Divided Palm Springs Panel Approves In-N-Out Design With Conditions
Architectural Review Committee • Palm SpringsOctober 20, 2026
Locunity is an independent informational service and is not an official government page for this commission. All information is sourced from public footage and an analysis of official agendas with the aid of responsible, fact-checked AI. to report an error or omission.
Palm Springs' Architectural Review Committee approved an In-N-Out Burger next to historic Smoke Tree Ranch on Oct. 20, 2026, even though staff found most of the committee's own design directions only partly met or not met at all. The 3-2 vote to approve with conditions came after staff said the city had hit its statutory meeting limit, which ruled out another continuance. Earlier, the committee yielded to state housing law and moved a 16-unit project to consent without discussion. Together, the two votes show how little leverage the committee has left.
- In-N-Out approved with conditions, 3-2, after staff found 8 of 18 design directions fully met
- No more continuances: The statutory meeting limit left only deny, approve or approve with conditions
- Applicant agrees to the 50% parking lot shade minimum, adding trees and likely losing two stalls
- Public split: Three commenters opposed the design, while Smoke Tree Ranch's COO and one resident backed it
- State law sidelines design review for housing: A 16-unit project moved to consent, 3-2
A Corporate Prototype Meets Palm Springs
The basics: The project is a 3,886-square-foot restaurant with a drive-through at 1801 East Palm Canyon Drive (Case AR2025-0040). The Planning Commission approved the major development permit in 2025. The committee continued its design review in July.
Why it matters: The site sits next to historic Smoke Tree Ranch. The dispute tests whether a corporate prototype can meet Palm Springs' design expectations.
Where things stand: Staff said the revised plans fell short of the committee's July direction. "Eight of them are fully addressed and others are either partially addressed or not addressed on the revised plans," said Noriko, planning staff. She reported that shading got worse. "The proposed parking lot shading coverage has actually decreased from the previously proposed 51% to 45%, which does not meet the 50% minimum," she said. Planting islands measured 5 feet instead of the required 6 feet.
The applicant made clear the design was set at the corporate level. "This went through senior management for review. This is the ultimate design," said Peter Kolmatycki, applicant representative, In-N-Out Burger. Kolmatycki said 12 to 13 of the 18 items had been met.
Committee members were not persuaded. "I think there was an effort by the applicant to take a corporate idea, and that trumped the idea of Palm Springs, and I think that's backwards," said Committee Member Dillon. Committee Member Castro agreed the design falls short, saying "it deserves to have better architecture and design for Palm Springs," but remained open to approval with conditions.
The other side: Supporters framed the restaurant as an economic anchor. "There is no better credit tenant in the market today than In-N-Out," said Tracy Conrad, Chief Operating Officer, Smoke Tree Ranch, who argued it would revitalize the shopping center. Jack Hall, a public commenter, cited jobs, revenue and affordable dining. He described the area as run-down and urged the committee to work with the applicant.
Three public commenters opposed the design:
- David Murphy sits on the Planning Commission but said he spoke only as a private resident. He called the design out of place and said he hoped In-N-Out would find another location.
- Paul Valentino said the staff report overstated progress, putting the count at 5 of 18 items fully met. He pointed to other iconic In-N-Out buildings and urged denial, or failing that, a continuance.
- Chris Menard objected to mediocre architecture, traffic, smell and sustainability. He questioned whether the project would improve the center at all.
Out of Runway: Approval With Conditions
Where things stand: Staff said the city had exceeded its statutory limit on meetings for the application, so another continuance was not an option. "You can vote to deny, you can vote to approve as is, or you can vote to approve with conditions," said Ken, planning staff.
Ken also warned the committee not to count on staff to win design concessions after the vote. "I do not believe that staff will be able to, nor do I feel it's reasonable to put staff in a position of trying to extract or persuade or encourage this applicant," he said.
Vice Chair Walsh called the process protracted but signaled support. "I am inclined to approve with conditions," Walsh said. He favored conditions overseen by the planning director.
Chair O'Donnell made the motion. "It is a better choice to marginally approve this than to magically think something else is going to come," O'Donnell said.
Kolmatycki agreed to reach the 50% shading target. He said In-N-Out would add trees at three locations, likely losing two parking stalls. "That would be approval with conditions. We have to meet those conditions to move forward," he said. The committee then walked through all 18 items. Staff counted 3 partially done and 9 not done.
The other side: "Approving with conditions is the wrong approach here, in my opinion, because we've tried that," said Committee Member Elliott, who warned that conditions create a slippery slope. Dillon said the project fails three required findings: materials, color scheme and lighting. "I cannot approve a project that's deficient on 3 specific elements," Dillon said.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: The motion approved the project with the previously listed conditions that remain unmet. The Planning Department will address the landscape coverage deficiencies. The vote: For: 3 (Castro, Walsh, O'Donnell); Against: 2 (Dillon, Elliott).
In-N-Out gets its approval, but the compliance burden now shifts to the applicant and city staff. Staff have already said they cannot force design improvements. The committee will not see the project again. For Smoke Tree neighbors and opponents, the remaining leverage lies in the appeal process.
What's next: If the applicant rejects the conditions, it can appeal to the Planning Commission. The City Council could also call the matter up. Staff noted that anyone can appeal the decision. No appeal deadline date was announced.
State Law Takes Design Off the Table for Housing
The basics: SB 330 (2019) and SB 35 (2017) limit local review of residential projects to objective standards that can be uniformly verified. By contrast, the city's Section 94.04 architectural review criteria, such as harmony with the neighborhood and desert-appropriate colors, are largely subjective.
Why it matters: Design judgments can no longer be grounds for approving or denying housing in Palm Springs. Staff expect the pending zoning code update to move toward objective standards.
Where things stand: Before the committee accepted the agenda, Walsh proposed moving item 3A, a 16-unit housing project, to the consent calendar. Consent items are approved in one vote with no presentation or discussion. Staff read the staff report's explanation of the state laws. "We cannot evaluate these applications for housing using subjective criteria," Ken said.
Members asked what role the committee has left if materials, colors and landscaping are off-limits. Some also wanted to know whether the applicant would still welcome feedback. "The state has taken those kinds of criteria off the table for boards and commissions to consider when approving or denying an application," Ken said. Members also asked whether housing projects will still come to the committee once the zoning code is revised. Staff could not answer definitively but expected a shift toward objective criteria.
Decisions and stakeholder impacts: The motion passed. The vote: For: 3 (Castro, Walsh, O'Donnell); Against: 2 (Dillon, Elliott); Absent: 1 (Roseman, excused). Housing applicants get a faster path with fewer subjective hurdles. Residents and the committee lose a venue to shape the look of new housing.
What's next: The zoning code revision will determine how much of a role the committee keeps in housing review.
Minor Items
- Consent calendar: The committee took up prior minutes and item 3A, but no separate motion or vote was recorded.
- Committee vacancies: Staff said interviews for committee applicants are not yet scheduled but are becoming a higher priority. A fuller committee would help maintain quorum during absences, and staff mentioned a possible alternate.
Looking ahead: Watch for any appeal of the In-N-Out approval to the Planning Commission or a City Council call-up. Also watch the zoning code update, which will set how Palm Springs reviews housing design under state law.