Remote Surveillance Trailer in Palm Springs, CA

Videos by TravelAwaits

That’s thanks to the city’s effortlessly chic and timeless mid-century modern architecture. From its residential homes to its hotels to its Airbnbs, it’s a feast for the eyes.

But those who visit this desert spot year after year aren’t there just for the architecture or style.

They come for the spas.

Along with hubs like Miami and Scottsdale, Palm Springs is renowned for its spas and spa culture. In fact, the city’s name comes from its hot springs, which were believed to be medicinal by the local Cahuilla tribe.

When Palm Springs boomed as a resort town in the early and mid-1900s, much of its growth was thanks to the nearby hot springs. It became a hotspot for Americans with issues like tuberculosis, asthma, and arthritis.

Slowly, the city’s reputation as a wellness center transformed, and Palm Springs became one of the area’s top wintering zones, its spa culture hedged into the spotlight.

And it hasn’t left. Looking for the best spas in Palm Springs, CA? Start with these ten classic, celebrated locations.

Best spas in Palm Springs

Best spas in Palm Springs

Located on the actual grounds of the Agua Caliente Hot Mineral Spring, this wellness destination lets you soak up the sacred waters from the 12,000-year-old spring. The name ‘sec-he’ comes from the Cahuilla language, meaning ‘the sound of boiling water’.

In fact, this spa is owned and operated by the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. Along with soaking in the mineral-laden hot springs, you can enjoy award-winning treatments from a quartz bed massage or facials on a bioacoustics bed.

If you’re visiting Palm Springs with a love interest, the best spot for a couples massage is The Spa at the Andreas. This no-frills spa has all the treatments you could wish for, from foot treatments to facials. But it’s particularly known for its couples’ massages thanks to its intimate and relaxing atmosphere. As a bonus, it won’t break the bank, either.

Usually just called Estrella Spa, this full-service location has all the basics covered, from deep-tissue Swedish massages to outdoor day beds where you can spend the day horizontal. But there are a few specialties you should know about, including Estrella Spa’s lauded aromatherapy treatments and its hot stone massages.

If you’re a Bonvoy member, you don’t need to wander off the resort for a great spa experience. The Spa at Marriott’s Desert Springs resort is mostly renowned for its outdoor pool and gorgeous views, along with its range of services. Though they’re a little pricey, you’re paying for the added space and—again—that unbeatable and peaceful outdoor pool setup.

It’s pure opulence at this Ritz-Carlton location, from the surrounding mountain views to the desert-inspired décor. The on-site spa is just as impressive, offering all the treatments you could hope for, including contemporary favorites like plunge pools and meditation rooms. Plus, the Ritz-Carlton showcases the area’s indigenous heritage and traditional treatments, similar to Sec-he.

This day-use spa is one of the most accessible in Palm Springs. There are multiple outdoor pools, including a mineral pool and a jacuzzi. There’s an on-site Italian restaurant, as well, and a long list of basic spa treatments. Just know that the discounted prices are due to the facility’s slightly outdated setup. If that doesn’t bother you, then book a day pass now—the setup is simple, but hard to beat.

Forget the spa culture you thought you knew. Grounded Bodyworks is one of Palm Springs’ newest spas—and it’s quickly become one of its most popular. Thanks to its minimal and elegant décor, along with its long list of unique therapies, it feels almost like a wellness center. Along with massages and facials, you can book unique treatments that you won’t find elsewhere, like cupping, nails, waxing, and extraction services.

Sea Mountain Resort is a naturist-friendly, adults-only resort with pools, lounges, and a spa with basic treatments. That makes it perfect for spa enthusiasts who enjoy shedding their layers. But there’s a catch: Sea Mountain Resort is all about festivities. It hosts nightly entertainment, along with social activities for resort-goers. Think of it like a social butterfly’s favorite spa—especially fi that social butterfly likes to live au natural.

Weak magnitude 2.5 earthquake at 7 km depth

8 Oct 12:30 UTC: First to report: USGS after 2 minutes.8 Oct 12:33: Magnitude recalculated from 2.7 to 2.6. Hypocenter depth recalculated from 6.39 to 6.66 km (from 4 to 4.1 mi).8 Oct 15:07: Magnitude recalculated from 2.6 to 2.5. Hypocenter depth recalculated from 6.66 to 7.06 km (from 4.1 to 4.4 mi).

Earthquake details

Nearby places

The closest larger town where the quake might have been felt is Desert Hot Springs, a town with 28,000 inhabitants in the United States, in 10.5 km (7 mi) distance southwest of the epicenter. People likely experienced very weak shaking there. Several smaller towns and villages are located closer to the epicenter and might have experienced stronger shaking.The following table shows some of the places that might have been affected (or not) by the shaking.

User-reports for this quake (2)

So far, we have received 2 reports for this quake from the United States. The quake was reported to have been felt in up to approx. 10.5 km (7 mi) distance.

Most reports came from Garnet, a town with 7,500 inhabitants in California in 11.3 km (7 mi) distance southwest of the epicenter, United States, and Los Angeles (170 km or 105 mi to the west), a city of 3.9 million people. Further below is a list of places where most people reported this quake. This section is being updated as new data comes in.

The amount of shaking that occurs on the surface due to an earthquake is called the intensity. It is commonly measured on the so-called Modified Mercalli Intensity Scale (MMI) ranging from 1 (not felt) to 10 (extreme shaking), and given in Roman numerals as I,II,...IX, X, and often displayed with color codes ranging from light blue to dark red.Earthquake intensity depends mainly on the magnitude and depth of the quake as well as the distance from the epicenter: The further away, the less shaking intensity occurs.Read more about the MMI scale!

If you were near the epicenter and felt it, please share your experience and submit a short "I felt it" report! Other users would love to hear about it!If you did NOT feel the quake although you were in the area, please report it as well! Your contribution is valuable to earthquake science and seismic hazard analysis.

Compare Quake Data

The more agencies report about the same quake and post similar data, the more confidence you can have in the data. It takes normally up to a few hours until earthquake parameters are calculated with near-optimum precision.

Based on data from the past 55 years and our earthquake archive back to 1900, there are about 9,700 quakes on average per year in the area near the epicenter of this quake (within 100 km/61 mi):

The area where this quake occurred has a very high level of seismic activity. It has had at least 2 quakes above magnitude 7 since 1900, which suggests that larger earthquakes of this size occur infrequently, probably on average approximately every 60 to 65 years.

Previous quakes in the same area of this earthquake

The earthquake occurred 3 days after a magnitude 3.4 earthquake had hit on Sunday, Oct 5, 2025, at 03:41 am local time (America/Los Angeles GMT -7) in 54 km (34 mi) distance to the northwest: The largest quake near the epicenter of this quake during the 10 years before was an event of magnitude 7.1. It had occurred 6 years earlier, on Friday, Jul 5, 2019, at 08:19 pm local time (America/Los Angeles GMT -7) in California, United States: The strongest-ever (since 1900) recorded quake in this area measured magnitude 7.5. It had occurred 73 years ago earlier, on Monday, Jul 21, 1952, at 04:52 am local time (America/Los Angeles GMT -7) in California, United States: Below is a list and map of larger or recent quakes that had occurred near the epicenter before this earthquake (within up to 100 km/61 mi distance, up to 300 km/183 mi for very large quakes above mag. 7). Filter and sort the list by magnitude or time.

All

Magnitude All

Time before 48 hours 30 years

All

Magnitude All

Time before 30 years

Oldest quakes are shown in yellow, most recent in red.

[quakes -] [quakes +] [smaller] [bigger]

The denial means a Grit Development company must pay prevailing wages to construction workers on the project that transformed the former Desert Fashion Plaza site into a mixed-use development.

The California Supreme Court declined Wednesday to review a dispute over a $175 million Palm Springs redevelopment project, ending the developer’s challenge to state prevailing wage requirements and letting stand a lower court ruling against the company.

The denial means Palm Springs Promenade LLC must pay prevailing wages to construction workers on the project that transformed the former Desert Fashion Plaza site into a mixed-use development with residential units, restaurants, retail space and a luxury hotel. The developer now faces potential liability for back pay to workers.

The case centered on whether the project qualified as a “municipal affair” under California’s home rule doctrine, which allows charter cities to exempt themselves from certain state laws, including prevailing wage requirements, on local projects.

Palm Springs Promenade, created by Grit Development specifically for this project, contributed $143 million in private funds while the city provided about $51.36 million. The city’s contribution included funds to acquire public assets, street construction, parking improvements and change orders.

Michael Braun, president of Grit Development, could not be reached for comment Thursday regarding what may the next move might be for his company or the project.

In court documents, the developer argued the city maintained control over public funds through the Project Financing Agreement, making the project exempt from state wage laws. But the Fourth District Court of Appeal disagreed in June, finding that Palm Springs Promenade “retained substantial control over how its construction monies were spent” because an independent fund control agent, not the city, reviewed billing documents and disbursement requests.

The legal dispute began in 2017 when the Center for Contract Compliance requested the Department of Industrial Relations determine whether the project was subject to prevailing wage requirements. The department ruled in August 2018 that such wages were required, leading to court challenges that both Palm Springs Promenade and the city supported.

The League of California Cities had filed a letter supporting the developer’s petition for review, arguing the appellate decision threatened charter cities’ constitutional authority over public spending in public-private partnerships.

The decision establishes that private developers cannot claim charter city exemptions from state wage laws when they control most construction aspects, even with substantial city funding. The ruling could affect how cities structure future public-private partnerships in redevelopment projects.

California Supreme Court justices could decide whether a private developer or the city of Palm Springs controlled public construction funds in a $175 million redevelopment project that transformed Downtown Palm Springs.

The dispute centers on Palm Springs Promenade, LLC’s (PSP) challenge to a state determination that it must pay prevailing wages to construction workers on the mixed-use development. At the heart of the legal battle is a fundamental question about who controlled the public money that flowed into the project.

The development transformed the former Desert Fashion Plaza site from a largely vacant 13-acre downtown property into what court documents describe as a pedestrian-friendly urban village with restaurants, retail space, a luxury hotel, and planned residential units. The project also included public improvements such as parking structures, new roads and open spaces that the city owns and operates.

The corporate structure behind the development involves Grit Development, which purchased the property in 2001 when the company was known as Wessman Development Company. Grit Development later created Palm Springs Promenade LLC specifically to enter into the development agreement with the city. Michael Braun, current president of Grit Development, had said the company would appeal to the Supreme Court.

The financial arrangement that sparked the legal fight involved Palm Springs Promenade contributing $143 million in private funds while the city provided about $51.36 million toward the project. The city’s contribution included $32 million to acquire public assets, $11 million for street construction and parking improvements, $5.3 million for an additional property block, and $3.06 million for change orders.

However, the two sides offer sharply different interpretations of who actually controlled these public funds. The Fourth District Court of Appeal ruled in June that Palm Springs Promenade “retained substantial control over how its construction monies were spent,” noting that an independent fund control agent, not the city, reviewed billing documents and disbursement requests for both private and public improvements.

But Palm Springs Promenade sharply disputes this characterization in court papers filed Aug. 21. The company points to the Department of Industrial Relations’ own administrative findings, which determined that the city retained control through the Project Financing Agreement that granted the city legal authority to require project completion and established separate escrow accounts for public and private construction funds.

“The Court of Appeal concluded that PSP, not the City, retained control over how its construction monies were spent,” attorneys for Palm Springs Promenade wrote in their reply brief. The company argues this statement has been misinterpreted to suggest it controlled the city’s money rather than just its own private funds.

State attorneys pushed back against this interpretation in their Aug. 12 response, defending the appellate court’s analysis.

“The Court of Appeal’s statement was simply an expression of the court’s disagreement with PSP’s characterization that the City controlled all construction monies,” Department of Industrial Relations attorneys wrote, emphasizing that the private developer’s significant funding meant the city could not have controlled all project money.

The high-stakes legal battle has drawn statewide attention from municipal leaders who see broader implications for how cities can partner with private developers. The League of California Cities filed a letter Aug. 19 supporting Palm Springs Promenade’s petition for review, arguing the appellate court’s decision threatens charter cities’ constitutional authority over public spending.

“The Opinion raises constitutional questions of broad application as to the primacy of a charter city’s paramount municipal concern in exercising fiscal autonomy when contributing funds toward any private-public partnership,” the league’s attorneys wrote. The organization represents 473 California cities.

This concern stems from California’s home rule doctrine, which allows charter cities to exempt themselves from certain state laws, including prevailing wage requirements, on projects deemed “municipal affairs.” The doctrine gives charter cities authority to govern local matters without state interference, but determining what qualifies as a municipal affair has proven contentious in cases involving public-private partnerships.

The legal dispute began in 2017 when the Center for Contract Compliance, a nonprofit labor management committee, requested the Department of Industrial Relations to determine whether the project was subject to the city’s prevailing wage exemption ordinance. The department ruled in August 2018 that the project constituted public work subject to prevailing wage requirements, a finding it affirmed in 2020 after Palm Springs Promenade appealed administratively.

Palm Springs Promenade then filed a writ of mandate petition in July 2022 challenging the determination. The city filed a position statement supporting the petition, but Riverside County Superior Court denied the writ, leading to the appeal that culminated in the June ruling against the developer.

The California State Supreme Court’s eventual decision, if it is rendered, will have significant implications beyond this single project. Municipal leaders argue the case could affect how cities across California structure public-private partnerships, particularly in urban redevelopment efforts where cities often need private investment to make projects financially viable.

The developer maintains that precedent supports its position, citing a 2012 California Supreme Court case that upheld a charter city’s right to exempt municipal projects from prevailing wage laws. The Department of Industrial Relations counters that this case involves fundamentally different circumstances because a private company, not the city, controlled most aspects of construction and project management.

The Court has not announced when it will decide whether to hear the case.

Related Articles

The developer of a major Downtown Palm Springs redevelopment project plans to appeal to the California Supreme Court after a state appeals court ruled that workers on the $194 million project should have been paid prevailing wages despite the city’s local ordinance exempting municipal projects.

The Court of Appeal affirmed a decision by the Department of Industrial Relations (DIR) that Palm Springs Promenade LLC was required to pay prevailing wages to construction workers who transformed the site of a formerly vacant downtown mall into a mixed-use development. The court filed its decision June 13.

Michael Braun, current president of Grit Development — which formed Palm Springs Promenade when it was known as Wessman Development — said Wednesday that the company plans to appeal the decision to the California Supreme Court, citing a 2012 precedent that favored charter cities.

“When the (project funding agreement) was signed in 2011, the city of Palm Springs had a municipal code exempting public works from payment of prevailing wages,” Braun said via email. “Years later, in 2018, the DIR issued a ruling that prevailing wages were required. Grit challenged this decision, and the city filed a brief supporting Grit’s arguments, yet the courts upheld the DIR’s coverage determination.

Braun said the company is appealing “just as in City of Vista (2012), where the California Supreme Court held that a Charter City’s municipal code exempting the payment of prevailing wages was squarely within a charter city’s constitutional power.”

Palm Springs Promenade was specifically created by Wessman Development Company for the purpose of entering into the development agreement with the city. In 2001, Wessman Development Company purchased the parcel on which the Desert Fashion Plaza stood until 2013.

The development transformed a 13-acre largely vacant downtown property into what is now a multi-block, pedestrian-friendly “urban village” with residential, restaurant space and a luxury hotel on land formerly occupied by Desert Fashion Plaza. Plans for residential development on one portion of the property have lagged as the court case played out.

Court documents state Palm Springs Promenade contributed $143 million in private funds and obtained an additional $68 million through personally guaranteed construction loans, while the city contributed about $51.36 million toward the project.

The city’s contribution included $32 million to acquire public assets and fund project incentives, $11 million for street construction and parking facility improvements, $5.3 million for an additional property block, and $3.06 million for change orders.

The case centered on whether the project qualified as a “municipal affair” under California’s home rule provision, which allows charter cities to exempt themselves from state prevailing wage requirements on certain local projects. Palm Springs had passed an ordinance in 2002 allowing such exemptions.

Palm Springs Promenade executed construction contracts through separately created limited liability companies and selected its own contractors for the private improvements. The city neither selected contractors nor entered into construction contracts directly.

The appeals court concluded the project was not a municipal affair because Palm Springs Promenade retained substantial control over construction and primarily benefited from the development. The court found this was essentially a private commercial development that received public funding, not a city-operated facility.

“We hold that where the charter city contributes money to a private development project, that undertaking does not necessarily transform the project into a municipal affair,” the court wrote.

The ruling means Grit cannot “step into the shoes” of the city to claim charter city exemptions for its private contracts, the court stated. The developer now faces potential liability for back pay to workers who should have received prevailing wages.

The Center for Contract Compliance, a nonprofit labor management committee, requested the wage determination in 2017 as construction of the project’s first phase continued. The Department of Industrial Relations determined in August 2018 that the project constituted public work subject to prevailing wage requirements, a finding it affirmed in 2020 after an administrative appeal.

Palm Springs Promenade filed a writ of mandate petition in July 2022 challenging the determination. The city filed a position statement supporting the petition, but the trial court denied the writ, leading to the appeal that resulted in the June ruling.

The United Union of Roofers, Waterproofers, and Allied Workers, Local 81 filed an amicus brief supporting the Department of Industrial Relations position. The court ordered the department to recover its costs on appeal.