not accept the facts, analysis and arguments presented by the Applicant in his appeal. The refore, the City Council finds that the conditions of approval imposed by the City in the Planning Director’s approval on Ju ly 30, 2024 for Case AR -2024-0046 regarding the proposed project are reasonable proportional and necessary to:

• ensure orderly and proper development of the City,
• protect the safety and welfare of the public,
• ensure that the proposed project conforms to minimum development standards and requirements of applicable City, State and Federal codes and regulations, • require improvements both on the project site and the adjacent public rights -of- way that are consistently applied to similar development projects throughout the City and which have sufficient nexus relative to the scope of the project.

BASED ON THE FORGOING, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,

CALIFORNIA HEREBY DENIES THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDS THE ACTION OF THE

ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMITTEE AND THE ACTION OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES FROM JULY 30, 2024, APPROVING CASE AR -2024-0046 AS CONDITIONED.

ADOPTED THIS TENTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025.

SCOTT STILES, CITY MANAGER
City of Palm Springs, California
ATTEST:

BRENDA PREE, MMC

CITY CLERK
Item 3B - Page 13
Resolution No. _____

CERTIFICATION

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )

I, Brenda Pree, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. ____ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on _______________________, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of the City of Palm Springs, California, this ______ day of ______________, _________.

BRENDA PREE, MMC

CITY CLERK
Item 3B - Page 14

ATTACHMENT C
Public Integrity Disclosure Form

Item 3B - Page 15
Item 3B - Page 16

1. 2.

Name
of
Entity
PUBLIC

INTEGRITY

DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT

DISCLOSURE
FORM
~u_;A-A}
JUJ
efusr
Address
of
Entity
(Principle
Place
of
Business)

RECEIVED
OCT
1 6
2024
Office
of
the
City
Clerk
61I
5,
/A-ut
LWjJ
~t.
-/f
::;--437-
~Sfoe/,Jf.8 et,
'J~,4-

3. Local
or
California
Address
(if
different
than
#2)

4. State
where
Entity
is
Registered
with
Secretary
of
State
{!/ttl
fbµJ
I k
If
other
than
California,
is
the
Entity
also
reqistered
in
California?
n
Yes
n
No

5. Type
of
Entity
D
Corporation
D
Limited
Liability
Company
D
Partnership
~t
D
Other
(please
specify)

6. Officers,
Directors,
Members,
Managers,
Trustees,
Other
Fiduciaries
(please
specify)
Note:

If
any
response
is
not
a
natural
person,
please
identify
all
officers,
directors,
members,
managers
and
other
fiduciaries
for
the
member,
manager,
trust
or
other
entity
~ef/2)f,
?.
/iJM}JJu
'tc
il!S
D
Officer
D
Director
D
Member
D
Manager
(Revised
05/16/19)
[name]
D
General
Partner
D
Limited
Partner
~ther
-d
U 51t:--r
D
Officer
D
Director
D
Member
D
Manager
[name]
D
General
Partner
D
Limited
Partner
□
Other
D
Officer
D
Director
D
Member
D
Manager
[name]
D
General
Partner
D
Limited
Partner
□
Other
CITY
OF
PALM

SPRINGS
-
PUBLIC

INTEGRITY

DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT

DISCLOSURE
FORM
Page
1 of
2 Item 3B - Page 17

7. Owners/Investors
with
a
5%
beneficial
interest
in
the
Applicant
Entity
or
a
related
entity

EXAMPLE JANEDOE
50%,
ABC

COMPANY,
Inc.
[name
of
owner/investor]
[percentage
of
beneficial
interest
in
entity
and
name
of
entitvl
A.
_:frl51£/II
?.
ft.k"1W1c1v-5.
/Od%
{;A-tvJ~M
;fltiJ
r/(u.:.

I
[name
of
owner/investor]
[percentage
of
beneficial
interest
in
entity
and
name
of
entitvl
B.
[name
of
owner/investor]
[percentage
of
beneficial
interest
in
entity
and
name
of
entity]
C.
[name
of
owner/investor]
[percentage
of
beneficial
interest
in
entity
and
name
of
entitv]
D.
[name
of
owner/investor]
[percentage
of
beneficial
interest
in
entity
and
name
of
entitvl
E.
[name
of
owner/investor]
[percentage
of
beneficial
interest
in
entity
and
name
of
entity]

I DECLARE
UNDER
PENAL
TY
OF

PERJURY
UNDER
THE
LAWS
OF
THE
STATE
OF

CALIFORNIA
THAT
THE

FOREGOING
IS
TRUE
AND
CORRECT.

PENALTIES
Falsification
of
information
or
failure
to
report
information
required
to
be
reported
may
subject
you
to
administrative
action
by
the
City.
{Revised
05/16/19)
CITY
OF
PALM

SPRINGS
-
PUBLIC

INTEGRITY

DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT

DISCLOSURE
FORM
Page
1 of
2 ATTACHMENT D
Appeal letter to CC dated
March 31, 2025 w/attachments

Item 3B - Page 18

Direct Dial:
310-855-3314

E-mail:
[email protected]

A Limited Liability Partnership  Dallas  Austin  Houston  Waco  Los Angeles  Boca Raton/Miami  Orlando  www.munckwilson.com March 27, 2025

VIA CITY’S ONLINE PORTAL AND EMAIL

Re: Appeal re Certain Conditions of Approval; Case AR-2024-0046 - Proposed new structure at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive (APN 508-292-001) (Related Building Permit application #BLDC-2024-0728)

Dear Members of the City Council for the City of Palm Springs:

We represent Joseph Pranevicius (“Mr. Praner”), Trustee for the Carnelian Red Trust Dated June 6, 2018 , the owner of that certain commercial real property located at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California (APN 508-292-001) (the “Property”), with regard to the above -referenced appeal (the “ Appeal”). We thank you for your time in reviewing and determining this Appeal.

I. Introduction
The subject project for a proposed new structure at the Property (Related Building Permit application #BLDC-2024-0728) (the “Project”) was approved, but with a long list of conditions.

Mr. Praner appeals from those conditions for the reasons stated in detail in the attached Letter of Appeal dated August 13, 2024. (See Index #1.) This was the letter that was submitted for the underlying appeal to the Architectural Review Committee (ARC). For the sake of brevity, rather than repeating these arguments, the August 13, 2024 letter is incorporated herein by reference.

The exhibits referenced in that letter are the same as those submitted here with, and we have provided some additional correspondence and Demonstrative Exhibits, all as listed on the Index included herewith.

In short, Mr. Praner has been trying for a very long time now to complete the development of the Property. Previously, Mr. Praner improved the other commercial structure on the Property, turning an old, dilapidated building into a very attractive, mid -century style building. (See Exhibit C, “Before and After Photos”). Mr. Praner plans to continue the same theme with the subject Project , greatly increasing the attractiveness of this commercial property in a manner that nicely harmonizes with the generally modern, mid -century feeling of Palm Springs. The Project benefits Mr. Praner and City alike.

Mr. Praner has been discussing this improvement with the City for some time, and in particular with the Department of Planning Services. The City’s Planning Department had approved the original plans on August 1, 2022 , for permits to enclose the canopy overhang located on the Property. Howev er, the Planning Department later withdrew said prior approval Item 3B - Page 19
~ MUN CK WILSON MANDALA
---------- Trtals. rransacuons. Technology.

2 on or around September 27, 2022, referencing a purported right -of-way in favor of the City (the “ROW”), as further discussed below.

As discussed in the attached August 13, 2024 letter (Index #1), the City lacks sufficient nexus to require the ROW easement in exchange for Projec t approval. We have th oroughly briefed the legal points and authorities applicable to this “Nexus” issue, in that letter.

Mr. Pran er rightfully pushed back on the ROW and submitted revi sed plans demonstrating that he would not modify the grandfathered overhang and thus should not need an encroachment easement, either . The C ity doubled down by refusing to compromise on the se conditions, and imposing a long list of conditions of approval that should simply not apply to this project. In short, the City insists upon treating this lik e a complete redevelopment of the Property, when in reality it is simply the construction of a small, free -standing storage facility that does not in any way encroach into the City’s planned Right of Way expansion or trigger any need for off-site improvements, etc.

II. Appealed Conditions of Approval
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Praner hereby appeals the following Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit B:
• PLN 1. The off-street parking requirements are not specified in Ex. B. A parking plan is included as Exhibit D to the Compendium.
• PLN 2. The trash-enclosure requirement is unclear. Mr. Praner seeks clarification that the trash -enclosure requirement is met by placing all trash in the enclosed yard, as seen in the aerial view attached to the Compendium as Exhibit E. • ENG 1. Mr. Praner should not be required to construct any off -site street improvements as a result of the subject Project. Further, Mr. Praner has not received a copy of the “Covenant” that the City is requiring him to sign. • ENG 2. As discussed above, there is no encroachment into the public right -of- way and thus no Encroachment Permit should be required. • ENG 3. This “dedication” for the ROW appears to be an easement requirement, which (as discussed above) the City lacks sufficient nexus to require. • ENG 4. As discussed above, the existing canopy is not being modified, and thus it maintains its legal -nonconforming status (i.e., it is “grandfathered”). Thus, there is no trigger for requiring an Encroachment Agreement, nor a Land Use Permit.
• ENG 5. The Project has no impact on ingress or egress, and creates no basis to require modification of the existing driveway.
• ENG 6 -11. Likewise, although “Deferred” none of these requirements can be imposed by the City given the size, nature, and scope of the Project. The City lacks sufficient nexus to require these improvements, all or most of which appear Item 3B - Page 20

3 to be off -site improvements that the City improperly seeks to impose upon a private property owner, Mr. Praner, in exchange for approval of a 715 sq. ft. storage structure that falls entirely on his own property. • ENG 12-17. Like the conditions in ENG 6 -11, the City lacks a basis to require these, given the size, nature, and scope of the Project. These Conditions, however, are not “Deferred” and are being immediately required . The City lacks sufficient nexus between these improvements and the Project to require these conditions of approval.
• ENG 18. This does not apply because there are no “sanitary facilities” in the proposed structure.
• ENG 22-25. These conditions highlight the lack of understanding on the part of the City with regard to the nature and scope of the Project. There is no grading involved, whatsoever, nor (as a result) any issue with changing runoff, with the Project and thus these conditions should be removed.
• ENG 26-29. Likewise, these conditions do not apply given the nature and scope of the Project. They should be removed, as well.
• ENG 30 and 31. Likewise, these conditions do not apply given the nature and scope of the Project. They should be removed, as well.

III. The ARC Hearing Violated Due Process and Should Have No Weight in the City Council’s Decision.

We did not attend the ARC appeal because I had a trial scheduled in Super ior Court that day, and was unable to a ttend. I informed the City’s counsel of this fact almost six (6) weeks in advance, but our request to continue the hearing was denied. (See Index ##2 and 6). We had hoped that the City would take the ARC Appeal off calendar in the interest of Due Process, in order to allow Mr. Praner to have his counsel available to present the appeal, but that was not the case, unfortu nately. Accordingly, we ask that the City Council consider this appeal de novo , with no weight given to the ARC denial.

IV. Mr. Praner Has Made All Re asonable Efforts to Work this O ut With the City.

Mr. Praner has been trying to work out a reasonable solution for approval of his Project with the City now for years. Throughout this process, Mr. Praner has made extensive and good - faith efforts to work collaboratively with City personnel and counsel to resolve the Project’s approval conditions informally. Those efforts include multiple plan revisions, months of correspondence, and attempts to schedule resolution meetings —which were either ignored, denied, or rendered fruitless by shifting demands.

Mr. Praner engaged my firm in late 2023 . Prior to engaging me, Mr. Praner had retained local attorney Bruce Bauer , who had also t ried to work thi ngs out with City personnel and counsel for about two years, also to no avail.

Item 3B - Page 21

4 From the very start, the City approved Mr. Praner’s original plans and then revo ked the approval. Notably, in that original approval, there were no conditions relating to parking, offsite improvements, or any of the other conditions that the City now attempts to impose on Mr.

Praner’s current submission. The current plans do not deviate in any large way from the original plans. Rather, the re-design of the current plans was simply to avoid modifying the grandfathered overhang. There has been no significa nt change in scale, use , etc. S o why the long list of conditions now?
It appears that the approval was revo ked because the City planning staff had decided that this simple minor improvement project to build a storage structure for Mr. Praner ’s use for his business (not open to the public) should be used to extract a ROW easement for a significant and valuable portion the Property along South Palm Canyon Drive. Specifically, the City’s Planning Department had approved the MAA on August 1, 2022 for permits to enclose a canopy overhang located on the Property. However, unfortunately, the Planning Department later withdrew its approval of the MAA on or around September 27, 2022, referencing a purported right -of-way in favor of the City (the “ROW”). On January 29, 2024, I sent City counsel Ryan Guiboa a letter in this regard. A copy of that l etter is attached as Index #3 . Mr. Guiboa eventually responded about a month later, con firming that the City would insist on taking the additional ROW land in exchange for Plan approval.

As discussed above and in the attached August 13, 20 24 appeal letter ( Index #1 , regarding the Nexus issue), this was an inappropriate and unenforceable attempt at the use of the City’s police power. If such land is needed for a public use, the City must be required to demonstrate the need and pay just compensation through eminent domain proceedings. Instead, the City is attempting to punish Mr. Praner for refusing to give away his property rights for free.

This is contrary not only to Mr. Praner ’s fundamental rights, but also to the bes t interests of the City in having a responsible property owner improve and develop that property, much to the City’s benefit.

Eventually, around mid -2024, we were put in touch with attorney Jim Priest, who apparently took o ver from Mr. Guiboa as lead counsel for the City on this matter. During this timeframe, on or about April 15, 2024, Mr. Praner also submitted the revised plans that are the subject of this Appeal. The revised plans were for a structure that does not touch or modify the grandfathered overhang. We had hoped that between the discussions with City counsel about the lack of Nexus required for the ROW condition, and the revised plans for a structure that would not touch or modify the overhang, the revised p lans (those currently before the City Council in this Appeal) would simply be approved. This, however, was not the case.

Instead, we waited months to finally receive an approval, with a long list of onerous and overly burdensome conditions , in addition to still requir ing the ROW and the easement. (Ex.

B—July 30, 2024 Approval with Conditions .) We timely appealed the conditions (as listed above) on or about August 13, 2024. (See Index #1.)
Contemporaneously, I reached out t o Mr. Priest and Mr. Guiboa, asking that we find a way to resolve these issues witho ut the need for appeal proceedings. We also received an email on September 10, 2024, for potential dates of October 21, November 4, or December 2 , 2024 for the ARC appeal . On O ctober 2, 2024, I received a n email from Mr. Priest, promising a Item 3B - Page 22

5 “comprehensive e-mail” with “the City’s position and a possible work out plan. ” Thus began a long series of back -and-forth discussions between Mr. Priest and me. We continued the ARC hearing several times as Mr. Pries t and I discussed a variety of possibilities for working out the conditions. The City appeared to capitu late on the ROW issue, offering solutions that included withdrawal of the ROW requirement.

Attached hereto as a Demonstrative Exhibit (List of Conditions on App eal vs. Proposed Resolution) is a color -coded summary of the main three issues (Nexus, Parking, Overhang), and Mr. Praner ’s propo sed resolutions. These were also discussed in detail in Exhibits H and I (correspondence from October 2024).

Mr. Praner’s architect, George Klisak, had a family emergency on O ctober 20, and the October 21, 2024 hearing before the ARC had to be continued as a result. I called Mr. Priest and sent him an email that day, and the ARC was kind enough to reschedule the hearing as a result of Mr. Klisak’s unavailability. (See Index #3.) The date we later agreed to for the continued ARC hearing was January 6, 2025.

In the interim, Mr . Pries t instructed us to have Mr. Praner ’s architect, George Klisak, contact Ken Lyon in City Planning so they could discuss the design and any concerns that Mr.

Lyon had about the plans. Mr. Klisak was initially unable to contact Mr. Lyon. They eventually did have a meeting and som e calls, but apparently this did not resolve any of the issues. We asked that the January hearing be delayed into March or April, as Mr. Praner was working on retaining a pro fessional parking consultant and perhaps a new architect to bet ter work with the City Planning Department in hopes of resolving the issues that way. ( See Index #4.) Mr. Priest, who himself had suggested the meeting with Mr. Lyon, agreed on the City ’s behalf to continue the hearing to March 17, 2025, so that the discussions about the plans could continue.

Unfortunately, when we asked to schedule these meetings, we were to ld they would not happen. Instead, we were suddenly issued a blank edict to submit “revised project plans that are compliant with the code .” In addition to being entirely unhelpful in moving work-out discussions along, this requirement for revised plans appears to be a new condition for approval that we had not heard or seen before. (See Index #5.)
Then, on February 7, 2025, I emailed Mr. Priest to let him know that we would need to reschedule the March 17 , 2025 ARC hearing date because the Superior Court had scheduled a trial for that date, and I had not been able to get a non -conflicting date for that trial. It was “Phase II” of an o ngoing trial and there was nothing that I could do t o avoid the conflict. (See Index #6.) In addition to having an email exchange about this with Mr. Priest, I called him on the telephone and left a voicemail, but did not receive a return telephone call. My request was refused, unfortunately , depriving Mr. Praner of his Due Process right s in that administrative proceeding. As noted above, we accor dingly request, respectfully, that the City Council provide no weight to the ARC determination.

V. Conclusion
While Mr. Praner is willing to comply with several reasonable conditions not listed in this Appeal, the conditions challenged herein are unlawful, unsupported by sufficient nexus or proportionality, and serve only to obstruct a modest and beneficial improvement to the Property.

Item 3B - Page 23

6 After years of delay and escalating demands, Mr. Praner has exhausted informal resolution efforts. Accordingly, we respectfully request that the City Council reverse the challenged conditions of approval and grant relief under this Appeal. Should the Council be open to renewed discussions toward resolution, Mr. Praner remains willing to meet with appropriate City representatives.

Respectfully submitted,

MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP

Eve A. Brackmann
Counsel for Appellant,
Joseph Praneviscious,
Trustee, Carnelian Red Trust (06/06/2018)

Item 3B - Page 24
Appeal to City Council re Certain Conditions of Approval; Case AR-2024-0046 - Proposed new structure at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive (APN 508-292-001) (Related Building Permit application #BLDC-2024-0728)
APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL : DOCUMENT SUBMISSION
on behalf of Mr. Joseph Pranevicius (Mr. Praner)
regarding the Property at
1100 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA
Case No. AR-2024-0046
Plan No. APPL-2024-0001

INDEX

1. Letter of Appeal to City re Revised Plans, dated Aug. 13, 2024

2. 02/06/2025-03/13/2025 Email exchanges between counsel

3. 10/21/2024 Email exchange between counsel

4. 10/31/2024 Email exchange between counsel

5. 12/13/2024-12/16/2024 Email exchanges between counsel

6. 02/7/2025 Email exchange between counsel
Demonstrative Demonstrative Exhibit – Overhead Image of 1100 S Palm Canyon Dr.

Demonstrative Demonstrative Exhibit-- List of Conditions on Appeal vs. Proposed Resolution
A. Exhibit A – Project Documents
B. Exhibit B – July 30, 2024, Approval w/Conditions AR-2024-0046 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive
C. Exhibit C – 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive Before and After Photos D. Exhibit D – 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive – Parking Plan E. Exhibit E – Overhead Image of 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive F. Exhibit F – Detail #5 with Architect’s Notes
Item 3B - Page 25
G. Exhibit G – Updated Plan re (1) Parking, (2) Building C (no connection to existing overhang), (3) Foundation and Framing Details
H. Exhibit H – 2024-10-03 Email re Conditions Workout
I. Exhibit I – 2024-10-15 Letter re Conditions Workout

Item 3B - Page 26
Item 3B - Page 27
Who Must File?

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE
{INSTRUCTIONS FOR APPLICANTS)
Applicants that are NOT a natural person or group of natural people that will be identified on the application , and seek a City approval determined by a vote of City officials. Examples include corporations, limtted liability companies , trusts, etc. that seek a City Council approval. or an approval by one of the City's board or commissions.

Why Must I File?
The Cily of Palm Springs Public Integrity Ordinance advances transparency in municipal government and assists public officials in avoiding conflicts of interest. The City's Public Integrity Ordinance, codified in Chapter 2.60 of the municipal code. reflects the Ctty's interest in ensuring that companies (and other legal entities that are not natural people) doing business in the commun ity are transparent and make disclosure as to their ownership and management, and further that those companies disclose the identity of any person, with a beneficial ownership interest of five percent (5%) or more.

When Must t File?
You must file this form with the Office of the City Clerk. or designee, at the same time when you file your application for a City approval determined by a vote of City officials, whether elected or appointed.

What Must 1 Disclose?
A. The names of all natural persons who are officers, directors, members , managers, trustees, and other fiduciaries serving trusts or other types of organizations {attorneys, accountants, etc.).

N9te: (1) you must msl<e these diSCiOwros in re/atron to th& appllc.ant entity. and also in tetatlon to any related entity that owns a part of. or makes a profit based upon the b<Jsiness of the applicant entity. DiscJosu1&s may include pare,,t, subsidiary or affiliated en Wes or too applicant entity; (2) if any entity that is not a naturaJ ()6rson serves: as th8 applicant enUty (e.g. as a m8mber of the applicant LLC), thett all off,ce,s. directors, members, managets, trusiees. etc .• of lhe $000J'ld entity must be discloSed.

B. The names of persons owning a beneficial interest of five percent (5%) or more in your entity, Owners/investors who have such an interest hold either investment power or voting power , i.e .. they can (i) sell or transfer their interest, or (ii) vote their interest in management decisions.

NOTE: USE ADDITIONAL PAGES AS NECESSARY
What If I Have Questions?
If you have any questions about how to complete this form, please contact the Office of the City Clerk, (760) 323-8206, [email protected].
(Revised 05/16/19)

CITY OF PALM SPRINGS- PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE
(INSTRUCTION FOR APPLICANTS)
Item 3B - Page 28

1. 2.

Name of Entity

PUBLIC INTEGRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
·we ('_Kf?_/11 ,;- / ','!- l&-fJ "/lv<'7
Address of Entity (Princ iple Place of Business)
u,ANft:US,
l1Vr !}5~ fi(p~ ICA h_,,111 #808 <'.?A- 9006'1

3. Local or CatHomia Address (tf different than #2)

4. State whe re Entity is Registered with Secretary of State t AL/fof/J II/ If other than Califomis, ;s the En•Jtv also nw-risfered ,n Callfom'ia? n Yes r, No

5. Type of Entity
O Corporation O Limited Liability Company O Partnership pf'rust O Other (please specrfy)

6. Officers, Directors, Members , Managers, Trustees, Other Fiduciaries (please specify) Notti: If tmy rosponse Is not a natural person, pltutse Identify all offlce1'$, directors, membtJr$, managers and othor llduclaries for the mtJmber, manager, trust or other entity /4411 f2..1t::11 ,t& 12. fl¼J£Vl~11>_ D Officer O Director O Member O Manager [name)
(Revised OS/16/19)
D General Partner O Limited Partner
£1i'()lller ,:a.uSTa
O Officer D Directo r D Member O Manager
(name]
□General Partn er D Limited Partner
□Other
Q Office r O Otrector Q Membo.r □Manager
(name ]
□General Partner □Limited Partner
O Olller
CllY OF PALM SPRINGS- PUBLIC INTEGRllY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
Page l of2
Item 3B - Page 29

7. Owners/Investors with a 5°.4 beneficial interest in the A llcant Enu.._, or a related enti.._·

EXAMPLE
JANEOOE 50¾, ABC COMPANY, Inc.
(name of owne.rllnvestor) (percentage of beneficial interest in entity and name of enti.._.,
A • ...:f,54Ji' f<tC)IM../J
/00% pit kN'°-vl C/u j
(name of owner/Investor] (percentage of benefic ial lntere.st in entity and name of enti .. •1
B.
[name of owner/investor) (Pf)rcentage of beneflcla l Interest In entity and name of enti,._ ...

C.
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of benefic ial interest in entity and name of enti .. •1
0 .
[name of owner/investor] [percentage of beneficial lntertlst In entity and name of enti.._.,
e.
(name of owner/investor] {percentage of beneficial .'.~~~rest in entity and name of enll

I DECLARE UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY UNDER THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THAT THE FOREGOI NG IS TRUE AND CORRECT.

PENALTIES
Falsiflcalion of information or failure to report information required to be reported may subject you to administrative action by the City.
(Revised 0S/16/19)
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS-PUBLIC INTt:GRITY DISCLOSURE

APPLICANT DISCLOSURE FORM
Page lof 2

DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
Item 3B - Page 30
Item 3B - Page 31

DEMONSTRATIVE EXHIBIT
Item 3B - Page 32
Demonstrative Exhibit
List of Conditions on Appeal vs. Proposed Resolution
1 Legend: Nexus; Parking; Overhang
Original Basis for Appeal (Letter of Appeal) Proposed Resolution/Ruling (Ex. I) PLN 1. The off-street parking requirements are not
specified in Ex. B. A parking plan is included as
Exhibit D to the Compendium.

Mr. Praner will not change the configuration of the
parking lot. There will still be 6 spaces are
required by PSZC § 93.06.00
PLN 2. The trash-enclosure requirement is unclear.

Mr. Praner seeks clarification that the trash -
enclosure requirement is met by placing all trash in
the enclosed yard, as seen in the aerial view
attached to the Compendium as Exhibit E.

Mr. Praner will provide a diagram/plan for a code-
compliant trash enclosure.

ENG 1. Mr. Praner should not be required to
construct any off -site street improvements as a
result of the subject Project. Further, Mr. Praner
has not received a copy of the “Covenant” stated
in this condition.

There is not a sufficient nexus to require a Right
of Way easement at this time. If the use
changes, then we can revisit it at that time.

ENG 2. As discussed above, there is no
encroachment into the public right-of-way and thus
no Encroachment Permit should be required.

As Mr. Klisak has explained and as the plans
show, the overhang will not be modified or
touched in any way. There is no basis to require
an encroachment easement because the
improvement does not encroach into the existing
ROW, and the overhang remains grandfathered.

Item 3B - Page 33
I
I
I
L,
r
j
I
r
- - - -
Demonstrative Exhibit
List of Conditions on Appeal vs. Proposed Resolution
2 Legend: Nexus; Parking; Overhang
Original Basis for Appeal (Letter of Appeal) Proposed Resolution/Ruling (Ex. I) ENG 3. This “dedication” for the ROW appears to
be an easement requirement, which (as discussed
above) the City lacks sufficient nexus to require.

There is not a sufficient nexus to require a Right
of Way easement at this time. If the use
changes, then we can revisit it at that time.

ENG 4. As discussed above, the existing canopy is
not being modified, and thus it maintains its legal-
nonconforming status (i.e., it is “grandfathered”).

Thus, there is no trigger for requiring an
Encroachment Agreement, nor a Land Use Permit.

The overhang remains grandfathered because it is
not being modified or touched in any way.

ENG 5. The Project has no impact on ingress or
egress, and creates no basis to require
modification of the existing driveway.

Mr. Praner will not change the configuration of the
parking lot. There will still be 6 spaces are
required by PSZC § 93.06.00
ENG 6-11. Likewise, although “Deferred” none of
these requirements can be imposed by the City
given the size, nature, and scope of the Project.

The City lacks sufficient nexus to require these
improvements, all or most of which appear to be
off-site impr ovements that the City improperly
seeks to impose upon a private property owner, Mr.

Praner, in exchange for approval of a 715 sq. ft.
storage structure that falls entirely on his own
property and is not in any way open to the public.

There is not a sufficient nexus to require a Right
of Way easement at this time. If the use
changes, then we can revisit it at that time.

Item 3B - Page 34
I
~
I
I
I
I
I
~
- - - -
Demonstrative Exhibit
List of Conditions on Appeal vs. Proposed Resolution
3 Legend: Nexus; Parking; Overhang
Original Basis for Appeal (Letter of Appeal) Proposed Resolution/Ruling (Ex. I) ENG 12-17. Like the conditions in ENG 6 -11, the
City lacks a basis to require these, given the size,
nature, and scope of the Project. These
Conditions, however, are not “Deferred” and are
being immediately required. The City lacks
sufficient nexus between these improvements and
the Project to require these conditions of approval.

There is not a sufficient nexus to require a Right
of Way easement at this time. If the use
changes, then we can revisit it at that time.

However, Mr. Praner agrees to repair existing
asphalt and concrete where required on site only
(not on the City’s sidewalks/property), and assure
that all of the hardscaping is to current code.

As to Conditions 14 and 15, Mr. Praner will not
modify the existing parking configuration.

ENG 18. This does not apply because there are no
“sanitary facilities” in the proposed structure.

Remove the condition since it does not apply.

ENG 22-25. These conditions highlight the lack of
understanding on the part of the City with regard
to the nature and scope of the Project. There is no
grading involved, whatsoever, nor (as a result) any
issue with changing runoff, with the Project and
thus these conditions should be removed.

Remove these conditions since the do not apply.

• The project will disturb at most, 250 sq. ft.
of soil.
• No soil export is anticipated.
• There will be no grading and no affect on
the drainage patterns.

Item 3B - Page 35
--- - -
Demonstrative Exhibit
List of Conditions on Appeal vs. Proposed Resolution
4 Legend: Nexus; Parking; Overhang
Original Basis for Appeal (Letter of Appeal) Proposed Resolution/Ruling (Ex. I) ENG 26 -29. Likewise, these conditions do not
apply given the nature and scope of the Project.

They should be removed, as well.

Remove the condition since it does not apply.
• Utilities are already underground.
• The plans do not call for construction or
planting in the corner cut-off areas.
• The plans do not call for planting any trees.

ENG 30 and 31. Likewise, these conditions do not
apply given the nature and scope of the Project.

They should be removed, as well.

Remove the condition since it does not apply.
• No offsite improvements are called for or
required.
• Mr. Praner will not modify the existing
parking configuration.

Item 3B - Page 36
--- - -
EXHIBIT - 1-
Item 3B - Page 37

Direct Dial:
310-855-3314

E-mail:
[email protected]

A Limited Liability Partnership  Dallas  Austin  Houston  Waco  Los Angeles  Boca Raton/Miami  Orlando  www.munckwilson.com August 13, 2024

VIA FEDEX AND ELECTRONIC SUBMITTAL-- Apply for Plan (tylerhost.net)

Christopher Hadwin
Director – Department of Planning Services
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262

Re: Appeal re Certain Conditions of Approval; Case AR-2024-0046 - Proposed new structure at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive (APN 508-292-001) (Related Building Permit application #BLDC-2024-0728)

Dear Mr. Hadwin and the Architectural Review Committee (“ARC”) for the City of Palm Springs:

We represent Mr. Joseph Pranevicius (“Mr. Praner ”), the owner of that certain commercial real property located at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California (APN 508 -292-001) (the “ Property”), with regard to the above -referenced appeal (the “Appeal”). This letter brief and referenced exhibits are hereby submitted in support of the Appeal.

I. The Project and Conditions of Approval
Mr. Praner appreciates the City’s approval of his p roposed new structure at the Property (Related Building Permit application #BLDC -2024-0728) (the “Project”). The Project, as you know, involves construction of a small, free-standing commercial building of approximately 715 square feet, designed for the purpose of storing materials used in Mr. Praner’s West Hollywood Based interior design business. Copies of the Project documents submitted and approved (with conditions, as further discussed below) are included in the concurrently submitted altogether as Exhibit A and include the following: Sheet 1 dated 4 -1-24 "Plot Plan" ; Sheet 2 dated 3 -29-24 "Floor Plan, Elevations, Sections" ; Sheet 3 dated 4 -1-24 "Construction Plans & Details" ; Color Schedule; and, J ustification letter (Executive Summary). A copy of the July 30, 2024 letter of approval with conditions is Exhibit B.

Previously, Mr. Praner improved the other commercial structure on the Property, turning an old, dilapidated building into a very attractive, mid -century style building. (See Exhibit C hereto, “Before and After Photos”). As seen from the plans and other project submittal documents (Ex. A), Mr. Praner plans to continue the same theme with the subject Project, greatly increasing the attractiveness of this commercial property in a manner that nicely harmonizes with the generally modern, mid-century feeling of Palm Springs. The Project benefits Mr. Praner and the City alike.

Item 3B - Page 38
~ MUN CK WILSON MANDALA
----------- Trials. rransacuons. Technolouv.

2 Mr. Praner has been discussing this improvement with the City for some time, and in particular with the Department of Planning Services. The City’s Planning Department had approved the original plans on August 1, 2022 , for permits to enclose the canopy overhang located on the Property. Howev er, the Planning Department later withdrew said prior approval on or around September 27, 2022, referencing a purported right -of-way in favor of the City (the “ROW”), as further discussed below.

Accordingly, Mr. Praner revised and re-submitted his original plans in order to avoid the issues of encroachment and setbacks, with a new design that does not enclose or touch the canopy. Unfortunately, however, it does not appear that the City took these revisions into account when issuing its Conditions of Approval on July 30, 2024. In short, the City is treating this like a complete redevelopment of the Property, when in reality it is simply the construction of a small, free -standing storage facility that does not in any way encroach into the City’s planned Right of Way expansion or trigger any need for off-site improvements, etc.

II. The City Lacks Sufficient Nexus to Require the ROW Easement in Exchange for Project Approval.

With regard to the ROW, as you know, the 2007 General Plan provides for a 50 -foot ROW from the midline on each side of South Palm Canyon Drive, since it is classified as a “major thoroughfare.” However, this General Plan has not been codified into the City’s municipal code, and the City is relying on its police powers (rather than eminent domain proceedings and compensation) to require owners (including Mr. Praner) to sign easements in favor of the City as they develop their properties.

In this instance, the City does not have a proper basis for requiring said easement, nor a number of the other conditions of approval stated in Exhibit B (as further discussed below).

Municipalities may only take property in such a manner when they can demonstrate a sufficient nexus between the development of the property and the need to expand the thoroughfare. While a city can in many instances require dedication for a street right of way as a condition for a permit to improve the property, the requirement must be reasonably related to the proposed improvement. Otherwise, it is a taking that requires just compensation , i.e., must be done through the laws and protections of Eminent Domain.

When a governmental entity demands that a landowner dedicate a portion of his or her property as a condition of granting a permit to develop the property, there is a “heightened risk that the purpose [of the dedication requirement] is avoidance of the compensation requirement, rather than the stated police -power objective.” [Citation.] “Under the well -settled doctrine of ‘unconstitutional conditions,’ the government may not require a person to give up a constitutional right —here the right to receive just compensation when property is taken for a public use —in exchange for a discretionary benefit conferred by the government where the benefit sought has little or no relationship to the property.” ( Dolan, supra, 512 U.S. at p. 385, 114 S.Ct. 2309.) For this reason, the high court in Nollan held that the constitutionality of a dedication requirement turns on whether there is an “essential nexus” between the dedication and the public Item 3B - Page 39

3 purpose that would otherwise be served by denying the permit outright. (Nollan, at p. 837, 107 S.Ct. 3141; see Lingle, supra, 544 U.S. at p. 547, 125 S.Ct. 2074; Dolan, at p. 386, 114 S.Ct. 2309.)
(City of Perris v. Stamper (2016) 1 Cal.5th 576, 591 ; citing Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374; Nollan v. California Coastal Com'n (1987) 483 U.S. 825 ; Lingle v. Chevron U.S.A.

Inc. (2005) 544 U.S. 528.)
In that same vein, denying the permit outright would serve no public purpose (in fact, it would be contrary to public policy in favor of developing dilapidated property into something attractive and useful), let alone one that serves the street -dedication ROW. Presumably, at some point, the City would decide to actually widen the road and would then have to invoke Eminent Domain proceedings and ultimately pay Mr. Praner just compensation for taking the property at that point. Using the permit -approval process to dedicate the property now without compensation, where the proposed development has no nexus with the dedication, falls outside the City’s charter and police power.

In short, where (as here) the required dedication does not bear any relationship to the benefit conferred on the applicant or the burden imposed on the public, it is considered a taking of property without payment of just compensation. For instance, in Rohn v. City of Visalia , the court concluded that the city's attempt to condition the building permit on the dedication of a portion of respondents' property was an attempt to "disguise under the police power its actual exercise of the power of eminent domain" because the proposed dedication bore no relationship to the present or future use of the property. (214 Cal.App.3d 1463.) Notably, California courts have often held that just compensation must be provided to property owners in right -of-way/street-dedication cases just such as this one. “Private property may be taken or damaged for public use only when just compensation, ascertained by a jury unless waived, has first been paid to, or into court for, the owner. (Cal. Const., art. I, § 19.) The measure of this compensation is the fair market value of the property taken. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1263.310.) The fair market value of the property taken is the highest price on the date of valuation that would be agreed to by a seller, being willing to sell but under no particular or urgent necessity for so doing, nor obliged to sell, and a buyer, being ready, willing, and able to buy but under no particular necessity for so doing, each dealing with the other with full knowledge of all the uses and purposes for which the property is reasonably adaptable and available. (Code Civ.Proc., § 1263.320, subd. (a).)” ( City of Porterville v. Young (1987) 195 Cal.App.3d 1260, 1265 [condemnation action for 12 -foot strip along one side of a property to widen a roadway]; see also, e.g., City of Fresno v. Cloud (1972) 26 Cal.App.3d 113 [valuation dispute in action to condemn 40 -foot strips across two parcels to widen roads, as part of the city’s “master plan of streets and highways”].)
In this instance, the City does not have sufficient nexus to require the ROW easement from Mr. Praner, nor the corollary encroachment permit . Mr. Praner merely proposes to build a storage facility under the existing canopy (without modifying the canopy at all), and this will not in any way encroach into any existing or future right of way or setback, nor will it increase traffic (as opposed to, say, the effect on traffic of some sort of retail development or multi -family Item 3B - Page 40

4 housing); and by the same token, nor would a widened road serve Mr. Praner’s purpose of creating storage area for his own business.

As noted above , while the canopy does indeed overhang slightly into the ROW, it predates the 2007 General Plan that the City contends established the ROW, and thus is currently legally nonconforming. The structure to be built in the subject project is designed such that it does not in any way touch, attach to, or modify the canopy. Given the size, nature and location of the new structure, the City simply cannot demonstrate sufficient nexus to require Mr. Praner to sign the ROW easement.

Nor does the new structure in any way encroach into the existing 5 -foot setback from the existing 40-foot-wide street, and thus it creates no issue with Zoning Code (§ 92.12.03(D)(1)).

The City has no basis to enforce the ROW against Mr. Praner due to the factors described above, and thus no basis to require an encroachment permit for a 5-foot setback from the 50-foot ROW.

III. Appealed Conditions of Approval
Based on the foregoing, Mr. Praner hereby appeals the following Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit B:
• PLN 1. The off-street parking requirements are not specified in Ex. B. A parking plan is included as Exhibit D to the Compendium.
• PLN 2. The trash-enclosure requirement is unclear. Mr. Praner seeks clarification that the trash -enclosure requirement is met by placing all trash in the enclosed yard, as seen in the aerial view attached to the Compendium as Exhibit E. • ENG 1. Mr. Praner should not be required to construct any off -site street improvements as a result of the subject Project. Further, Mr. Praner has not received a copy of the “Covenant” stated in this condition. • ENG 2. As discussed above, there is no encroachment into the public right -of- way and thus no Encroachment Permit should be required. • ENG 3. This “dedication” for the ROW appears to be an easement requirement, which (as discussed above) the City lacks sufficient nexus to require. • ENG 4. As discussed above, the existing canopy is not being modified, and thus it maintains its legal -nonconforming status (i.e., it is “grandfathered”). Thus, there is no trigger for requiring an Encroachment Agreement, nor a Land Use Permit.
• ENG 5. The Project has no impact on ingress or egress, and creates no basis to require modification of the existing driveway.
• ENG 6 -11. Likewise, although “Deferred” none of these requirements can be imposed by the City given the size, nature, and scope of the Project. The City lacks sufficient nexus to require these improvements, all or most of which appear to be off -site improvements that the City improperly seeks to impose upon a private property owner, Mr. Praner, in exchange for approval of a 715 sq. ft.

Item 3B - Page 41
5 storage structure that falls entirely on his own property and is not in any way open to the public.
• ENG 12-17. Like the conditions in ENG 6 -11, the City lacks a basis to require these, given the size, nature, and scope of the Project. These Conditions, however, are not “Deferred” and are being immediately required . The City lacks sufficient nexus between these improvements and the Project to require these conditions of approval.
• ENG 18. This does not apply because there are no “sanitary facilities” in the proposed structure.
• ENG 22-25. These conditions highlight the lack of understanding on the part of the City with regard to the nature and scope of the Project. There is no grading involved, whatsoever, nor (as a result) any issue with changing runoff, with the Project and thus these conditions should be removed.
• ENG 26-29. Likewise, these conditions do not apply given the nature and scope of the Project. They should be removed, as well.
• ENG 30 and 31. Likewise, these conditions do not apply given the nature and scope of the Project. They should be removed, as well.

IV. Conclusion
While a number of the Conditions for Approval seem reasonable, those listed above are not, for the reasons as stated. We would welcome a meeting with the appropriate City personnel to discuss this and seek an informal resolution , so that Mr. Praner can move forward with the Project. Notwithstanding, Mr. Praner is prepared to seek any and all further administrative remedies that the City requires.

Mr. Praner has already experienced years of delay with this project, which has caused him a great deal of financial harm. Accordingly, we look forward to hearing your response as soon as possible.

Very truly yours,

MUNCK WILSON MANDALA, LLP
By:

Eve A. Brackmann
cc: William (Jim) Priest ([email protected])
Ryan Guiboa ([email protected])
Joseph Pranevicius ([email protected])
Item 3B - Page 42
EXHIBIT - 2 -
Item 3B - Page 43
From: Eve Brackmann
To: William Priest
Cc: Christopher Hadwin; Ken Lyon; Jeff Ballinger
Subject: RE: Palm Springs ARC Hearing - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive Date: Thursday, March 13, 2025 5:44:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Jim, you are way over the line telling other lawyers how to run their practice, making assumptions about how other law firms work and who at those firms might be available to “cover” for lead counsel handling an administrative appeal, as well as presuming to instruct residents of Palm Springs as to who their lawyer must be at a final administrative hearing regarding an appeal of conditions imposed in order to develop their property.

We will not attend the hearing on Monday.

You have been aware for six weeks
now that I have a conflicting trial date.

Once again, please take it off calendar, to
be rescheduled for a future, mutually agreeable date.

If you insist on proceeding on Monday without Mr. Praner and his counsel present, we will include it in the many reasons for our appeal to the Superior Court of any adverse decision by the ARC.

Thank you.

Best regards,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Senior Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
direct: 310.855-3314
main: 310.855.3311
email. [email protected]
www.WeAreCRE.com
www.munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

Item 3B - Page 44

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information. If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system. Please also notify us by return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 5:37 PM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin <[email protected]>; Ken Lyon <[email protected]>; Jeff Ballinger <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Palm Springs ARC Hearing - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive

[External]

Then do your jury trial and have someone cover this ARC hearing for you. You’ve had over a month to prepare.

Good night Eve.

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-6648 | C: (909)576-9203
bbklaw.com |
On Mar 13, 2025, at 5:30 PM, Eve Brackmann
Item 3B - Page 45
I g l_ oo
<[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Jim,

Again, I am lead trial counsel.

This is a jury trial, not a case
management conference.

My client in the Superior Court matter will not agree for someone else to “cover” for lead counsel in a jury trial of a complicated real estate dispute.

Please take Monday’s hearing off calendar, and we can reschedule it for another date that is mutually agreeable and when my client can have his lawyer there to represent him.

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Senior Partner, Los Angeles Office
<image001.png>
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
direct: 310.855-3314
main: 310.855.3311
email. [email protected]
www.WeAreCRE.com
www.munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

<image002.png>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended solely for
the use of the addressee(s) listed above.

If you are not the intended recipient of this message,
please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in error, please
disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also notify us by return
Item 3B - Page 46
email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 4:59 PM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin <[email protected]>; Ken Lyon <[email protected]>; Jeff Ballinger <[email protected]> Subject: Re: Palm Springs ARC Hearing - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive

[External]

Again, we’re going to have to agree to disagree. I did go through our emails and everything I have said can be sourced to them.

And, yes, you did inform us about the trial last month. And we also clearly said no to a further continuance. You’ve known this for over a month and the city is not obligated to continue this hearing every time you have a scheduling conflict.

Munck Wilson is not a solo shop. At my firm, we cover for each other when necessary. It happens. Why not in your case?

Jim
William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-6648 | C: (909)576-9203
bbklaw.com |
On Mar 13, 2025, at 4:40 PM, Eve Brackmann
<[email protected]> wrote:

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Dear Jim,
Item 3B - Page 47
I ~ I _□□

I’m not going to bicker with you about the reasons for
continuance, when the email exchanges speak for
themselves.

The discussions about scheduling hearings so
that they would be on dates that I could attend are separate and apart from the fact that we have been continuing the proceedings in support of the parties’ efforts to work things out.

Blaming my schedule for continuances not only mis-
states the history, it is not productive.

Further, I don’t think anyone wants to read another diatribe about it and I’m not going to go back through my emails to dissect it.

I am not able to attend the hearing on Monday because I must be in court that day.

I informed you of this six weeks
ago, on February 7. I cannot be in two places at the same time.

I am lead trial counsel, so there is not an option to
replace me.

Please take Monday’s hearing off calendar.

It can be
rescheduled for another time when Mr. Praner is able to have his counsel present on his behalf.

Thank you.

Best regards,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Senior Partner, Los Angeles Office
<image001.png>
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
direct: 310.855-3314
main: 310.855.3311
email. [email protected]
www.WeAreCRE.com
www.munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

<image002.png>
Item 3B - Page 48

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above.

If you
are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also notify us by
return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 4:22 PM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin <[email protected]>; Ken Lyon <[email protected]>; Jeff Ballinger
<[email protected]>
Subject: Palm Springs ARC Hearing - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive

[External]


Good afternoon Eve.

I’ll have to respectfully disagree with you
here.

Here is the chronology:

The original ARC appeal hearing was scheduled for Oct. 21, 2024.

Granted, we were having settlement discussions at that
time.

City staff were nonetheless prepared to move forward and when we were unable to reach a settlement the week before, staff moved forward with the item and, In fact, the agenda had already been posted for the Oct. 21 hearing.

You and I had also
exchanged several e-mails the week before about the hearing procedure for Oct. 21.

All was on track for the hearing to
happen.

Then, the Sunday evening the day before the hearing,
you contacted me to let me know that your architect, Mr. Klisak, had suffered a family emergency.

Therefore, you were not ready
to proceed on Oct. 21.

You asked that we continue to a later
ARC meeting.

The City accommodated your request and we
didn’t move forward with the hearing at that time.

You and I then had a phone call where you told me that your schedule did not permit a continued November meeting.

You,
Item 3B - Page 49
therefore, suggested December 10. I informed you that the ARC already had a very full meeting scheduled for that date and no hearing would be held on 12/24 due to the Holidays, so we discussed January 6, 2025.

We mutually agreed to continue the
hearing to that date.

Then, on December 13, 2024, you sent me an e-mail indicating that your client was now working with a parking consultant to address parking issues with this project.

In light of this, you
requested that the hearing be continued from January 6 to a date in February or March.

The City again, accommodated your
request and offered February 18, March 3 or March 17 as the next available meeting dates in the calendar.

On December 18, you
e-mailed me indicating you had chosen March 17, which the City confirmed the next day.

The City was not responsible for your
need for a continuance and did not tell you which date to pick.

So, this March 17, 2025 hearing has been scheduled for three months.

Then on February 7, you sent me an e-mail indicating that you had a trial in Los Angeles and, therefore, needed to continue the March 17 hearing again.

After consulting with staff, we provided
the following response on February 11:

“Good afternoon Eve.

I’ve been advised by staff that they are not agreeable to continuing the ARC hearing any further.

The appeal was
originally supposed to be heard in December [I was incorrect here – it was originally supposed be heard in October] and the City continued it several times to accommodate your court schedule.

At this point, it will go forward on March 17.

If you are
unable to personally attend due to your schedule, you may have to task a partner or associate from your firm to cover the appeal.

Further, if Mr. Praner intends to file new or amended project plans for his site, we should probably take this appeal off calendar since the appeal of the current plans won’t make much sense.”
Lastly, staff is not asking for anything “beyond compliant with the Code”.

As indicated in Mr. Lyon’s prior e-mails, all that is being required are plans that show legally compliant elements, such as parking, trash enclosures, etc.

To date, Mr. Praner’s and Mr.

Klisak’s plans have not shown these elements.

Mr. Praner can
Item 3B - Page 50
call Mr. Lyon to discuss this further.”
While we have exchanged in some e-mails over the last few months, at no time have the City or I indicated that these discussions were somehow taking the hearing off calendar or granting another continuance.

For over a month, the City has
been abundantly clear to you that there would be no more continuances and that the March 17 meeting would move
forward.

Further, the bulk of the continuances outlined above
were at your request to accommodate your or your client’s schedules.

However, the City has accommodated you
sufficiently and is entitled to bring this matter to the ARC for resolution.

The City has not acted unreasonably here nor has
there been any unfair surprise.

You knew about this date for
three months and knew we weren’t agreeing to continue it any further for over a month.

With respect to the current plans being legally compliant, we’ll just have to agree to disagree.

As for my recommendation to Mr. Praner vis a vis Mr. Lyon, you’re getting lost in the detail of a personal meeting versus a phone call.

Mr. Lyon has remained willing to talk with him on the phone and go over the plans.

Has Mr. Praner talked with Mr. Lyon by
phone?

As for Mr. Praner not talking with CM Ready, it was perfectly appropriate for me to make this suggestion because CM Ready could end up hearing this quasi-adjudicatory case on further appeal.

As you know, City Council is the next step after ARC if an appeal is filed and Mr. Ready has to be careful with a quasi- adjudicatory decision to consider the evidence in the record, not outside conversations with the applicant.

I was making that
suggestion to honor the rules about these hearings.

Mr. Praner
is free to talk about other matters with CM Ready as they like within the political sphere.

But, talking about his particular
development case poses special issues as outlined above.

Lastly, not accommodating your schedule for a third time is not depriving Mr. Praner of any due process or right to counsel.

It is
not the City’s responsibility to accommodate each and every time you or your client have a scheduling conflict.

This hearing
should have been held five months ago and the City was ready back then.

It’s time to move this along and you’ve known the
Item 3B - Page 51
City’s position for quite a long time. The hearing is happening and, as we advised over a month ago, you need to make
arrangements within your firm or among your colleagues to make this happen.

Jim Priest.

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-6648 | C: (909)576-9203
bbklaw.com |
From: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 2:31 PM
To: William Priest <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin
<[email protected]>; Ken Lyon
<[email protected]>; Jeff Ballinger
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Follow up from our Call Yesterday - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Additionally, if you would like to take the hearing off calendar without prejudice to resetting it for a future, mutually agreeable date, we would also be amenable to this.

Please let us know. I am also at my desk today if you wish to discuss it.

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Senior Partner, Los Angeles Office
<image001.png>
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
direct: 310.855-3314
main: 310.855.3311
Item 3B - Page 52
I ■ I _□□ -
email. [email protected]
www.WeAreCRE.com
www.munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

<image003.png>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above.

If you
are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also notify us by
return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, March 13, 2025 2:28 PM
To: William Priest <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin
<[email protected]>; Ken Lyon
<[email protected]>; Jeff Ballinger
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Follow up from our Call Yesterday - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive
Importance: High

Dear Jim,

I tried to call you on both of your numbers just now and there was no answer.

Contrary to what you state in your below email, the prior hearings were not continued to accommodate my court
schedule, they were continued to facilitate our ongoing settlement discussions.

You told us that Mr. Lyons would be willing to meet with Mr. Praner and his architect.

We had at least two
discussions about that on the phone, and they are
Item 3B - Page 53
memorialized in email. Then you told me (also in email) that this would not happen and that Mr. Lyons is not willing to meet further with Mr. Praner, but that he should submit “revised project plans that are compliant with the code.”

You also told me in our last telephone conversation to
inform Mr. Praner to stop discussing his project with
Councilmember Ready, which I do not think is appropriate.

On what basis does the City’s attorney tell a resident that they must stop talking with an elected representative about their development project in the City?

Regardless, this is circular because we contend that the current plans
do comply with the code, and that your
conditions should not apply to this design.

That is what Mr.

Praner wanted to discuss and clarify with Mr. Lyon, and what you promised could happen, but now you have gone
back on that and we are at the point where everyone has to waste resources on an expensive ARC proceeding, and
possibly subsequent appeals to the Superior Court—more
expensive, more of a waste of time that would be better spent working with Mr. Praner.

Additionally, I am scheduled to be in trial on Monday in Orange County Superior Court, as I informed you in a prior email where we requested a continuance of Monday’s
hearing in order to facilitate further settlement discussions regarding what the City needs from Mr. Praner in order to come to an agreement about what conditions are and are not appropriate here.

By refusing to continue the hearing that
conflicts with my Superior Court trial, you are depriving Mr.

Praner of his right to be represented by counsel at the administrative appeal of the City’s conditions for approval.

I
think that alone would be grounds to reverse any adverse determination by the ARC, on appeal to the Superior Court.

Please talk to your client and provide us with a continued hearing date so that Mr. Praner has time and opportunity to work with his architect on the revised drawings the City has requested, and the parties have time to work together to Item 3B - Page 54
come to consensus on what conditions are truly appropriate for this design. Please let me know as soon as possible, since we received the official notice of the hearing today and it is set for Monday.

Thank you.

Best regards,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Senior Partner, Los Angeles Office
<image001.png>
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
direct: 310.855-3314
main: 310.855.3311
email. [email protected]
www.WeAreCRE.com
www.munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

<image004.png>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above.

If you
are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also notify us by
return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 2:21 PM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin
<[email protected]>; Ken Lyon
<[email protected]>; Jeff Ballinger
<[email protected]>
Item 3B - Page 55
Subject: FW: Follow up from our Call Yesterday - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive

[External]

Good afternoon Eve.

I’ve been advised by staff that they are not agreeable to continuing the ARC hearing any further.

The appeal was
originally supposed to be heard in December and the City continued it several times to accommodate your court
schedule.

At this point, it will go forward on March 17.

If you are
unable to personally attend due to your schedule, you may have to task a partner or associate from your firm to cover the appeal.

Further, if Mr. Praner intends to file new or amended project plans for his site, we should probably take this appeal off calendar since the appeal of the current plans won’t make much sense.”

Lastly, staff is not asking for anything “beyond compliant with the Code”.

As indicated in Mr. Lyon’s prior e-mails, all that is being required are plans that show legally compliant elements, such as parking, trash enclosures, etc.

To date, Mr. Praner’s and Mr.

Klisak’s plans have not shown these elements.

Mr. Praner can
call Mr. Lyon to discuss this further.

Jim.

<image005.jpg>

William

J.

(Jim)

Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: (909)483-6648 | C: 576-9203
bbklaw.com
| <image006.jpg>
<image007.jpg>
From: William Priest
Sent: Tuesday, February 11, 2025 8:40 AM
Item 3B - Page 56
To: 'Eve Brackmann' <[email protected]>
Cc: 'Christopher Hadwin'
<[email protected]>; Ken Lyon
<[email protected]>; Jeff Ballinger
<[email protected]>
Subject: FW: Follow up from our Call Yesterday - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive

Good morning Eve.

Mr. Lyon will still be available for a phone
call with Mr. Praner or his architect to go over the City’s prior direction.

If anything was not clear to Mr. Praner, he is free to
give Mr. Lyon a call.

As for continuing the ARC hearing, I will talk with staff and let you know.

Jim.

From:

Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:13 PM
To: William Priest <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin
<[email protected]>; Ken Lyon
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Follow up from our Call Yesterday - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Jim, this is very different than the conversation that we had yesterday on the telephone.

You had promised that Mr.

Lyon would make himself available for a meeting with Mr.

Praner and his architect, so they could discuss what Mr.

Lyon wants beyond “compliant with the code.”

That gets us
nowhere.

I also have other issues with it, which I will
discuss in a more detailed letter on a day that I am not in trial.

Hopefully next week.

Item 3B - Page 57
Also, as of this morning, my trial has been scheduled for a “Phase II” starting March 17 in Los Angeles. It is a jury trial and will go until 4:30 p.m.

Accordingly, we will need to
reschedule the March 17 ARC hearing for another date.

Please let me know the other dates that are available, in April.

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Senior Partner, Los Angeles Office
<image001.png>
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
direct: 310.855-3314
main: 310.855.3311
email. [email protected]
www.WeAreCRE.com
www.munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

<image007.png>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above.

If you
are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also notify us by
return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 10:31 AM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin
<[email protected]>; Ken Lyon
<[email protected]>
Subject: Follow up from our Call Yesterday - Mr. Praner - 1100 S.

Item 3B - Page 58
Palm Canyon Drive

[External]

Good morning Eve. Thank you for talking with me yesterday. To follow up from our conversation, I wanted to clarify one point after talking with staff.

Rather than have Mr. Praner or his architect schedule another appointment with staff to go over an application, staff simply requires Mr. Praner or his architect to submit revised project plans that are compliant with the Code.

Staff has previously
provided direction on what the plans must include, including a lengthy e-mail from Mr. Lyon to Mr. Klisak which I forwarded to you last week.

These revised project plans should clearly
indicate the scope of the proposed storage facility and how it interfaces with the existing gas station canopy as well as the proposed use of the buildings to the back of the site which are currently boarded up.

Based upon the proposed uses, the plans
should also clearly indicate where the parking and circulation is to be laid out.

I would urge Mr. Praner to get these plans on file
as soon as possible if he wants them considered at the ARC hearing next month.

Should he or his architect require
clarification on the Department’s prior direction, Mr. Lyon at the City is available to respond.

Take care.

Jim.

<image006.jpg>
William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-6648 | C: 576-9203
bbklaw.com | <image007.jpg> <image007.jpg>

Item 3B - Page 59
EXHIBIT - 3 -
Item 3B - Page 60
From: Eve Brackmann
To: William Priest
Cc: Joseph Praner
Subject: Re: Appeal of Directors Decision - Case APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, xref case AR-2024-0046 - Appeal Document Submission
Date: Monday, October 21, 2024 9:40:43 AM
Attachments: image001.png
Thank you, Jim. We appreciate it and we hope that you’ll convey to the city staff that we apologize for any inconvenience and we greatly appreciate their accommodating us given the emergency unavailability with our expert.

Best,
—Eve
Best regards,
Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310.855.3311 Main
310.855-3314 Direct
[email protected]

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended
solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above.

If you are not the intended recipient of this
message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in
error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also
notify us by return email or by telephone at
972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

On Oct 21, 2024, at 9:07
AM, William Priest <[email protected]>
wrote:

[External]
Good morning. Just spoke with staff. They are going to confirm the next available ARC date and I’ll let you know when I get that information.

Jim

Sent from my iPhone
Item 3B - Page 61
William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: (909) 483-6648 | C: (909) 576-9203
bbklaw.com
|
On Oct 20, 2024, at 4:07 PM, William Priest
<[email protected]> wrote:
Looks like our hearing tomorrow night is a scratch. I’ll give you guys a call in the morning.

Jim
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Eve Brackmann
<[email protected]>
Date:

October 20, 2024 at 3:56:08 PM PDT
To: William Priest <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Appeal of Directors Decision - Case
APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, xref case AR-2024-
0046 - Appeal Document Submission

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Hi Jim,
I called and also also sent you a text message – – we just now heard from our architect on the Praner matter,
George Klisak,
that due to a family emergency, he is not
available to attend the hearing tomorrow. Mr. Klisak is an essential witness for us and we need him at the
hearing so we would like to please continue the hearing to December or January,
depending on the available
dates. I also just left you a detailed voicemail on your cell phone number and also sent a text to that number. I will also call your office line.

Thank you.

Best,
Item 3B - Page 62
I ~ I □□
—Eve
Best regards,
Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310.855.3311 Main
310.855-3314 Direct
[email protected]

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain information that is private,
confidential or protected by attorney-client or other
privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of the
addressee(s) listed above.

If you are not the intended
recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in
error, please disregard it and delete it and any
attachments from your system.

Please also notify us by
return email or by telephone at
972.628.3600 so that we
may correct our records.

On Oct 14, 2024, at 12:55
PM, William
Priest <[email protected]>
wrote:

[External]
Hi Eve.

I hope you had a good vacation.

I am
hopeful as well.

Just FYI, if you need additional time to discuss
with your client and give these issues some
thought, the City can continue the item until
the following meeting, which is scheduled for
Nov. 4.

Just let me know.

Take care and welcome back.

Jim.

Item 3B - Page 63
William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: (909) 483-6648 | C: (909) 576-9203
bbklaw.com |
From: Eve Brackmann
<[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 12:47 PM
To: William Priest
<[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Appeal of Directors Decision - Case
APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, xref case AR-
2024-0046 - Appeal Document Submission

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Hi Jim, first day back in the office after
vacation. I have a call with my client
this afternoon and will get back to you
in writing.

I am hopeful that we can
clear most or all of this up in advance
of the hearing, although I realize we
are just a week out so we will need to
focus on it this week.

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
<image001.png>
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
d. 310.855-3314 Direct
m. 310.855.3311
e. [email protected]
w. munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn
Item 3B - Page 64
I ~ I _□□
<image003.jpg>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any
attachments) may contain information that is private,
confidential or protected by attorney-client or other
privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of the
addressee(s) listed above. If you are not the
intended recipient of this message, please do not
print, copy or disclose this information.

If you
received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and
delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also notify us by return email or by telephone
at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest
<[email protected]
>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024 8:32 AM
To: Eve Brackmann
<[email protected]
>
Subject: RE: Appeal of Directors Decision - Case
APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, xref case AR-
2024-0046 - Appeal Document Submission

[External]

Good morning Eve. Any news?

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-
6648
| C: (909)576-
9203
bbklaw.com |
From: Eve Brackmann
<[email protected]
>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024 12:26 PM
To: William Priest
<[email protected]
>
Subject: Automatic reply: Appeal of Directors
Decision - Case APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD,
xref case AR-2024-0046 - Appeal Document
Submission
Item 3B - Page 65
g I=---_
-□□

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Thanks for your email. I am out of the office
today, on vacation. My response to your email
may be delayed.

Best,
—Eve
Item 3B - Page 66
EXHIBIT - 4 -
Item 3B - Page 67
From: Eve Brackmann
To: William Priest
Cc: Christopher Hadwin; Ken Lyon
Subject: Re: Appeal of Directors Decision - Case APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, xref case AR-2024-0046 - Appeal Document Submission
Date: Thursday, October 31, 2024 5:13:19 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image001.png
image002.png
Hi Jim,
Joseph, George, and I are all available January 6., 2025 for the continued hearing.

Can we please get confirmation for that date?
Thank you.

Best,
—Eve
Best regards,
Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310.855.3311 Main
310.855-3314 Direct
[email protected]

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended
solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above.

If you are not the intended recipient of this
message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in
error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also
notify us by return email or by telephone at
972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

On Oct 29, 2024, at 6:52
PM, Eve Brackmann
<[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Jim,

I am available on January 6.

I will check with my client and Mr. Klisak
(our architect) and get back to you ASAP.

Item 3B - Page 68

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
d. 310.855-3314 Direct
m. 310.855.3311
e. [email protected]
w. munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information. If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system. Please also notify us by return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2024 8:19 AM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin <[email protected]>; Ken Lyon <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: Appeal of Directors Decision - Case APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, xref case AR-2024-0046 - Appeal Document Submission

[External]

Good morning Eve. I’ve checked with Staff. Since you are unavailable for a meeting in November, the next date would technically be December 10. However, I understand that there is already a very full agenda for that date and the Director of Planning Services would not be available to attend that meeting.

And, of course, we would not
have a meeting on December 24.

That brings us to January 6. Are you and your team available that day for an ARC appeal hearing?

Item 3B - Page 69
m
m
Jim.

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-6648 | C: (909)576-9203
bbklaw.com |
From: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2024 7:51 PM
To: William Priest <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: Appeal of Directors Decision - Case APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, xref case AR-2024-0046 - Appeal Document Submission

Hi Jim, just checking in on dates for the next hearing. Please let me know.

Thank you.

Best,
—Eve

Best regards,

Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310.855.3311 Main
310.855-3314 Direct
[email protected]

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system. Please also notify us by return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

On Oct 21, 2024, at 9:07 AM, William Priest
<
[email protected]> wrote:

[External]

Item 3B - Page 70
I ~ I _□□ -
Good morning. Just spoke with staff. They are going to confirm the next available ARC date and I’ll let you know when I get that information.

Jim
Sent from my iPhone

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-6648 | C: (909)576-9203
bbklaw.com |
On Oct 20, 2024, at 4:07 PM, William Priest
<[email protected]
> wrote:
Looks like our hearing tomorrow night is a scratch. I’ll give you guys a call in the morning.

Jim
Sent from my iPhone
Begin forwarded message:

From: Eve Brackmann
<
[email protected]>
Date: October 20, 2024 at 3:56:08 PM PDT
To: William Priest
<[email protected]
>
Subject: Re: Appeal of Directors Decision
- Case APPL-2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD,
xref case AR-2024-0046 - Appeal
Document Submission

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Hi Jim,

I called and also also sent you a text
message – – we just now heard from our
architect on the Praner matter, George
Klisak,
that due to a family emergency, he
is not available to attend the hearing
tomorrow.

Mr. Klisak is an essential
witness for us and we need him at the
Item 3B - Page 71
I ~ I _□□
hearing so we would like to please continue
the hearing to December or January,

depending on the available dates.

I also just
left you a detailed voicemail on your cell
phone number and also sent a text to that
number. I will also call your office line.

Thank you.

Best,
—Eve

Best regards,

Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
310.855.3311 Main
310.855-3314 Direct
[email protected]

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail
(including any attachments) may contain
information that is private, confidential or
protected by attorney-client or other
privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of
the addressee(s) listed above.

If you are not
the intended recipient of this message,
please do not print, copy or disclose this
information.

If you received this e-mail in
error, please disregard it and delete it and
any attachments from your system.

Please
also notify us by return email or by
telephone at
972.628.3600 so that we may
correct our records.

On Oct 14, 2024, at 12:55
PM,
William Priest
<[email protected]
>
wrote:

[External]

Hi Eve.

I hope you had a good
Item 3B - Page 72
vacation. I am hopeful as well.

Just FYI, if you need additional
time to discuss with your client
and give these issues some
thought, the City can continue the
item until the following meeting,
which is scheduled for Nov. 4.

Just let me know.

Take care and welcome back.

Jim.

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-
6648
| C: (909)576-
9203
bbklaw.com |
From: Eve Brackmann
<[email protected]
>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024
12:47 PM
To: William Priest
<[email protected]
>
Subject: RE: Appeal of Directors
Decision - Case APPL-2024-0001 -
1100 SPCD, xref case AR-2024-
0046 - Appeal Document
Submission

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Hi Jim, first day back in the
office after vacation. I have
a call with my client this
afternoon and will get back
to you in writing.

I am
hopeful that we can clear
most or all of this up in
advance of the hearing,
Item 3B - Page 73
I g I=---_
-□□
although I realize we are
just a week out so we will
need to focus on it this
week.

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
<image001.png>
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
d. 310.855-3314 Direct
m. 310.855.3311
e. [email protected]
w. munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn
<image003.jpg>

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail
(including any attachments) may
contain information that is private,
confidential or protected by attorney-
client or other privilege.

It is intended
solely for the use of the addressee(s)
listed above.

If you are not the
intended recipient of this message,
please do not print, copy or disclose
this information.

If you received this
e-mail in error, please disregard it
and delete it and any attachments
from your system.

Please also notify
us by return email or by telephone at
972.628.3600 so that we may correct
our records.

From: William Priest
<[email protected]
>
Sent: Monday, October 14, 2024
8:32 AM
To: Eve Brackmann
<[email protected]
>
Subject: RE: Appeal of Directors
Item 3B - Page 74
Decision - Case APPL-2024-0001 -
1100 SPCD, xref case AR-2024-
0046 - Appeal Document
Submission

[External]

Good morning Eve. Any news?

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-
6648
| C: (909)576-
9203
bbklaw.com |
From: Eve Brackmann
<[email protected]
>
Sent: Tuesday, October 8, 2024
12:26 PM
To: William Priest
<[email protected]
>
Subject: Automatic reply: Appeal
of Directors Decision - Case APPL-
2024-0001 - 1100 SPCD, xref case
AR-2024-0046 - Appeal Document
Submission

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Thanks for your email. I am out of
the office today, on vacation. My
response to your email may be
delayed.

Best,
—Eve
Item 3B - Page 75
I - I=---_
-□□
EXHIBIT - 5 -
Item 3B - Page 76
From: Eve Brackmann
To: William Priest
Cc: Ryan Guiboa
Subject: RE: 2024-10-21 - Agenda - City of Palm Springs(6778709.1).pdf Date: Monday, December 16, 2024 7:40:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
image004.png
image006.png
Thanks, Jim. If you could let me know tomorrow, I would greatly appreciate it. I a trying to also plan pre-trial meet and confer’s etc. on another matter for that week.

Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
d. 310.855-3314 Direct
m. 310.855.3311
e. [email protected]
w. munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information. If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system. Please also notify us by return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 16, 2024 11:40 AM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Ryan Guiboa <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2024-10-21 - Agenda - City of Palm Springs(6778709.1).pdf

[External]

Pleasure meeting you as well last week.

Item 3B - Page 77
II
II

I’ll talk with PS staff and get back to you with possible continuation dates.

Jim.

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel
[email protected]
T: 483-6648 | C: (909)576-9203
bbklaw.com |
Holiday Greetings from BBK!

From: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, December 13, 2024 3:17 PM
To: William Priest <[email protected]>
Cc: Ryan Guiboa <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2024-10-21 - Agenda - City of Palm Springs(6778709.1).pdf

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Dear Jim,

It was a pleasure to see you at the Colton hearing earlier this week. I just realized that you are also involved with that appeal—small world. As I mentioned at the hearing, I am hopeful that we can work something out there.

With regard to Mr. Praner’s issues with the City of Palm Springs, he is working to retain a professional parking consultant to work with Ken Lyons/the City on the parking-related issues.

We are hopeful that these can be resolved amicably and
streamline the issues here.

Toward that end, we would like to delay the hearing into February or March, in hopes that perhaps we could even avoid it altogether if the parking issues can be resolved, and then perhaps we will have a clear path to resolve the other issues, as well.

Can we please postpone the January 6 hearing by a month or so? And if so, then can you please provide me with dates in February or March?

Thank you.

Item 3B - Page 78
I R l_ oo
Best,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
d. 310.855-3314 Direct
m. 310.855.3311
e. [email protected]
w. munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of the
addressee(s) listed above.

If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also notify us by return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 6:26 PM
To: William Priest <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2024-10-21 - Agenda - City of Palm Springs(6778709.1).pdf

Jim, I noticed that the packet includes Ex H but it’s not listed here, just FYI:

Item 3B - Page 79

Eve Brackmann
Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
d. 310.855-3314 Direct
m. 310.855.3311
e. [email protected]
w. munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege. It is intended solely for the use of the addressee(s) listed above. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information. If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system. Please also notify us by return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 6:09 PM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Subject: RE: 2024-10-21 - Agenda - City of Palm Springs(6778709.1).pdf

[External]

Item 3B - Page 80
[i]
[i]

Good evening. It came with this e-mail that went out yesterday. If you go into the agenda it will have hotlinks to the agenda packet documents.

Jim.

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-6648 | C: (909)576-9203
bbklaw.com |
From: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, October 18, 2024 5:36 PM
To: William Priest <[email protected]>
Subject: 2024-10-21 - Agenda - City of Palm Springs(6778709.1).pdf

CAUTION - EXTERNAL SENDER.

Hi Jim,

I did not see an agenda packet for the 10/21 meeting, only the attached agenda.

There is an Agenda packet for the 10/24 meeting, agenda materials for 10/17, but nothing for our meeting. The only thing that I see is the following, on the Agenda, with no other information provided by the City:

Have any other materials been submitted, or any explanation or anything else other than the recommendation to deny our appeal?

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve
Item 3B - Page 81
~ I -□□ -
EXHIBIT - 6 -
Item 3B - Page 82
From: Eve Brackmann
To: William Priest
Cc: Christopher Hadwin; Ken Lyon
Subject: RE: Follow up from our Call Yesterday - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive Date: Friday, February 7, 2025 4:12:00 PM
Attachments: image001.png
image002.png
Jim, this is very different than the conversation that we had yesterday on the telephone. You had promised that Mr. Lyon would make himself available for a meeting with Mr. Praner and his architect, so they could discuss what Mr. Lyon wants beyond “compliant with the code.”
That gets us nowhere. I also have
other issues with it, which I will discuss in a more detailed letter on a day that I am not in trial.

Hopefully next week.

Also, as of this morning, my trial has been scheduled for a “Phase II” starting March 17 in Los Angeles. It is a jury trial and will go until 4:30 p.m.

Accordingly,
we will need to reschedule the March 17 ARC hearing for another date. Please let me know the other dates that are available, in April.

Thank you.

Best,
--Eve

Eve Brackmann
Senior Partner, Los Angeles Office
1925 Century Park East, Suite 2300
Los Angeles, CA 90067
direct: 310.855-3314
main: 310.855.3311
email. [email protected]
www.WeAreCRE.com
www.munckwilson.com
Connect with me on LinkedIn
Follow Munck on LinkedIn

Item 3B - Page 83
[ii

Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain information that is private, confidential or protected by attorney-client or other privilege.

It is intended solely for the use of the
addressee(s) listed above.

If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please do not print, copy or disclose this information.

If you received this e-mail in error, please disregard it and delete it and any attachments from your system.

Please also notify us by return email or by telephone at 972.628.3600 so that we may correct our records.

From: William Priest <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, February 6, 2025 10:31 AM
To: Eve Brackmann <[email protected]>
Cc: Christopher Hadwin <[email protected]>; Ken Lyon <[email protected]>
Subject: Follow up from our Call Yesterday - Mr. Praner - 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive

[External]

Good morning Eve.

Thank you for talking with me yesterday.

To follow up from our conversation, I
wanted to clarify one point after talking with staff.

Rather than have Mr. Praner or his architect schedule another appointment with staff to go over an application, staff simply requires Mr. Praner or his architect to submit revised project plans that are compliant with the Code.

Staff has previously provided direction on what the plans must include, including a lengthy e-mail from Mr. Lyon to Mr. Klisak which I forwarded to you last week.

These
revised project plans should clearly indicate the scope of the proposed storage facility and how it interfaces with the existing gas station canopy as well as the proposed use of the buildings to the back of the site which are currently boarded up.

Based upon the proposed uses, the plans should
also clearly indicate where the parking and circulation is to be laid out.

I would urge Mr. Praner to
get these plans on file as soon as possible if he wants them considered at the ARC hearing next month.

Should he or his architect require clarification on the Department’s prior direction, Mr. Lyon at the City is available to respond.

Item 3B - Page 84
Take care.

Jim.

William J. (Jim) Priest
Of Counsel​​​​
[email protected]
T: 483-6648 | C: (909)576-9203
bbklaw.com |

Item 3B - Page 85
~ I -□□ -

EXHIBIT -A-
Item 3B - Page 86
Item 3B - Page 87
L1J
I '
·.~
I ' I t I
.
w
I
0 ' [ I
er
! l
w
I ! ' i
>
1 0 --=.J
Ii
,
~ o...=:
k
,w'~•a
·-~-
·-
-·--
-~-~-
• I ' I .....
c,ev;a.u.,,...
-r·----~-~
""
--------------··---
-
---·---··-~-----'""
.,~
. .-~.---...
.....
,...
~~-...,.,~..--
I• I ' i I I: l ! Ii ,, ,. Ii II! i I ;
I I ' l \
..------,,,._.,,,~,.,,,,,.__,,,,_,_
. .,y_,,,
..
,.,.,..,-s,.._c,_"'"""'t
i l I i ~ l ' 1 l ' ( I l
(~} ' ,.,
.
,:;,{1
i l ;
·✓
•-Jf
; l /'
t,,r
U
t t.,.,--,.r
(
i! -,i.
\..1
I
---------~----·~---"
I f I t I I I I '
/
z,
I I j I

I' II I
---
~71
I I
} I · 1 j II I . i l d 'I f '
r I
. ! II . II
I
I
,j
I
fi',_(/
! !
J;et'fj'
4(.J(!
Ii
:

I
'!
I
11 -l-
I
•
,
I'
'
I','
""
;!
,
.
~
"1-V
!
i I
I '
..

I
·-,····---·--L
n
I
·-1\--1--
__
'1
'
',
,
•
I
{f
/
--
~-,
l'
I
-
,.
-
/r.::
l
1 vi
\ . .,
.,,.~
~i
;
~'l

1.01 !·«';i
1 i I 1
d
I
\·
.>
n\
'I'
I
'
"'
j
V
I
'
.

V,.,.
-"''
l
!
\
\
\
''
i
-
,1.,A
V1.
""
<l
\
!I
\
\ ·. .

Kl
I
•
__
.,,.,.!...
"
'
..

I \
\ '
. . .
•" \\~
:.-'---·---------~-----·!
· \ .
·•.,.
..
\~t)
JJ~rJ
•.
\\
~JJl
·.
•.
\
'.
\
·.
\
:

I
'\
\
'
I
.:.
,,\"
,1
,
I
,~·
1 ,
'
.
.

I
•
'
I
·~-'·\
•
!
I
\
'
•
;
-~
~
. 0 .. •. tu?.
t,?t'J;e;c;,.·
•• · .•
·r··,
~'
- .
•• •
~1'i?f4-\~e.
·. '
,I
.
. .
·.
.
-,,__
. '
,•,
i ' \ \
SI
,1
~
'-,,.\
-~--... ·:-:.r_~
·.J
',
)
-. '4?i
¾':'
~·-
.'1' • \NE
J
,
•.✓,
tJ t'
,,.,,1
/
,..-:.
\
I
. ~
1s·P,•"
'
"
(.,.
•
L,;
'··
~ I
I
'\
,-1\1·
'
~
,,
I'\..
,,
ii
.-,"\
4,t.
\
·-.....

I
I
\,V
,.,
,
\
I
'
••1,J'
'
.
'i
\ --
I '
• ~
1 \
i
i
,~/;~>
r;tf,{'
I
~
I
•
J
•
I
,\
/
,
\\
'
.,,,_,,._\
~
I '
·-
\
r' ~·----·-··
--·-
I
.. ,L
,Cf;/
i.,;J.
'
',
'\ ·,
'\>,.
',
·, __
/:,p(/-
·,
\
\'·,>;
•, ·,'<;
··;,
.
·.
·•··
'"'
Cf
•
, <.<<>-
.•• ,·,.,.
'\; ••• ~
•• • ••
o·, ,
I
~;,' \r'
",
,,,_.,
"'-""'
'
I
.,
'
•
~
••
•
'
-,
,
•••
·.,ef!_''
.. .,, •• --• ..JI.._
\
I::.
i
l(
. ~
,,
'
"'
1"
·-·
--·-
·-
•
:.
'
\ .. ,. --~---f
--~
I
~~~
"""-
-:--<::;.•,::::·:.---
-.::'.;"
-:::::----
=4
~
~
~h•--•
PJ·1b
<..
o·
'
•
-~--~~.;:'.:';s~==;;:;
C
•
J,
),ti
t,,.,,f'(
;c;,,;,,;/cc=c.,,
•• ,.
/
/.
11;),0'4••
.
\,..·'
,;;_~;,..,
---,;r---~---------·------
PALf'v1
C,ANYO
DRl'
✓E
'
--------------
-
.. ----
'•-··"~-·
--~----
L./
tt:.
'-""'
si:::·
--,_,.
....,.,
-~~
.... , -
~,,·
-
/
·~-~··-----,,,,..
,
~;1r',1,,t:
eT
---~
·~,··-
........
, .. _,,,.
----
l I ;q"' '7£
'.,~,&
(.
_l_,.,_
SHEET
f f\J[)EX
~ ~=::::~~:::::::::~~:',::~:'.:,:.~~:;~
.. :~;'~~-::~:.;:~:~:
:-~~·;::'.~~-':::~::::~~_''.
:::: ;,;:_:;;: ,·:;·-~~:,-~;;~,--
_.,,. -~;.;~:. ·.,:~_::·.::.·.;'.
~~~:-;:•:~,':::~;
. .:~~;~:~~=~
I i
-,-·--
-----~
,, ...
·-•--·-----__,.,.-~~--
--
•
.•
• •
~-~~---·-'
--·
-
,r--*
t··,_,
••
I
.o
.
·•·
--"-·
_,,
..
,, .. , ..
, _____
___
I
rri,,01
C:$ '
~--
..
,~---
__
,,_"_
PLt~
~--~-•~.··-··
... ..,"
. ..,
I
~
I
\
i
11 •
:
t:'.i
"''':/•l~
,q
Ai,],
G,tti:?t•i
,,,_
•v
I
[l---L,t".::,"rf
J
"'if'-
t
ii:~~
t'
:,
i.
(
'
t;:

L
r:;;
h'r·'l,.('}
1-}':,
t,,.
......
""°t.=·'"'V
i'"""
·I
~
'
~
______
J_'______
·····--
·'
·-"'""
..
i"
--·
i rJ;
!
l'
d'-#~'\
·r'-":i
j
[,,~C•'!,<;1
f"f:1..JJ
V';
1 ,,.,
h
" r
-.
' -::)
" ,,,·'
?'i,Ji..rJ
7 fr g,~
l,;i
, __
. .,.,,
-~
... -.. -~,-
-··--~
" ~~ I J
~•
.,.,,-,c-
. ..-.--
.• ~,
,_-"-~••.-,.;.~.,
-
...
..
. . .
..
··-
-
"
.....
, .. ______
_
~ (;j if H ~ I N ~ .;,; 't3, ti .. tl ~ t 1 ,. !¥ j ~ ' j Ji ;{ l1 l:i ~% f? ~j f-1 C ,. :,! ,\ fJ b r .,.I <"' l:! ~1 ;:; « frft'A,1!,."!!'.ffl'J'i!0"1~,:i\'.YM:';1-;,,.•:y:.-;,'c.·,.'·, 1r'
"-'?""\.
''.<'Pi'."~'-.~-~:"'·:"'':
"<,•,-,,.,
-~·-~"''
'
,----~
'"'.',
~1-----
f>\;-'·"-W;
.,,,,.t·
. ..,,,_,_,
,;,,:;:;',;;;,c:
"\t'~
~ !l ~!; 1-1 }'' ~ ;;1 ii
. NC)TES
'' •
L.,fiii!"P(!!,,,,f,!'a\'1!,0,{'.~'~"~.:.'-?l'/¾i$"'
'lfo".'.";,~:
.'»,>y,i:-
•y,:;";t,-,-,·.s,·;;;,:·"'::
sf
,
·•,
.'.
f > ",""1·
•
••
'
----;_,
,/c
.,~;:,_;\:,-c.r.,-,:,'o"·,"1\'~;!',;$,;;"
f·-
~~~~~,et~~'t'ffil:~il!'-t:m;~~-%-'.
t'4."'f~T;c,;.,_'{,,_,1,-:.,l),;y,'¥"'.::>::i'¥"'-t-"''aii'i>-'.lsi\~h-:'<fr''f'N'1'\"."'f'.{'il•"'~•r<~'-~"'''""',l)ii~".:e!1'.:11tt•.%ki"Yli#~ ;g tj ;j 1:/• l : I n '.i! 'j ., i1 i ti ,, ~} i-i. i 1) g i/ ~-j l¾ ,, ii? ¢, 0 ,.,, ii q M ~ :J t4 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 iJ I' \l ~ 6 ;., t'i ,, ' s i ~ I i I i I I I •... THIS

PROJECT
SHALL
COMPLY
WITH: 21122
CaHfomfa
Building
Coda
..........

Based
on
the
2018
lntemattonal
Bulldlng
Code
21122
California
Resldenlial
Code
......

Ba&ed
on
the
2018
lntemational
Residential
Coda
21122
California
Eleclrlcal
Coda
........

Based
on
the
2017
NatiOnal
Elaclric
Code
2Cl22
Califomla
Plumbing
Code
......
.. Based
on
the
2018
Uniform
Plumblng
Code
21122
California
Mechanical
Code
......

Based
on
the
2018
Uniform
Mechank:111
Code
21122
California
G..n
Buildlng
.........
,Callfornla
Building
and
Standards
Commissioll
. 2Cl22
California

EIIIIIJIY
Code
.............

Califomla
Ene,gy
CorTIHln

REVISIONS
I BY
I
I
.I
~-...... ., ...
(
. ~•
!;:::
11 ~i~-~, I .m
! :•~.
~
2 li"'"'« ~.iii•
l
,
~
(\,
I
i
'\j
,'.,!
I
'
....;;,i_
I
'··-t
\ \~
1·
,t'>c
_,
',Ji,
=""""
'%
-
I l
' "
""""'·=·;:~,
~
L-..-.i!
----:::,,
i I
....::s.,
I -
...
~
!1
\
j!
,~
•. I !"":::-!·.
\
!,
,J,,
' I
i
!
~-1
-~
~~1
:=:::::i
"'"'1
,,
\~-'~
.~ ... --
i
·~-
I
,,._.

I :::-'::
11 -'/~,._
}
\,.---
·1•
"·
l\'\•I
>
i
.,,.,
1·
.,,.,.,
t
l
\\\
.r~-
r
-~--..JJ.
\
\
\'
,·
\
"\
I
····-;;>
l
""
\._
\
\
-
..
·-..,,.
,
1 v· ·Y
,¢>"
'
,,,,,..,;~,,,.__
l
'
I
~
,.-
... , I'
,'
..J..-,1
\\
,1,.,...y
\ \ ,. l ·.1 "~
1 ..
!'\'-"'-I,
·~
f
t '
t)
---
---
•• -~
f
..
..•.
r•-! I '
:
·:::.:::c.::lj
le,~-
1\
"~
I\::..
1,
'.,
'\.
.
'
.-
\
~1.
-~
1:
,...

H
'
i
?§.'II~~
!
-~':-.1•.I
~
!
,,..\
~
j
,i
I
-
;
, I l
"
l
Date
1/!l'tf
Seale/)t,C'
i,:/1..{;J
<,
Drawn
1i::J::.~ ,li
·-i,/
t
.lob
I
'
--t.··
l
01 Item 3B - Page 88
..
1r-------------------------------------------------------------­-• i
I
'
2 I l I I '
"'
"""~· •.
f}
,\
.'.),
·-----~····=-= .. .i..,11 ~: ll
,:h
i
~-
' ~,;s,,
"-;:
• •
l
I
I !
I I I
I
r·
J
~--···~- - . ·-•· • . ,,_ .,,·--"-'="-
I
' !
I
/ !
/
I l I
I I I • I
Ill. 1.1.
l
\ ,.
<~
','.'.'\ -..,.,~
~ . .,..
~
-,,
~~
t
' J .
r \
,,
' '
. -. ~ - --===---~-=--
GF.Klisak
. 2822 Aubum ct. E 211
• Palm Springs,CA 92262
tel/fax 760-3251717
cell 760-8314594
I
~~\
1'."'-c ~ .. ,
,,.,.,~~>, _,
- • •~'¼
I
Item 3B - Page 89
I I
' I
.....
cu-
/ ' , '
® l
('"\ ,-;7 '
' •
\.
t\
.~L I\(
. '<v ('\'·
"
J<
•
~
~
I.
ii
,ft/
r,0)•
,jp,\'
.{
., \i'
.,
•,
,r,/r'
f' ,I
I
\i
.
:JV
()1'!
,i\
,ti:;\
1,fv
I
\
~\I
l/.
\}'I
\g',•
•!J,'1
\ l
! , v(jj
,lt-f•
,J\\
!A/:,/
J,,
,\+.·',,/,_!I
j,,;
,~'9.,A•!
•;{
Y\1/
''4
/
l
V\/
~
>
v,
,,
.,,. .,
/
/
.
,
1--·-··-
---·
,
-
I
J
1 1
I
'
!
-·
-
•
c-,.--,,···1·1·
.
...._,
I
-.·
/'
.. ;
--.-i-.,,_
•• • •·•···
.··
.•··•·•··
••
.
;&
1:
: -
4 , ___
:£:
_ _,~ .... __,_
l'f
: ,,
. -=1--,,J/•.iJ
l
·,.~-j.
.
•
.
/
/
✓.;
·t;·
---
,
I
'
,.
;
'
-
'
/
-;
J
; ; •
,.A
-,.·
• 1
,,v
>
.
;·
:
.
•
YT
. -_ :·
~1: ·1
J'll
./
fj
.I
. • ... '.i
.

I
.·
.
. . ·.· .. 1.
·.• •... • ... · ,,
l'f'.ty.·
,d·
f•
~c/---,11...
./
,
.
. ·
~11/,!
\l\'
7 /
, .. '
-
/
l
.rtiµ
-
-
/'l,;,'Jj:
~
" -..._"
I"
I
i.)l
-....:
i
: -
;;
'f~~-"-·
· /J
f
.,
..,,
✓
1 1·.

J,/'5
\{,()Y
.
,
;
-, • ,
l
,
'
,
.
......_
..
. ' t•"
~-~-
..
.•
f
!
""F·
A
'I
,
.
,,.
✓-
•
i /
.t,r
1 {A:?
,I&
lV
•
,;,
l-A
!:i
1"1/
1-,...
.
i/'
\ __ ,-'
!
\f\
,,~
'-·
... r
.,
,.
f'"
'1/1,'
• •
'
''I
• /,fJ
r--•
.. ""
-
1 fl'')(
It'
'
r i &'
ll' IC
W
1,
1 ,
/il!t/
!. ' / --.t::L\.

I
·,,
¼
0 \l
1 ·/
,-w~f
.
. . f.

I'"
~tf
%
) / /
J, ~'./•""
I I I
I r J-'--1___
. .:::

T
•.
____
----~-=
4··_
·_.
_
Li--
...... ___ ~~ E1 __ .. ----":~:~-:
7 ·-~__:_
'. .-·=.·-:--:·-
.. ··/i.·
'.c....:
••••
,.:·:·~•--:,--;
.. ~·--.,.
7,,,,..-.
~
____
,.,.
•
•
✓1110·
1 I
I
_/
._
'f
l
>'
"
,
·'
'
't-,,l
.1/4
•
\f''
/
~
}
'IJ,r£,,/'
!till
i
-
'.
51/:~
,/ii:/
\\'I
!
I
\/
, ,
"'"
___
, --
,il'.a1<
'))~'------
fl,%
,.J
;
l
',l,:fl\•
t(
/!'/
·-
4tft'
/l'
'
\\.•.',\
t
~,Y'\"f¥J
;
V}\
l"'
i
//>J\
,-,,,-,
l
/\)l\
@
@
Ji."
/<,r.v-----.

J,.?
/
,Av~
,/' .r\'
, .
.

I
1,-,,.,rJ1l()•
.,-f"l
/fl'
I
I , !l
\ \_,,i
fl
r:-(/
u
~j
V
/::.,
I
!
(.,,/
I '.J
.........

L~~--=~~-=tj-
-·:
p>~1J
lp:•~---
/2j'.
•,'
" . i
ii~ fl
J.
#J.,
"' 1
,,
11 r' ,.,,
1,,
,...l
~·r~'
"""
t..,,.-,
-r.,,
✓
,,: i'-tt"
i
? 1-v''
I ,,,
,J//"r
,
~
,
'.
,,,
• I .
---------,,•,--
-
•
••=<••
.....
~,---
-··
-··"'
fb
)i_
1 .(:,,.
/'
k.·
t. ~.,.....
•••
--
.,,
__
,,,.,
... ,,-
~,;--
j-
W
! -i<".""
~ .
•
-
>I ,7
I
·
--
.
·I
~
u,,H•·"'(
'"1.f
,
/2.1 . ::_
. ~
7!I
/;
-1
I°"
.
~,••
1-,•'\1.r
Ir
.r·.•.·.
"
,
-:-
.,._
:=
:::--~-
F
-·
-
.-. f".•.:.t.

I '
e9·
.
,
-
--·--
.
=j/7
,i
i
"'
-• "
',
e;P<J·
,
,
I
i7/lff
1 '
,.._, t, '11>
1•
.'I
-
l:
1 t.J
_
fa ''
/'
.
-I
i
~
:
•·
) I
, .
":;.)
:
.•··
., .....
=~""=
-
-
,.~-
',_
-
-
---------
'
'7,,:,.1,,c•f~PI<
iJL(fi.11
.'I.\
I:
..
• •••• ,,.,,
........
-.·
-
/\
·o
,-,..._,,.,,,
'1i!&
,
,
lc'71•
_,
i>
.
___
,.

L:,
---•-
c
-~i
,tr'
,.,,.,.,.e'"_,,.-
.. =
, ,
,,,,
, ,,
'
•
'1
li}/}'/1
""'-.
,,,,,,,,,,,
M
f
'
'
,,,,.,.,:..---"""""'
'
.,
•• ,,.:
'·
,,,.,..,.,.,,,,.,,
.. -•
,
I•
~
-
'.
•••• "'
. -•·
.
fl
--,,.:,.
•~ I'
•
X
:•.·
'l
I
~
i:
.
'

1. 11/;D
,,
,r,;,1)·
Ji//
'
{
"'
'
!:
'-"
1/'I/,
I
li ..
"t'""
"
1•
::

If[
,
'
t
,_
lo,
,_,.
,
-
'
1''
•/J,,
· 3t'•
v·
,.,_,
, C"
.;.;,-""
>
q
~
_,,
. ---
·----
.,
__
,. -
..
,,,,.
t#
I
;
_:.-;;:;,,
(
'
I
-
-•---,._,,~
-
~
'-
'
lb'
VJ
-
-
-
~-
__c-------
-
>-
•
/

11."1/
I
1/
(/..<.
{Jr
/+)_;Ji{
~......,,,_-'""'t;'
1 1
0-
1-.f]
/
, 1
,·
_,,_..,,_~_,_c5,,ES'.::'~-
--
F
--
,, _______
,
:
~··
'
[_!
__ \
l "'Y
'
/
---
--
,,,,,,,
__
-
}
'<
le
/
1 ,
-·--,.
'----""""-'
•
:
,.,.,tf:+----'•ff/J
1 ,"
•
,
_1
,
;
_j_
",rl
"'"
.
yl
~
I'
i
/
-Q(i
,,'
,~';'··.·.·~.
---
.1+:'r,.
____
i',.,~
.. /
r
!
• /..,'}
,
-v
;i.
,.
•·
··
,
,
,
•'"
~~-;--
.,~-
I/
,
·•
_,, __
.,
1'
•
v
I
,,.

I_
.t,,la
•1
•
(
,,
\
•
("
flD
"II":,,
•
'
"'?U
,,,,,.,
'
'-
,"-~
'
I "
l
I
--~,,---·--
--·~-,
"I
-~
---
---·+--
... --....
~"'
, ) .
/') , • ,..,
~
I
i
.
_______
,._
',c
:::l...':
.. ,,. --
--
--·
,,,
.
--
---)~
FRf~l../1
J ~j ?1
f l✓,tl
~j
.. 4~
l'~v
~~------=-"'~""---""-"'"""'-""'"
_
_,,_"""__
..
-
'°"'""'"''-"''=-·.,,~-·,=•"""""'---
"'"-"""'--
.i NOTES: CONCRETE:
2IIOO
PSI
AJ!.:
518"
x 10
W/Y
X 3"
x 0,229"
WASHERS@
48"
O,C,
MAX
SILL
PLATES·
2 x
P.T.O,F.

I HOLDOWNS:

BY

SIMPSON-TOBE
PLACED
PRIOR

FOUNDATION

INSPECTION
! ROOF
SHEETING:
112"
COX
PLWt'
Ir
I
2 7
127
Q A

I SHEER
WALL:

SEE

SCHEDULE
' STUCCO:
7/ff'
BY

EXPANDED
METAL
LATH,
WI#
11 ga
NAILS
, 1 .. 5 x 7/16'
HOS
, WI
114"

FURRING
·;' I
I
I 1' I
~
,,.,~ toti'l,~
-P~
<?
n
e..1
ulil-
,.I
v-i:/
. ,
,
l
-
:dP
·'r
/J
1t
1,IJl'.,1,1
.:-rr-/1
•
11 .. ✓"
,J

1.1·
✓•
!/
d.~·
I!
y
k'
1!
,r"
••
1~/'
/,,.J,,,,
:,,0
1 11.v,.,..
v.
, 11 ,
,
1 ,,,.
.. ,,
/11
11 r·
'
t
·'j
. ' '"'1 'd '
I'-
I
i ,, I
l
j'l
'
1/
.I
ii//
i"
/J'
(P)
\li;,J?
J
I
~✓-,,.11
/n
O
~\t;
1·
I'' .. /
-
-
, (f1i!
f':c'"
,,
,;
:
.
r:
...

I
"'p/
f·t\'.''""'
(
•
..);
" I
-,,
J
I
\I.
-.

I
ft\,\
½.
--'
..
.
.
•
l
,,
•
_,
I ,.
-
.
"l
,.f'
I ,
/
•• 1:.1r1,?
/\
'¥
'{
'
J
.,
V
'
,
,,£-'
I
"~
i
.,,,y-
·-,--::~L:.=::_I<
l
"'\
"l"'
I
'
'
--
·~
-,.,
,
,
I
tt
,,
·
-·-·
I
•
•• f--,f
-(jl-~
,
I .:::::~:j::~~
~
. ,-
.
..L_J
~,·•
,..

I . _,./,,-
J --·
•
I ,,.,o,✓>';,)i)
''
Cv~•v"
rt
r
I
!I,;
I
···~-
1f·
l
•
Ji'?t;.
c/
/
~
.;c;>'!
11 'I
l ;
,/ \/
/'
t
I
I
I
,;:,<).::
,,·,;>
,-
• •
,,
~
.

I
'
r~~.';,;eC.:.;
.. ,•·•••,.c.•
•. : C
/,.
/
l
"
c·•
••·'
v
••
"'
..
'""
,
i
"'···'c,·•""
,•··"i·
..
,
,
''
"
,.
'
,...
.·
I'
,
,,·"·
d,s
, I
I
'f•,:i::'::(u:!1'
w1••"··-
.
•
I
,,.,,
1/::~-~ITTT':--·
.
·i·'•""·~-1''''"'"~,
-.. ·-
!,')
,~-.-·
)\'.\
:::::::-1p1-= -
;,;\·'.-
;;-:-0 (('',,-~
✓
I
,.;-•-,~-
·a,="'
_,.
1 'P·/
·,'.~'
-·--
,.
l
,,_
t:,i'"·'
I
,
>i
·
, •• ~-.~-.---::-,
'I
'.
'
/, ...
,,,,,-
;r·-;-cL-:=.:::i:'
:: / i
l
till tr·:··:
':

I'
" ...
·,1s..,,
... •.1)"1.'
!
--
'
'"
'"'U!;:::·,
,,,:
19·
·;;c""'
.,,, ' '\
,.
y,~'
,
/
,r,
f
',
,.,.,,,-
j
,~(
I!
! t-,··:v,,.,.-
'
.
'-·I
'
j
,,,
""'
'
••
,-
.~r·'
•
;
I
, ,,:.--,
(/
t:::f'i,
,... -..
\,,!_,,,,I
.
,
, ,.,.,.,.1
v
1-1,:f!:-
I '
7,---
'
k
""
,.,
:::
,:
1·
/
'
,--11
.. ,·.,
j
;"'
.._
(
·-.
-t·--·
·,i; ,k!L.t_~~·-4,
... -.. --
,., (I ,t
.I
,Iii,,
, .:>
T '
I , i-::::::
r
/1
' ' ,,.
,
.. , i
,
:,11
17',.cT
I'.":

I ~,J1,
t::-••l,,(:;
lit-?i:'.\:?wN
\l"'
_1
,
.
,.
_
"'
I \
·--~.,.,.._...,.,.,,,,
l~
.~,
.... C'
I ''
,.
(,,••'
,..
. fl
·•·"'.>
,,
OOt:>;V
!
C.t,c11
,:;•t11u.
( ".,.
t
----.. ..,, .,,
0-v
.....
-4----
·--
!,
.... ,.
........
.. ..
.,. . .
.. ---
"
----.;..._J'Y''""'
!
le---~
-
=1
-
___
; --:.
•
r,
• .......
• ••••••
,..l
••
ltw
--::,
..

I;,,.£!
-
..
_..
~'ill~,•·
!
I
-
<
-
-·--
------•
-O
-
I II !,
i
llUc'>«
c,

1....0
I
f-t
,i
k;:('
/'),..x,
,-.._,.,
"
-r
t~f
l
#i'"''•·~"'
-~
~
..,.·1-
••
,;,.
,,i-;,
ri
o,p
"C-'
··1
.

I
~J
i··,~--
-r-=--,
-"_•a,.~J~---~·.::.,,,
•• ==---
...
,,,iii;::gi!I
:::·Q{\
Al-
' ••
--·-t-
-·---
,,
I•·
V
•
fi""•:'>
o
•
h
i'
''\'.:>....-
~
"
I""/
I
fll,~
"
..
-
I
''
• ..-.,
l
;;--.,,.,,~i
d-~
.'iJ
1 ""-·~/J~
•
{;::.:"'.·\.i
__
,,,.
___ •_.r.:,,
4"·1
.;
wA·
Bf·.,
>
',,
,,
••
I,."••;-
1 ,.,
'
,;;.,.•.
•"
'
'✓
;,
",.,,
,,
••
,,,·>
,/,
\,,i,
,,.-
/
\\[\;nr~f;t
,nf\tf/:'ki
,
jl
-l
($-l}
t':'c~"'\·1
.,__,..,,,.
,.,
;,
'
, ..
. -r
i1 -~-
""
--~"--~~
@
r2Ar·J
y:;;..,
~-"fAI
v
l,ll
11 O""
~
.. --
,.,..,
'V
-•
I',
~rttJI
,ll"
\
,
,1""
a.•"·•\
\ :J
~!/\
. l 4?
• .. ,, t:l."'
, ,,11::
.I
'II
·
.,
V
1,,,
·,
,if'
1'
1N
•
./
,..
1w
<f;I
I ;" -,, .. --·-----;,
, c ji,lr
l
'
'
l'
)
!
,
.=-,,2'.'..
, "
.....
, ,,
-,w:=
•-
!
,,....,.....,
·~I
)J
\
;'
1 i
fl
....,,.,
'I ,_ .. ,
•
-•"'"
\
•
I
~ .. --
'•J
\ /
7 '
t,-......;,L__
J
/""'4'"~,,_; ~
'' I
I
,,.,./
.
.,,,
./
'
I
,,
I~
n
Ji.'
!t;;
..,.-,-/
,""'-··-••-",.k
t''
1:0'
'. \ ;.,_,..,
,-·
I,(
, ,.,.,
v
!
•Z,,
r
c-cMv
•
/
-1-r:f
f
;1
:
!
1 .:
r·
.--~~-·.
i
~,.,f.l
(9
-
_J'
•
...,
,~-=-
'
'
,.
\
.
.,L
,
I
\(,."'
"
,: I El
! \
!:;;::wz--~
_
• • • •
,. ...

C,
.....
,.----i.
,, , .1
i
·1
.t
r,~/
,
•
•
·;y7
,,-
I
/"
l
/
0 1/1:J
_t
I
/'"'
.,t;:;.
~
'
.,,~··
'
-1
~
-i:t.t.
·1 ·.
·I
i
l--~-C:OO~,--,---==
-
//.,)(to
(V
,/,.,11
• .-:.,
C
,-t•V
I
'
'
,,;J
,,..-,
,
"
v;
~
'
j
1·
;<'-
' I' 11
,I
,1.:;s,,,,q
"'
,
•
·
-
-v""
1 I I
I•
I
.
,
~
~
' 'I L\tA~J"\€1\,
~--·····-
;:;,,
,c;"'f;'
,;;:;2.,•,
f/
1 '
I
,
,,....:,.,
¥
'
!
l/1
\
\t
Ot
fJ
~
'-·
fy···.t1~
(i
~
7(>
r-z
T
·1.
01~~),-~
/'·
_.-·~....._
-···
~-
... ,._,.
____
j,
.•
-
---
... -.
,.,,,,.
:l:'.
( 0
\.,.,,---~---.~-·-----,~-~
\
/
'.._,/
• Z--:-.-:-.
· -~---
.. _"'"
.. ,,_.....
-,---~-1-7
a
Y-
HJ
..,..
.,,,_,,
"(
"il._,;,:,,\A,
,..,c
.,,
·---
-
J.i_
,.,...
r
,,,,r
.;;,
_,____
-·-
•·--~~:·::..T-..
~
./'
-
t:>
$
f...
f\..A,'
.. \I
•
\
l
!
;
'
._
i
1 \
-~'-11-1
$'•,-:_.J:.

J
'\
I
....
t
'
\'
(
\
I
. ,:-.._
,7
~
,:;,
;/>.

JJ
[:,.
. V:,
I
-
--·
_,.,
¥"'
•
,,..
../
.....
"· ct:
'
,..

I •
'
,
• y,,1
l\
.,._<~
L~~c,
,tos·
-
_'··
1 ...
,
11 IL.
-J
I✓-:.)-..
-
1 • 1,
c,,,,1 f:
1t.
f'.i
Ar
b1
tj/'.'
J·
f
'·~
{
i'
V
"
•
bi;
'
©-
/:4?
'J'
,!
·~
/;,l,-i
I?
i l
v-
;,
~...,
}"~
,t.,,
i
1 """
1'
'i L.,.<"""'
----...,,\.,,
,•
! I I
•
'
& B 6 &
SHEAR
PANEL
SCHEDULE:
t .:!"
PLY\\'00D,
STRl.:CTt:RAL
GRA[}[.

L
BI.OC:K
ALI..
l;l)GES
B'S
llldAT6"U.C..f~--tOd·.~
l:!'"O.C
.. SII.L
NAH.\Nli
1Mit-i··o.c
.. Sil.I
BUI.TS-.

S 8''
AT
4R"'

0.C.2X
~11.L.

A3-S'i7
16"0.C."ii.

TOPPLATE
1,2··
PLYWOOD.

S1R(:C.

Tt:RAL
URADF.
l.
liU>CK
ALL
EDGES
_R1,r"'IOdAT-l"O.C.

FN,=-!Od
'ft
12··0.c
.. SII.L=l6d
1?,
3",
SIU.

BOLTS=
5 8'"
AT
36"
O.C.
.?X
SIU.

Al',;D
STt.'DS
tg..

PLYWOOD

SPLICE,
A35
·ft:
l6''

0.C.
fl;
TOP
Pl.,\
TE.
112"
PLYWOOD.

STRCCTCRAL
GRADE

1. BLOCK
ALL
EDGES
B~··
lOd
ATJ"
O.C..

F.\
IOd
·Ii
12"
O.C..

SILL
ATTACH.\1EXT
3 8'"
OX6'"
LAG
1f
6"0C
.. SILL
BOLTS•-
5-8''
ATN"

0.C
.. 3X
SI!.L
A~D
STUDS
'ii

PLYWOOD
SPLICE.

A3,
~a
10"'
O.C.1!
TOP
PLATE.
l,2"
PLY\\'OOO.

STRl'CTURAL
GRADE
l. BLOCK
ALL
EDGES
BN-·tOdAT2"0.C..FS···lQd
ti'
i2''
O,C..

SILLATTACH\1E!'o.T3,8'
0 X6"
LAG
·4,4"•0.C
.. SILL

BOLTS,-
5 &"
AT
t6··
O.C..
3X
SILL
AXD
STL'DS
°it

PLYWOOD
SPLICE.
.US
&
8"

0.C.
lf
TOP
PLATE.
'
255
PLF
299
PLF
500
PLF
650
PLF
REV1810N8
f BY
I ~~~­.' ~ZS~
ci
1~0
.II'>~
: a,
E
2>~
...
j.!Q
,5
'.C
~
i
IS2,c?@'r--g u.:
gj
.s I !::
,t(
110
Ill
-
-
VNC...$8
' i [ I l
•
' ~~1•'
l
,,1,,
,
'
I
,
'51
"' t
_Ji
\
•
h\'
11·
-.,,
!
'
.
"
•
i
r~
·"···
i
\\\
I
.'.""(·
l
,,,.,,'\-.A,,~
_,.,.~;
.........
_
,-,_
I
-'2
(~
'
-:;;7
I
;~:;:·
I
__
.,._
~
~'
j
\\.
.

I
\'\
I
r·-1
"'
~
\
!
.. 1,
l
:
r...,/4'.
1 l•~~
t
·::::.,\o,_.;
,
'
~
N'
I 1,\~1
,.,.,,,
'
__ :::7
a
,'-\
I
(~'
;ti,.~! 2::,
• ·-•
I
,··,
,
--
,·
!
ill
'Y-1
. --,.-
i
,,,,,,··
7·
.......,
,.,,..-,~·~
t
,.,L..

I
""'
.• ,r
I
~''\
l
." .. ~· ;t
· .. ' .1
I
,.
'
I
' \
!
·~15
l
I f\.,,-1
I
:i::.l:.~l (\.

I,~
i
'&
"'i
,~~
I
~1~1 ---Ji
,.

I
Date
r /'/
1-;l
11oa1e
A[
f:-o/
~
.I
:t.-V
-
tl,"<'rt
r-
i
'
Job 8lleat a,
l
,, ., ' '
From: [email protected] <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2024 11:11 AM

To: Ken L
yon <[email protected]>

Subject: Fwd: Case AR-2024-0046 - paint colors
NOTICE: This message originated outside of The City of Palm Springs -- DO NOT CLICK on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe.

Ken,
The paint brand is Dunn Edwards.

Mai - #DE-6373 Porpoise
Doors- #DE-6376 Looking Glass
Accent- #DE-5229 Clay Terrace ((East Elevation wall)
Secondary Trim- #DE-6375 Castlerock (East Elevation Door Wall) Hope this helps to clarify,
Joseph
Item 3B - Page 90
Item 3B - Page 91
. ,.
• , + •
' .,
•.J_ . ,".' ').,-
Item 3B - Page 92

JUSTIFICATION LETTER
I am requesting an approval of a Minor Architectural Plan for a free standing structure to be used for private personal storage at the property location of 1100 S. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California 92264.

Joseph Pranevicius
(213) 590-2033
[email protected]

EXHIBIT - B -
Item 3B - Page 93
Item 3B - Page 94
City of Palm Springs
Department of Planning Services
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel: (760) 323-8245 • Fax: (760) 322-8360 • Web: www.palmspringsca.gov Date: July 30, 2024
To: Mr. Joseph Pranevicius, Owner
From: Ken Lyon, RA, Principal City Planner
Subject: Case AR-2024-0046 -Proposed new structure at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive (APN 508-292-001) (Related Building Permit application #BLDC-2024- 0728)
Dear Mr. Pranevicius,
The above-referenced application proposing a roughly 715-square foot commercial building to be located beneath an existing non-conforming shade canopy at 1100 South Palm Canyon Drive has been evaluated pursuant to the Criteria & Findings of Zoning Code Section 94.04.00 (Architectural Review).

The documents that comprise the project application are:
a. Sheet 1 dated 4-1-24 "Plot Plan".
b. Sheet 2 dated 3-29-24 "Floor Plan, Elevations, Sections". c. Sheet 3 dated 4-1-24 "Construction Plans & Details". d. Color Schedule.
e. Justification letter (Executive Summary).

Below are photos of the parcel and following these are the findings upon which the project has been evaluated by the Planning Services Department.

Item 3B - Page 95
City of Palm Springs -Department of Planning Services
Case AR-2024-0046; 1100 S Palm Canyon Drive
PSZC 94.04.00 (F): Criteria and Findings.