Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/17/2001 - STAFF REPORTS (19) Date: October 17, 2001 To: City Council From: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD(PD 254)APPLICATION BY BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. FORA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 52 UNIT GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAYAND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider filing a mitigated negative declaration and approval of Case No.5.0804- PD for a Planned Development District (No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29077)for a 52-unit gated community located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of Museum Drive (APNs 513-121-35 and 513-141-12), subject to the conditions outlined in the Resolution. The applicant is Bergheer, California, Inc. and its officers are Carl Bergheer, President and James White, Director of Sales and Marketing. BACKGROUND: At its September 24, 2001 meeting the Planning Commission voted 3-2, with 2 abstentions, to recommend approval of the proposed project bythe City Council. Atthat meeting,community concerns were focused on the proposed treatment of the project's northern boundary, which abuts the R-1-A zoned hillside, single family residential development and proposed minimum distance between buildings. Section 94.03.00 of the Municipal Code states that the intent of Planned Development District (PD) is to insure compliance with the general plan and good zoning practices while allowing certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of specific zoning classifications. The R-3 zone requires that two story units be located 200' from R-1 zoned properties. The zone also requires a minimum distance between buildings of 15 feet. The applicant seeks relief from these standards. As proposed, the minimum setback from a two story residence to R-1 zoned property would be 53'for the first and fourth units. A portion of these units would have a 58' setback to the roof line of the one story portion, with a 72' setback to the top of the roof. The second and third units would feature a 60' setback to the single story roof line,with an 76'setback to the top of the roof.The fifth unitwould feature a 58' setback to the two -story building elevation. The applicant has also reduced maximum building height from 26'to 24', in response to neighbors concerns. The applicant is also proposing a minimum distance between buildings of 8', with some chimney locations resulting in a building separation of 6'. 13A In granting relief from the strict provisions of the zoning ordinance,the Planning Commission found that the proposed project was consistent with existing development patterns in the vicinity, particularly the two and three story hillside residences located directly to the north of the project site across Tahquitz Canyon Way and also with the multi-story, multi-family residential uses located directly to the south and east of the project site. A detailed overview of the project,zoning, land use and environmental issues is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report and Environmental Assessment. DOUGLAOR. EVANS Director of Planning and Building City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission September 12 and 26, 2001 staff reports and Environmental Assessment 2. Planning Commission minutes of September 12 and 26, 2001 3. Correspondence 4. Resolution 5. Conditions of Approval /3r� y Date: September 26, 2001 To: Planning Commission From: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD(PD 254)APPLICATION BY BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. FORA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 52 UNIT GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of 5.0804-PD for a Planned Development District (No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29077) for a 52-unit gated community located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of Museum Drive (APNs 513-121-35 and 513-141-12), subject to the conditions outlined in the Resolution. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the September 12, 2001 meeting of the Planning Commission. At that meeting,much of the discussion focused on the proposed treatment of the project's northern boundary, which abuts the R-1-A zoned hillside, single family residential development.Adjacent property owners expressed serious concern about the location of two story residences located adjacent to the R-1-A zoned properties. The applicant had proposed locating seven two-story residences along the northern project boundary. The units were proposed to be setback I T to 22'from the property line. Section 94.03.00 of the Municipal Code states that the intent of Planned Development District(PD)are to insure compliance with the general plan and good zoning practices while allowing certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of specific zoning classifications. The R-3 zone requires that two story units be located 200' from R-1 zoned properties. The applicant seeks relief from this standard. On September 17,2001,the applicant submitted a revised site plan, in which the primary retention area has been relocated to provide an enhanced buffer between the proposed project and adjacent residences to the north.The applicant has reduced the number of units bordering the northern property line from seven to five. The pool area has been relocated to a site directly to the west of the entry. The northern most residences would be located to the south of the primary retention area. The minimum setback from a two story residence to R-1 zoned property would be 58'for the first and fourth units. A portion of these units would have a 64' setback to the roof line of the one story portion, with a 78' setback to the top of the roof. The second and third units would feature a 65'setback to the single story roof line, with an 85'setback to the top of the roof. The fifth unit would feature a 64'setback to the two -story building elevation. The applicant has also reduced maximum building height from 26'to 24'. � �yk3 Since the previous staff report was prepared additional correspondence has been received regarding this case. A letter was received from the Tribe. The letter recommends the imposition of additional conditions related to the historic resources. Staff has reviewed these concerns and has revised the conditions to incorporate the tribes recommendations.A revised set of condiions of approval is attached for your review. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised site plan 2. September 12, 2001 Staff Report 3. Revised Conditions of Approval (see City Council report) 4. Correspondence SON J1 om m%IL bill oil 'AM111111111 m 'Ilk ;iiiiiiiiiiiiiiilm Date: September 12, 2001 To: Planning Commission From: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD (PD 254) APPLICATION BY BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD)AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 52 UNIT GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. RECOMMENDATION: Thatthe Planning Commission recommend approval of 5.0804-PDfora Planned Development District (No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29077)for a 52-unit single family residential gated community located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of Museum Drive (APNs 513-121-35 and 513-141-12), subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND: Bergheer California, Inc. has submitted an application for a Planned Development District to allow a 52-unit gated condominium development. A Tentative Tract Map application has also been submitted to subdivide the 6.8 acre (gross), 6.54 acre(net) parcel into 52 lots, ranging in size from 2,267 square feet to 4,670 square feet.The map also includes ten lettered lots which will be used for common area improvements and amenities such as guest parking,a swimming pool, spa area with accompanying restrooms, pool building, project roadways, sidewalks and an on-site retention area. The project site is currently vacant.The site is generally level(1-2%slope)and contains sparse vegetation primarily consisting of scattered shrubs, palms and other trees.An existing earthen swale bordering the Tahquitz Ditch crosses the northwest corner of the property. The 52 proposed condominium units are proposed to be 2 bedroom units ranging in size from 1,615 square feet to 2,100 square feet in detached two-story structures. Three models are proposed which all feature variations of a great room and kitchen on the first floor and bedroom areas located on the second floor. Proposed on-site recreational facilities for the project consist of a single pool, spa, and accompanying restrooms/pool building. This Planned Development District application proposes to provide specific development standards for the project as well as a preliminary development plan as provided for by Zoning Code Section 9403.00. Approval by the Planning Commission and City Council of the preliminary development will constitute approval of the Preliminary Planned Development District, and the preliminary development plan shall, by reference, be incorporated into and become a part of the Planned Development District. If a Preliminary Planned Development is granted, at a later date, the applicant will submit final development plans for review and approval bythe Planning Commission.Planning Commission will review the final plan for substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan. With this application, approval of the development plan as both a preliminary and final plan is 1344 requested. A Final Development Plan may be processed concurrent with the Preliminary Development Plan. However, the application is not complete for consideration of a Final Planned Development District. Additional exhibits including complete building plans with floor and roof plans, site plan,final grading plan, landscape plans, irrigation plans and lighting plans with all specifications are required prior to scheduling as a Final Planned Development. ADJACENT USES, ZONING AND LAND USE: Uses Zone General Plan North Single family R-1-A CBD residences (Single Family Residential, L-2 (Residential Low) (2 and 3 stories), with hillside conditions Desert Museum applicable), (3 story), C-B-D Desert Fashion (Central Business District) Plaza (3 story) East Restaurant, Hotels, R-3 (Multiple Family H43/30 Apartments Residential and Hotel) (High Density Residential) South Hotels, Apartments R-2 (Limited Multiple H43/30 Family Residential) (High Density R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) Residential and Hotel) West Vacant, Single family R-2 (Limited Multiple L-2 (Residential Low) residences Family Residential) M-15 (Residential Medium) ANALYSIS: The proposed project consists of the approval of a Planned Development District (PD) with specific project development standards, and tentative map for a proposed 52 unit detached condominium project. Based upon existing zoning, of which 80% of the 6.54 acre site (5.232 acres) is zoned R-3 and the remaining 20% of the site (1.308 acres), is zoned R-2, approximately 132 multi-family or rental housing units could be allowable on the subject property, subject to the ability of the applicant to comply with the development standards established for the zone. If the applicant wanted to develop the site as a resort hotel,as permitted underthe General Plan and in the R-3 zone, the maximum number of rooms could be calculated using one of two formulas contained in Section 92.04.03.C.1 ofthe Zoning Ordinance.In the R-3 zone,maximum density for hotels utilizing above ground parking is calculated at a ratio 1,000 square feet of net lot area for each dwelling unit of a hotel or resort hotel. Therefore,with above ground parking, a maximum of 227 hotels units on the R-3 portion of the site, in addition to 19 hotel units on the R-2 portion of the site, for a combined total of 246 total dwelling units could be allowable. II � r4� The density of hotels with underground parking is calculated at a rate of one hotel unit per every 800 square feet of net lot area. Were the property to be developed with underground parking, a maximum of 284 hotel units on the R-3 portion of the site, in addition to the 19 hotel units on the R-2 portion of the site, for a combined total of 303 dwelling units could be allowable. The project site is located within both the R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential) and R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel)zones. The development standards required in these zones, and the standards proposed within the development plan presented, are as follows: R-2 R-3 Proposed Density 1 unit/3,000 sq.ft. 1 unit/2,000 sq.ft. 1 unit/5,480 sq.ft. (Max. 19 units) (Max 113 units) (52 units proposed) Height 15' -24' maximum 15' -24' maximum 26' maximum Setbacks 15' height limit 15' height limit Win 26' height Win 35' to SFR Win 150' of adjacent 200' of adjacent of property line of R-1 property R-1 property adjacent R-1 property Yards based on above front yard of not front yard minimum of height limitation less than 25' 17' 26' side yard minimum of (side yard of 10' or not 15' less than building height) 26' rear yard minimum of (rear yard of 10' or not 20' less than building height) Separation 15' 15' 8' Walls Required where Required where Perimeter walls an R-2 property an R-3 property proposed at all abuts R-1 property abuts R-1 property property lines Parking 1-1/2 spaces per Same as R-2 2 spaces per unit unit, one of which in a garage (110) and must be covered (78); 10 guest spaces, for a 1 guest space per total of 120 spaces 4 units (13), for a total of 91 spaces Coverage Maximum 30% No standard 25% Landscaping Minimum of 55% Minimum of 45% 49% and of the site developed of the site to be open space as landscaping/ landscaped outdoor recreation The project is well within the density requirements of both the R-2 and R-3 zones. However, variations to certain development standards have been proposed.These include deviations with respect to building height, building setbacks, building separation, and guest parking as noted above. BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS The project elevations and cross sections indicate that the proposed project includes a maximum building height of 26', which is two (2) feet above that allowed in the R-2 and R-3 zone. The proposed project includes two story residential units within 150' of R-1 zoned property. Where the R-2 zone abuts an R-1 zone, all structures within 150' of the R-1 are allowed to have a maximum height of 15'. However, the R-2 zoned portions of the site do not abut R-1 zoned properties.Where the R-3 zone abuts and R-1 zone, all structures within 200' feet of the R-1 zoned properties are required to have a maximum height of 15' and not exceed one story. The setback line may vary by up to fifty feet (50'), however, if the average setback is 200' and the Planning Commission determines that no detrimental effect will occur. The proposed project includes a building height of 26'feet, which exceeds that allowed by the R-2 and R-3 zones by two(2)feet. This is consistent with development in the area, particularly the existing two- and three-story residences to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way and multi- story multi family residential development located directly to the south of the property. The adjacent development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way includes single family residences, a historic resort property, the Desert Museum and the Desert Fashion Plaza. The existing R-1 zoned, multi-story homes to the north of the site feature ground level parking and garage areas, ground level residential uses with no view corridors, elevated second floors with limited views and third floor residences with views to the south of Tahquitz Canyon. Additional hillside residences exist further to the north,which are directly west of the Desert Museum and are only accessible from Palisades Drive. The Zoning Ordinance standards for augmented R-2 and R-3 setbacks in the case of multi-story buildings adjacent to R-1 Zoned properties, was designed to protect the privacy and view corridors of R-1 properties, which have historically been single story residential units. In this case the proposed project is adjacent to two and three story hillside residences, may of which exceed the height of the proposed project. Because the R-1 zoned properties in this case are not single story residences, a reduction of the required 150' and 200' setbacks has been proposed. Therefore,the applicants request for a maximum building height of26'as part of this Planned Unit Development appear reasonable.Staff finds that after review of the site plan, site cross-sections, visual simulations, and field conditions that there is merit to the applicants request. The proposed project includes reduced front yard setbacks of a minimum IT,whereas the R-2 and R-3 zones require a minimum front yard setback of 25'.The proposed project provides for side yard and rear yard setbacks which exceed the R-3 zone requirements. The proposed project also features minimum building separation of 8',whereas the R-2 and R-3 zones require a minimum building separation of 15'. Given the proposed site design characteristics,whereby the project is designed around motor courts with rear yards facing towards the exterior of the project, the proposed front setbacks will not cause structures to be located closer to adjacent development than normally allowed by the underlying zones. The same is true of building separation,given the proposed site design characteristics,whereby the project is designed with 13r49 an internal orientation, the proposed building separation will not cause on-site structures to be located closer to off-site structures than normally allowed by the underlying zones. The proposed project exceeds the overall parking requirements for the residences. Two (2) parking spaces are provided in a garage for each residential unit, equal to the number of bedrooms in each unit, while the underlying zones only require 1.5 spaces per unit, one of which must be covered. The project provides a total of 10 guest parking spaces, while Zoning code provisions require 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit, for a total of 13 guest spaces. Thus, as designed the project exceeds code requirements for parking, 104 garage spaces and 10 guest spaces are provided, for a total of 114 parking spaces. A multi family project with the same number of units would required a total of 91 spaces. Thus, the project exceeds parking code requirements by 19 spaces, and exceeds requirements for covered parking spaces. LOT COVERAGE AND LANDSCAPING The allowable lot coverage in the R-2 zone is 30%. The R-3 zone does not contain standards for maximum lot coverage. The proposal is for 25% lot coverage. Approximately 20% of the project site is zoned R-2. The remaining 80% of the site is designated as R-3. As an in-fill project,the proposed project's lot coverage is consistent with existing development in the area, much of which was constructed prior to the time when zoning code requirements for open space came into existence. The proposed amenities, including the location of open space in a large detention basin, and the swimming pool, spa and pool area buildings provide for both active and passive recreation amenities. The project includes 49% landscaped area, while the R-3 zone requires a minimum of 45% landscaped areas and the R-2 zone requires a minimum of 50% landscaped area. The proposed landscaping is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with existing development in the area. The proposed landscape design includes a dense shade tree canopy, accent plants,shrubs,vines and groundcover in a lush,yet water efficient design. Proposed landscape materials are larger in size, with a minimum of one (1) gallon sized plants, to minimize the number of growing seasons required to achieve full plant maturity. Staff recommends that the detention basins and archeological site be landscaped, to the extent possible. In accordance with Section 9403.00(C)of the Zoning Code,the Planning Commission and the City Council are authorized to establish a full range of development standards appropriate to the orderly development of a site for which a PD is approved. Therefore, the Planning Commission and City Council may determine that the benefits of the proposed development plan warrant the granting of the development standards proposed. With respect to site design, the 52-unit project design features the grouping of residential structures around central driveway courtyards. This design minimizes vehicular driveway areas and accompanying garage views and is therefore a positive design element. From the project entry at Tahquitz Canyon Way, a 26'wide loop road provides vehicular circulation through the site. A single common pool and spa facility has been located at the westerly end of the project site, and retention basins at the northwest corner of the site and along the easterly property line add to the landscaping and open space provided within the project. Lot sizes are likely to preclude the construction of individual pools. � 3�/0 CIRCULATION The project will take access from Tahquitz Canyon Way at its westerly terminus. In accordance with General Plan Policy 3.4.7, West Tahquitz Canyon Way,and with the objectives of retaining the low density residential character of the area, preventing the intrusion of through-traffic, and providing localized parking, the proposed project includes a number of off-site improvements on West Tahquitz Way. These improvements include traffic calming, textured paving, bay parking, a landscape median on Tahquitz Way and entry monuments west of Museum Drive. A Traffic Impact Study for the Tahquitz Villas Project in the City of Palm Springs was prepared for the project by Albert Grover&Associates(July 5, 2001).The traffic study indicates that the future development of this subdivision will create approximately 568 daily 2-way trips. The report further notes that the project is expected to generate approximately 57 trip ends (31 inbound and 26 outbound) during the Saturday afternoon peak hour . The most critical combination of project traffic and adjacent street traffic within the study area will occur between 1 pm and 2 pm on Saturday afternoons. During this worst case time period,the signalized intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way at Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way at Indian Canyon Drive currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) "B", with no individual turning movements worse than LOS "C." Currently, the unsignalized intersections of Tahquitz Canyon Waywith Museum Drive,Cahuilla Road,Belardo Road and the driveway entrance to the Desert Fashion Plaza all operate with no individual turning movements worse that LOS "C" during this peak hour. Although analysis demonstrated Saturday afternoon traffic conditions to be the worst-case condition for this study, the unique traffic patterns generated by the City's weekly Thursday evening"Village Fest"event were of particular concern with regard to quantifying the potential traffic impact of the proposed development. Data collection, analysis and field observation of Village Fest conditions indicate that, for all scenarios, Thursday evening traffic with post development traffic will operate acceptably at all intersections, and at a LOS superiorto mid day Saturday for the critical intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road. With the addition of project traffic during "Opening Year', all Levels-of-Service at each study intersection will remain unchanged from existing conditions. Therefore, no improvements are necessary to maintain acceptable Year2002 traffic operations eitherwithout orwith the project. By 2010,based on"Build Out"traffic projections,all study intersections except Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, although typically one "Level of Service" lower than for Year 2002 traffic. No roadway traffic control improvements are recommended to accommodate"Build Out"2010 traffic or as a consequence of the proposed development. The intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road is likely to operate unacceptably, although not beyond capacity by 2010 as a consequence of increased background traffic due to the revitalization of the Desert Fashion Plaza. No improvement is recommended at this time or is planned for 2010 as a result of traffic from the proposed project. The intersection should be observed and remedial measures considered if they become necessary,which is anticipated to occur as Desert Fashion Plaza revitalization occurs. 103 4/1 The traffic report also found that Tahquitz Canyon Way acceptably serves existing traffic through the study area and will continue to do so though 2010 with recommended mitigation measures. WEST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY/TAHQUITZ DRIVE TRANSITION General Plan Policy 3.4.7 , West Tahquitz Canyon Way (attached), requires resolution of the current traffic and driveway conflicts. The applicant has proposed a number of improvements to Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of the intersection with Museum Drive, in order to meet this objective.The improvements include narrowing of the street right of way,a landscaped median, stone identification monuments,on-street bay parking on the south side of the street and project entryway improvements. The objective of these improvements is to slow traffic west of the intersection, provide traffic calming in the immediate vicinity of the project area,provide for large vehicle back-up for deliveries to the Desert Museum, provide additional parking in the area and create an upgraded terminus for Tahquitz Canyon Way. The improvements are also intended to reduce the number of misdirected vehicles in the area,since the area west of the intersection is not a through street. Recent projects in the immediate vicinity, including Case 5.0699, PD- 239, The Willows Bed and Breakfast Inn, have similarly been conditioned to participate in improvements at the terminus of West Tahquitz Canyon Way(attached). The preliminary plan will need to be refined to provide adequate improvements and provide adequate sight distances as part of the Final Planned Development plans. The gated project entry will feature a 16'wide guest lane with a phone and address board for guests to call their hosts and announce their arrival. An 8' landscaped median will provide a buffer between the guest driveway,which will also allow for mis-directed vehicles to turn around and the 20'wide primary entry driveway, which was designed in accordance to specifications of the Fire Department.A second teardrop shaped, 16'wide landscaped median separates the primary entry lane and the 18'wide exit lane.The median was redesigned as a tear drop shape to facilitate fire truck turning and entry movements into the proposed project. PROJECT DESIGN Since the application was been received, the applicant has worked with staff to incorporate a number of revisions into the project. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed architectural design of the project, as depicted in the project elevations and cross sections, is consistent with the high standards established within the City of Palm Springs. The proposed project is consistent with existing development in the project area. The project will minimally affect views from lower level residences of the adjacent single family residential and multi family residential properties. Project landscaping will reduce the visual impact of the project. Therefore, there should be no impacts to aesthetics as a result of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: An initial study/environmental assessment dated August 23,2001 was prepared by staff for the Planned Development and Tentative Tract Map. In the Initial Study, staff found that the proposed project had the potential to have a significant environmental impact in certain areas, such as traffic, archaeology, and air quality with respect to future short-term construction activity, if mitigation measures are not incorporated into the project design. In the attached Initial :54iz Study/Environmental Assessment, the above issues were analyzed in greater detail. In conclusion, with the proposed mitigation measures, staff feels that any environmental issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The proposed mitigation measures are included in the conditions of approval. If the Planning Commission concurs with the determination of the Initial Study and the appropriateness of the mitigation measures,then a recommendation of issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council would be in order. NOTIFICATION/ COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT All property owners within a 400-foot radius of the parcel considered for subdivision were notified. A legal notice was published in the Desert Sun. A series of neighborhood community meetings were held regarding the project on September 4, 1998, February 4, 1999 and March 20,2001. The City has received written correspondence from area residents,which is attached for your review. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Vicinity Map 2. Tentative Map 3. Site Plan 4. Revised Entry Plans 5. Entry Photo Simulation 6. View Corridor Photo Simulation 7. Initial Study a. Elevations b. Photos 8. Correspondence 9. General Plan Policy 3.4.7, W. Tahquitz Canyon Way 10. Conditions, Case 5.0699, PD-239, The Willows 11. Resolution— K o + ikclvd<d 12. Conditions of Approval — no{ iNcIude4 VIGIN7 MAP N. T.S. 0 a �o m& i ins 5E SITE c zz ES a 0 a ° w s o BARISTO ROAD 3 S c U m a i CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO, Case No. 6.0804, (PDNo.254) U CRIPTION Tentative Tract Map 2 A Planned Development District(PD No.254)and Tentative Tract ,APPLICANT g077 Map 29077,for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 52 parcels for single family residences Mhin a gated 4ommunity, located to Bergheer Caiifomia, inC. the south west of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15 3 At J P sPR PA(15AOE5 R56 4f/40 — — � ' F1 D —_ � F r AT TAH il., 01.i � Z& 4 tD 7x-/ MCT NO.Z664 �CT NO.3631 �H. 6OV75 U.S. 57143 WT ALBERT TAHOUITZ VILLAS & PROPOSED SITE PLAN FIGURE 2a PARCEL NO. 20326 e� h f o TAHOUIR CANYON WAY HE wdoN 17 0 VAW URI MAP OF PALM INGS M.H 91432 RECORDS OF SAN DIEGO OU( 1 \ ALBERT Tahquitz Villas GROVER & Proposed Site Access and Figure 2b AssociaTEs west Tahquitz Canyon Way Improvements b DWS Z STONE n u MONUMENT ` } ES 39" S.D. EX. 8" SEWER _ _ �1•,__ V( EX. 6' WATER STAB 5a ThG ' I AY CI E C Il U E I 1^ D 16, AUG -Al 1 2001 o :q ff 42. RAD. I I w \ \\ ANNIN DI V IS10f- II I >r 63' W I Ij s ) f.91 sglff y3 scgFff so e' �4' 10 . ` 57.7 P.E. I I LE VALLACR ASPH Q Tr e W"OWS raxxm cavr SEVER MH / / L / !s� VSM / cone / LOW p 3 4 5 / LA�CAPE V/ j G D aOVEWvewar 4 O D 4 O E AUG 2 00 V E c E 0 a D 1 PLANNi !G ISl0N SEWER MH / / VISION CONE / / LOW / LANDSCAPE I 2 / s / r G / EXISTING D DRIVEWAY µ a ECEjWE AUG 001 D a a PLANNING DIVI Q S 29-0% un TIN Vol 01 viol p'Yq asA�i I Sr. I t � ♦1 f ,S. ' {3s S S rYr V 5 '✓ fit i .�.�' i 4, . . Vj v l / 4 .•'.`\Q ... r . .;, y ply •n rf'i''f� �r`� • r n r / I`'l'� 5' CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING INITIAL STUDY Application No(s:): Case No. 5.0804, Planned Development District No. 254 and Tentative Tract Map 29077 Date of Completed Application: 8/15/01 Name of Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc. Project Description: Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map for a 52 unit gated residential development. Location of project: ANS. 513-121-35 and 513-141-12; Tahquitz Canyon Way, south west of the corner of Museum Drive, west of Cahuilla Road. General Plan Designation(s): H43/21 (High Density Residential) Proposed General Plan Designation(s): No change proposed Present Land Use(s): Vacant Existing Zoning(s): R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential) and R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel) Proposed Zoning(s): No change proposed I. Is the proposed action a "project' as defined by CEQA? (See section 2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in the same area,cumulative impactshould beconsidered). ®Yes ❑No II. If "yes" above, does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? ❑Yes ®No III. If"no" on II., does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts Yes ®No listed in Section 15268 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines? IV. If "no" on III., does the project fall under any of the Statutory E]Yes ®No Exemptions listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines? 1 � '� �4 2010 l ` f V. If "no" on IV., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical ❑Yes ®No Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines? (Where there is a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not apply). VI. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide 6.8 acres (gross)/6.54 acres (net) of land into a condominium development of 52 detached two- story units. The property is located between Tahquitz Canyon Way and Arenas Road, west of Cahuilla Road. The subject site is currently zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential) and R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel). The applicant is proposing a Planned Development District to allow the development of a 52- unitdetached condominium projectwith modified setbacks,building heights, open space, landscape coverage and building separation and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the units for condominium ownership. The proposed development will gain vehicular access from the westerly terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way, an existing public street. A precise grading plan will be required in conjunction with the specific development plan. The Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map will be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council as required by the Zoning Ordinance. VI I. Site Description: The site is currently vacant and consists of generally level land, with a slope of approximately 1% - 2%, with native scrub vegetation and scattered trees and shrubs. VIII. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: North: R-1-A (Single Family Residential); Single Family Residential South: R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential) and R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel); Apartments and Hotels East: R-3 (Multiple Family Residential); Hotel, Restaurant West: R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential); Vacant Surrounding General Plan: North: L-2 (Low Density Residential) South: H 43/21 (High Density Residential) East: H 43/21 (High Density Residential) West: L-2 (Low Density Residential) 2 13 � �3 a IX. Is the proposed project consistent with: If answered yes or not applicable, no explanation is required) City of Palm Springs General Plan ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A Applicable Specific Plan ❑Yes ❑No NN/A City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A South Coast Air Quality Management Plan ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A Airport Part 150 Noise Study ❑Yes ❑No NN/A Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan ❑Yes ❑No NN/A X. Are there any of the following studies required? 1. Soils Report []Yes NNo 2. Slope Study ❑Yes NNo 3. Geotechnical Report ❑Yes NNo 4. Traffic Study NYes ❑No 5. Air Quality Study ❑Yes NNo 6. Hydrology NYes ❑No 7. Sewer Study ❑Yes NNo 8. Biological Study ❑Yes NNo 9. Noise Study ❑Yes NNo 10. Hazardous Materials Study ❑Yes NNo 11. Housing Analysis ❑Yes NNo 12. Archaeological Report NYes oNo 13. Groundwater Analysis ❑Yes NNo 14. Water Quality Report ❑Yes NNo 15. Other ❑Yes NNo 3 / 3 �y Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XI. Incorporated herein by reference is the Archeological Investigation at the McCallum Ranch by James D. Swanson University of California Riverside (August 1981) A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the Joseph Drown Foundation Property in Palm Springs, Riverside County, California by RMW Paleo Associates Incorporated (August 1999 Revised February 2001) and Traffic Impact Study for the Tahquitz Villas Project by Albert Grover &Associates (July 5 2001) and Preliminary Drainage Tentative Tract No 29077 Bergheer California Inc AIE-CASC Engineering (February 4 1999) 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community(including a low-income or minority community)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 a, b,d,e)NO IMPACT. The proposed project falls within an acceptable range of land uses as described by the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance for the R-2 and R-3 zone designation.The project site is designated as H43/30 on the City's General Plan.In the opinion of the Planning Department, the project is compatible with the City's General Plan and consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. There are no agricultural resources in the area of the project. The project will not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community upon build out. 1 c)LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.The proposed project is a residential development which would constitute the redevelopment of a formerly developed site within a fully developed area.The general area is experiencing new private-sector investment and,as a result of the new investment is undergoing revitalization. The project site previously contained single family residences and multi family residences which were demolished in the recent past.The proposed project is an in-fill development,almost entirely surrounded by existing development,with the exception of the parcel immediately to the west.The proposed use is surrounded by residential,visitor serving, cultural and high intensity commercial uses.The site is approximately 600'west of the former Desert Fashion Plaza site.The site is also approximately 1 000'west of the intersection of Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way,the city's busiest pedestrian intersection. The proposed project is similar in size,scope,scale,density, architecture and massing to land uses in the vicinity. The proposed project includes a number of slight modifications from the standards set forth in the R-2 and R-3 zones.The proposed project includes a building height of 26'feet, which exceeds that allowed by the R-2 and R-3 zones by two (2)feet. This is consistent with development in the area,particularly the existing multi-story residential development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way and multi-story multi family residential development located directly to the south of the property. The adjacent residential development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way are single family residential units and a historic resort property.These multistory homes feature ground level parking and garage areas,ground level residential uses with no view corridors,elevated second floors with limited views and third floor residences with views to the south of Tahquitz Canyon. Additional hillside residences exist further to the north,which are directly west of the Desert Museum and are only accessible from Palisades Drive. 4 ��- Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Because of the existence of an established landscape canopy throughout the Tennis Club area,the proposed project will have minimal visual impact on the surrounding properties.Properties directly adjacent to the project site which currently enjoy open space views of the project site will experience the loss of adjacent open space,which may be valued by some and therefore could be distressing to some adjacent residents.Adjacent properties will also experience a loss ofviewcorridors ofexisting development located across the site.Hillside properties directly to the north of the project site currently have views of the rear of multi family and hotel properties which front on Arenas Road.Conversely,hotel and multi family properties located on Arenas Road have view corridors across the project site which provide visual access to the hillside properties located north of the project site.I both instances,these view corridors will be eliminated and replaced with views of the proposed project The applicant has created a photo simulation,taken from one of the hillside properties, looking south into the mouth of Tahquitz Canyon. From the photo simulation, it is evident that views of the back of the hotels and multi family properties located along Arenas Road will be replaced by view of the proposed project,which will are to be softened through the addition of project landscaping Because of the age and condition of some of these properties which are presently visible,Planning Staff is of the opinion that the project may result in an improvement of views in and around the project site. The project elevations and cross sections indicate that the proposed project includes a maximum building height of 26',which is two(2) feet above that allowed by the R-2 and R-3 zone.The proposed project includes the location of two story residential units within 35'of R-1 zoned property. The R-2 and R-3 zones require 150' and 200' of separation between buildings in excess of 15 feet and R-1 zoned properties, respectively. The proposed project includes reduced front yard setbacks of a minimum 17',whereas the R-2 and R-3 zones requires minimum front yard setback of 25' The proposed project provides for side yard and rear yard setbacks which exceed the R-3 zone requirements.The proposed project also features minimum building separation of 8%whereas the R-2 and R-3 zones require a minimum building separation of 15'.Given the proposed site design characteristics,whereby the project is designed with internal circulation and rear yards face towards the exterior of the project,the proposed font setbacks will not cause structures to be located closer to adjacent development than normally allowed by the underlying zones The same is true of building separation, given the proposed site design characteristics, whereby the project is designed with an internal orientation,the proposed building separation will not cause structures to be closer to structures located adjacent to the site than normally allowed by the underlying zones. The proposed project exceeds the parking requirements for the residences.Two spaces are provide in a garage foreach residential units while the underlying zones only require 1 Yz spaces per unit,one of which must be covered.The project provides a total of 10 guest parking spaces,while Zoning code provisions require one quarter space per dwelling unit,for a total of 13 guest spaces.Thus, as designed the project exceeds code requirements for parking, 104 garage spaces and 10 guest spaces are provided,for a total of 114 parking spaces, whereas 78 unit spaces, (52 of which must be covered) and 13 guest spaces are required(for a total of 91 spaces) Thus, the project exceeds parking code requirements by 19 spaces,with double the number of parking spaces within a garage. The project complies with the maximum allowable lot coverage of 30%for the R-2 zone The projects proposed a lot coverage is 25%.The R-3 zone does not contain standards for maximum lot coverage Approximately 20%of the project site is zoned R-2.The remaining 80% of the site is designated as R-3.As an in-fill project,the proposed project's lot coverage is consistent with existing development in the area, much of which was constructed prior to the time when zoning code requirements for open space came into existence The proposed amenities,including the location ofthe bulk of the opens space in a large detention,and the swimming pool,spa and pool area buildings provide for both active and passive recreation amenities. The project includes 49% landscaped area. The R-3 zone requires a minimum of 45% landscaped area and the R-2 zone requires a minimum of 50% landscaped area Therefore, the proposed landscape coverage is consistent with the Zoning Code The proposed landscape coverage is also consistent with existing development in the area,much of which was constructed prior to the time when zoning code requirements for landscape coverage came into existence.The proposed project design includes dense shade tree canopy,accent plants,shrubs,vines and groundcover in a lush yet water efficient landscape design.Proposed landscape materials are larger in size,with a minimum of smaller 1 gallon sized plans,to minimize the number of growing seasons required to achieve full plant maturity The project is located in an area which is predominantly developed.All public services and utilities are currently in place and no expansion to the infrastructure,with the exception of minor traffic calming street improvements to Tahquitz Canyon Way,is proposed as part of the project. The proposed project falls within an acceptable range of land uses as described by the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance for the R-2 and R-3 zone designation.The project site is designated as H43/30 on the City's General Plan. In the opinion of the Planning Department,the project is consistent with existing development in the vicinity of the proposed project. Compliance with the conditions of approval will minimize any potential land use compatibility concerns. 5 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major Infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ ❑ ❑ 2. a-c) NO IMPACT. The proposed project includes 52 new detached residential units in a gated community, and will result in approximately 156 new residents.The proposed planned development and subdivision is consistent with existing zoning and general plan designations for the property. The project site is currently vacant,and is bounded by single family residential uses to the north,commercial uses to the east and residential and hotel uses to the south and residential uses further to the west. The project is not likely to induce growth because the project is proposed as an in-fill development. The project utilizes existing infrastructure and does not include the extension of new infrastructure into an undeveloped area lacking major infrastructure. Since the site is vacant,displacement of existing housing including affordable housing,will not occur,and there should be no impacts to population and housing as a result of the project. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Seiche,tsunami, or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading and fill? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ 6 / 3h 27 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact j) Is a major landform, ridgeline, canyon, etc. involved? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3,a+NO IMPACT. The subject site consists of 6.8 gross acres,6.54 net acres of vacant land. The development of the proposed 52 condominium units will involve minor grading of the existing terrain. There are no known geological hazards present on the site other than ground shaking potential associated with earthquakes, and the site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo or City adopted special study zone. A site inspection conducted by the Department of Planning and Building verified that the site is relatively flat, with no slopes exceeding 10%.Therefore,there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to intrusion into slope or hillside areas. There are no known unstable earth conditions associated with the project site based on review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Palm Springs General Plan. The future development of housing on the site will be designed to comply with the Uniform Building Code which mandates requirements for seismic safety construction and the developer will be required to submit a precise grading plan along with a soils report for review and approval of the City prior to the issuance of any permits. Therefore, there will be no geologic impacts as a result of the development of this project and the proposed subdivision of the land. The project site is a level parcel with very little ground relief. The project does not include any change in site topography or ground surface relief features through site preparation or development,therefore there will be no impact to the environment. The project is being proposed in a previously developed area. No significant increases in wind erosion blowsand or water erosion either on site or off-site are expected based upon review by the Planning and Engineering Departments.Therefore, there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to erosion. There are no known geologic hazards present on the site,other than ground shaking potential associated with earthquakes.All structure will be constructed to meet Uniform Building Code specific earthquake design standards. The preliminary grading plan notes 8,000 cubic yards of cut and 5,000 cubic yards of fill. Because of compaction,this grading activity is expected to be balanced on site,with no-importing or exporting of dirt likely to be required.This grading activity will not result in significant impacts to on-site and off-site drainage patterns or soil erosion.The applicant will be required to submit soils and compaction reports for review and approval by to the City of Palm Springs Department of Planning and Building and the Engineering Department. There are no known unstable earth conditions associated with the project site, and the nature of the project is such that there is no possibility of creating and unstable condition. According to the General Plan,settlement and liquefaction as a result of seismic shaking are not considered significant hazards in Palm Springs.Therefore,there will be no impact to the environment as a result of liquefaction hazard issues. The project site is located on the valley floor and is underlain by deposits of recent alluvium.Because the site is level, no unique geologic features are known to be present.Therefore,there is minimal potential for a significant effect on the environment due to impacts to unique geological features.A site inspection by Department of Planning and Building Staff reveals no major land forms on the site.Thus there exists no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to an impact on a major land form. 4. WATER Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns,or rate and amount of surface runoff? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Discharge into surface waters or other alternation of surface water quality (e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ❑ ❑ ❑ / 3A�$ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Changes In the amount of surface water in any water body? p ❑ ❑ e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ 71 h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available forpublicwater supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ j) Are there any on-site or any proposed wells? ❑Yes sNo 4.a,e) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The subject site is vacant and sporadically covered with native vegetation. The development of the proposed 52-unit condominium project will increase the amount of hard surface and will therefore result in some additional storm water run-off,but this should not be significant. A preliminary drainage study by AEI-CASC Engineering indicates that two off-site tributary areas drain onto the site from the west. One area with a Q100=35 cfs enters at the northwest corner of the project(Point A).The second area with a Q100=100 cfs enters just north of the south west boundary(Point B) of the site.The report indicates that both of these tributary areas presently combine with the onsite storm water and travel to the southeast corner of the project The Drainage Report indicates that both of these two off-site tributary areas will be intercepted by Master Drainage Plan facilities.The flows entering at Point A will be intercepted by a storm drain planned for Tahquitz Canyon Way.A storm drain planned for Arenas Avenue will intercept flows entering at Point B.On site flows are planned to be intercepted in the Tahquitz Canyon Way master planned line. Both of the two off-site tributary areas will be intercepted by a detention basin proposed to be located at the northwest corner of the project. This is depicted as Lot"E"on Tentative Tract Map 29077(dated May 2001). Tentative Tract Map 29077 indicates that the proposed detention basin,"Lot E",measures just over half an acre in area(23,213 square feet).The basin is designed with a 2:1 slope,or a slope angle of 50%. The bottom of the basin is located at an elevation of 452,the top of the basin is located at an elevation of 459,The drain of the overflow structure is located at an elevation of 455. Both of the two off-site tributary areas will be intercepted by detention basins located at the northwest corner of the project.The Master Planned storm drain facility will be extended through this project and into the basin.Ultimately,only the off-site flows emanating from Point A will be intercepted by this basin,and a storm drain planned forArenas Avenue will intercept the flows of the remaining tributary. On-site storm flows will be directed to a proposed retention basin located along the property's eastern boundary,which is depicted as Lot"F"on Tentative Tract Map 29077.The"Lot F"detention basin measures approximately one quarter of an acre in area(15,176 square feet)and features a slope of 2:1,or a slope angle of 50%.The basin is located as a buffer along the south eastern boundary of the project. In orderto enhance views from the surrounding hillside areas and in order to prevent on-going problems with erosion,the detention basins shall be landscaped.These basins shall also be subject to regular landscape maintained. Potential environmental impacts due to changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff will be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the addition of on site detention basins and directing of on site flows into basins. 8 /3R v6# Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact MITIGATION MEASURE: W-1.The applicant shall construct on site detention areas and related facilities as depicted on Tentative Tract Map 29077.This includes, "Lot E",which measures just over half an acre in area(23,213 square feet).The basin is designed with a 2:1 slope, or a slope angle of 50%.The bottom of the basin is located at an elevation of 452,the top of the basin is located at an elevation of 459,On-site storm flows will be directed to a proposed retention basin located along the property's eastern boundary,which is depicted as Lot"F"on Tentative Tract Map 29077.The"Lot F"detention basin,which measures approximately one quarter of an acre in area(15,176 square feet)and features a slope of 2:1,or a slope angle of 50%.The basin is located as a buffer along the south eastern boundary of the project.In order to enhance views from the surrounding hillside areas and in orderto prevent on-going problems with erosion,the detention basins shall be landscaped. These basins shall be subject to regular landscape maintained. 4.b,c,d,f,g,h,i,j)NO IMPACT. Based upon a review of the Federal Emergency Management Agency,Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps(Community Panel No.060257 0006)and the knowledge of the Planning and Building Department staff and the City Engineer,the site is located outside of the 100-year or 500-year flood way. Due to the nature of the project and its location,the project will not create a change in the course or direction ofwater movements,the quantity of ground waters,alterthe flow of ground water,and there are no wells on the subject site. Additionally, according to the U.S.G.S.Topographical Quadrangle Map, no natural drainage course or flood control channel exists on the site. Therefore,the project will not be impacted by water and flood related issues nor create impacts on water related issues 5. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ® ❑ p b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ c) Alter air movement, moisture,or temperature,or cause any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 5.a)POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the property. The project will also be consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However,due to future project construction and grading activities,short term impacts to air quality could occur. To minimize construction activity emissions,the project applicant will be required to comply with the City's Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Ordinance. Compliance with this Ordinance will reduce the impacts to air quality to a level of insignificance. MITIGATION MEASURE: AQ-1.The applicant shall comply with Section 8.50 of the Palm Spring Municipal Cade,Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control(PM-10) and prepare and submit a plan to the Building Department to control fugitive dust emissions in compliance with the South Coact Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD).The plan must Implement reasonably available control measures to ensure that project emissions are in compliance with the SCAQMD. 5.b-d)LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project will be located on a site that is surrounded by single family residences,multifamily residences and hotels,a restaurant,the Desert Museum and the Desert Fashion Plaza.The proposed project will not alter climatological conditions either locally or regionally.The proposed residences will not interrupt wind patterns.The irrigation of landscaping will not effect the moisture or temperature of the area in a significant way due to the size of the project, Short term impacts,such as odors and pollution created by diesel engines of large equipment during construction and grading operations,may occur as a result of the development of the site but due to their short term nature these are considered less than significant. 9 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 6. TRANSPORTATIONORCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Estimated Average Daily Trips generated by the project? (S.F=10; M.F. = 6; or from ITE): In Out Total Saturday Midday Peak Hour 31 26 57 AM Weekday Peak Hour 12 34 46 PM Weekday Peak Hour 38 22 60 Saturday Daily: 277 277 554 Weekday Daily 284 284 568 b) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g,,farm equipment)? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- site? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. b-d)POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED. A Traffic Impact Study for the Tahquitz Villas Project in the City of Palm Springs was prepared for the project by Albert Grover&Associates(July 5,2001).The traffic study indicates that the future development of this subdivision will create approximately 568 daily 2-way trips. The report further notes that the project is expected to generate approximately 57 trip ends(31 inbound and 26 outbound)during the Saturday afternoon peak hour.The most critical combination of project traffic and adjacent street traffic within the study area will occur between 1 pm and 2 pm on Saturday afternoons. During this worst case time period,the signalized intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way at Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way at Indian Canyon Drive currently operates at Level of Service(LOS) "B", with no individual turning movements worse than LOS "C." Currently, the unsignalized intersections of Tahquitz Canyon Way with Museum Drive, Cahuilla Road, Belardo Road and the driveway entrance to the Desert Fashion Plaza all operate with no individual turning movements worse that LOS"C"during this peak hour. 10 � � � 3/ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Although analysis demonstrated Saturday afternoon traffic conditions to be the worst-case condition for this study,the unique traffic patterns generated by the City's weekly Thursday evening"Village Fast"event were of particular concern with regard to quantifying the potential traffic impact of the proposed development. Data collection,analysis and field observation of Village Fast conditions indicate that,for all scenarios,Thursday evening traffic with post development traffic will operate acceptably at all intersections,and at a LOS superior to mid day Saturday for the critical intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road. Traffic conditions for 2002"Opening Year"without the addition of traffic from the project are not expected to change from existing conditions. With the addition of project traffic during "Opening Year', all Levels-of-Service at each study intersection will remain unchanged from existing conditions.Therefore, no improvements are necessary to maintain acceptable 2002 traffic operations either without or with the project. By 2010,based on"Build Out"traffic projections,all study intersections except Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, although typically one"Level of Service"lower than for existing/2002 traffic. No roadway traffic control improvements are recommended to accommodate"Build Out"2010 traffic or as a consequence of the proposed development. The intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road is likely to operate unacceptably,although not beyond capacity by 2010 as a consequence of increased background traffic due to the revitalization of the Desert Fashion Plaza. No improvement is recommended at this time or is planned for 2010 as a result of traffic from the proposed project. The intersection should be observed and remedial measures considered if they become necessary,which is anticipated to occur as Desert Fashion Plaza revitalization occurs. The traffic report also found that Tahquitz Canyon Way acceptably serves existing traffic through the study area and will continue to do so though 2010 with no improvement. The proposed project includes improvements to Tahquitz Canyon Way,west of the intersection with Museum Drive.The improvements include narrowing of the street right of way,a landscaped median,stone identification monuments,on-street bay parking on the south side of the street and project entryway improvements.The objective of these improvements is to slow traffic west of the intersection,provide traffic calming in the immediate vicinity of the project area,provide for large vehicle back-up for deliveries to the Desert Museum,provide additional parking in the area and create an upgraded terminus for Tahquitz Canyon Way.The improvements are also intended to reduce the number of misdirected vehicle in the area,since the area west of the intersection is not a through street. The gated project entry will feature a 16'wide guest lane with a phone and address board for guests to call their hosts and announce their arrival.An 8'landscaped median will provide a buffer between the guest driveway,which will also allows for mis-directed vehicles to turn around and the 20'wide primary entry driveway,which was designed in accordance to specifications of the Fire Department.A second teardrop shaped, 16'wide landscaped median separates the primary entry lane and the 18'wide exit lane.The median was redesigned as a tear drop shape to facilitate fire truck turning and entry movements into the proposed project. MITIGATION MEASURES; T-1.The developer shall pay the "fair share"cost of a two phase signal to be located at the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Street. The fair share is to be calculated as a percentage of overall traffic growth from 2001 to 2010 at the intersection.Based on a fair share percentage of 12%, the developers contribution of the cost of the new signal is$12,000. T-2. The western,terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way shall be improved to acceptable transportation and aesthetic standards, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. 6.e-h)NO IMPACT. As a result of the proposed subdivision, unsafe ingress or egress will not be created. The current situation,which is confusing to drivers that venture onto Tahquitz Canyon Way west of Museum Drive will be improved. Access has been designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and will allow for sufficient emergency access and passing movement in emergencies,as necessary. Access to nearby uses,hazards for pedestrians and/or bicyclists will not result from development of the proposed project,nor will it conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposal will not impact rail,waterborne or air traffic. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in impacts to: a) Endangered,threatened,or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants,fish, ) 1 tl3 � �Z Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact insects,animals, and birds)? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Locally designated species? ❑ ❑ p c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g. oak forest,coastal habitat,etc.)? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparlan and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Is consultation with the California Fish and Game or the Department of Fish and Wildlife Service,as a trustee agency, required? ❑YES ®NO 7.a-f)NO IMPACT. The subject property is an inflll development and is surrounded by developed property. The site is currently vacant, and contains only sparse native scrub vegetation and scattered trees and shrubs. Portions of the site previously contained single family residences and apartments. Therefore,the project will have no impact to endangered species or their habitats. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal create: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficien manner? ❑ El ❑ c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of a future value to the region and the residents of the State? ❑ ❑ ❑ 8.a-c)NO IMPACT. The project will not conflict or interfere with an energy conservation plan and will not use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner. Therefore,the project should not result in a negative impact on energy and mineral resources. 9. HAZARDS Would the proposal: a) Be a risk of accidental explosion or release substances(including,but not limited to: oil, pesticides,chemicals,or radiation? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Create possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 � 3 /# 3us Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact c) Create any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Create exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Increase the risk of fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,grass or trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. a-e) NO IMPACT. There are no aspects of the proposed project or of future project construction which would involve explosives, pesticides,radiation,chemicals,or other hazardous substances. Access to the project will be provided via an entry off Tahquitz Canyon Way,of a width satisfactory to all affected agencies to serve the property in question in case of emergency. The entire site is currently vacant and no hazardous materials are known to be existing on the property, buried underground,or to be used in conjunction with the proposed residential use. Therefore,there would be no risk of a release of or exposure to hazardous materials which would result in a potential for a significant impact on the environment. The proposed street improvements on Tahquitz Canyon Way were redesigned with the input of the Fire Department and Engineering Department to improve area traffic circulation and eliminate interference with emergency response vehicles 10. NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Will the project be compatible with the noise compatibility planning criteria according to Table 6-F of the Palm Springs Municipal Airport F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility study? ®YES ONO 10.a)NO IMPACT. The proposed residential subdivision is not expected to generate noise levels greater than the noise levels stated within Chapter 11.74 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code,other than during construction where the activities will be restricted to the hours and noise levels specified in the Municipal Code and the General Plan. The project is located in an area of the City not subject to periodic noise levels above 65 CNEL,as identified by the City of Palm Springs General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Despite this,new construction of the homes shall comply with and meet minimum soundproofing requirements applicable to the project per Section 1092(and related sections,if any)of Title 25,California Administrative Code and any applicable Uniform Building Code requirements to ensure that interior noise can be mitigated to"safe"levels,approximately 45 CNEL. 10.b)LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project is located in close proximity to Palm Canyon Drive,which contains the City's main downtown area,which is well known as a visitor destination and an amenity and asset for the City's Tourism base. In this area,there are increased levels of noise during specific times of day and seasons due to downtown activities. During these peak visitation times,the City experiences increase noise from a larger number of private automobiles, busses, and emergency vehicles, as well as greater competitiveness for business through the increased use and levels of noise from musical and other forms of entertainment. Despite the distance from downtown,future residents of the site may experience relatively low but audible noise from the downtown area(35 to 50 dB). These types of noise levels are low enough to be considered less than severe or hazardous. However, even low noise levels may be viewed by some as a nuisance and/or unacceptable. Interior noise levels,with windows closed and mechanical ventilation,should be below audible levels. No mitigation necessary or recommended. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES 13 / 343* Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Distance to nearest fire station(1/4 mile) b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ 11.a-e)NO IMPACT. The proposed project is within the City's five minute response time for fire service and within reasonable proximity of the Police station. The project will be adequately served by other public services as well, and school fees are required for all new construction to mitigate any potential impacts to the school district. Therefore,there should be no impacts to public services as a result of this project. 12, UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Communications systems? ❑ ® ❑ p c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ 12.a-b)POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Overhead utility lines exist above ground on site. All utilities including cable television,telephone and electrical lines less than 35 KV are required to be relocated underground for General Plan consistency. 14 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact MITIGATION MEASURE U-1 All utilities including cable television,telephone and electrical lines less than 35 KV shall be relocated underground as part of the project in order to be consistent with the General Plan. 12 c-g)NO IMPACT.The projectwill utilize non-renewable energy resources.All utilities and services are available to the site.The project has been reviewed by the Engineering Department an other relevant agencies.The utilities required for the project are present in the site area and currently serve the site,Therefore there Is no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to impacts on utilities. 13, AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 13. a-c) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The subject site is located within an area of the City where architectural approval for residential development is required. Preliminary architectural plans have been submitted, and plans for the condominium development will be subject to the City's Architectural Review process. The proposed project has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee on multiple occasions.The function of the Design Review Committee is to provide recommendations to the Department of Planning and Building staff,in terms of project aesthetics and community values. The Design Review Committee is comprised of design professionals including architects and landscape architects. Recommendations made by the Design Review Committee have been incorporated into the project, including the implementation of the great room concept,narrowing of internal streets,entry way improvements and a shift towards pedestrian oriented design.The Design Review Committee has determined that the proposed architectural design of the project,as depicted in the project elevations and cross sections,is consistent with the high standards established within the City of Palm Springs.They have noted that the project is consistent with existing development in the project area,and noted that the proposed project would make a positive addition to the area. The project will minimally affect views from lower level residences of the adjacent single family residential and multi family residential properties.Project landscaping will reduce the visual;impact ofthe project.Therefore,there should be no impacts to aesthetics as a result of the project. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 93.21.00,Outdoor Lighting Standards will be required as a condition of approval.A photometric study and manufacturers cut sheets of all exterior lighting, including building lighting, landscape lighting and parking lighting will be required to be submitted and approved priorto issuance of a building permit.All lighting shall be designed to protect the night sky,through the use of shielded and directed down lighting. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings,down lights will be required to be utilized. Compliance with the Lighting Ordinance will reduce impacts due to lighting or glare to a level of less than significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) Affect historical resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 15 /3A Xv Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ® p ❑ 14.a-e)POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED.The Cultural Resource Reconnaissance study prepared for this project indicates that the site includes four features which required consideration. The study outlines a number of management options for addressing these cultural resource issues.Since the report was prepared,the project has been revised and those areas deemed to possess cultural resources were removed from the project site.The study notes that the residence which was once located at 389 West Tahquitz was razed and therefor, required no further consideration Resolution 24-99 of the Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians defined a location of an Indian Burial Ground on the westernmost portion of the site. Resolution 51-00 of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians direct tribal staff to act on behalf of the tribe to take the necessary steps to accomplish the tribes goal of obtaining title to the area determined to be sacred ceremonial burial grounds.The Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has provided the City with evidence in the form of correspondence between the tribe and the applicant that the tribe is moving forward on obtaining the cemetery property and Tahquitz Ditch. Therefore, there should be no impact to paleontological resources as a result of this project. MITIGATION MEASURES CR-1.In regards to the Native American Cemetery,if construction within the area northwest of the Tahquitz Ditch is not proposed as part of the project,the area northwest of the ditch is to be deeded to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,with deed restrictions requiring that the area be maintained in an acceptable manner. CR-2 In regards to the Tahquitz Ditch segment,if construction within the area of the ditch segment is not proposed as part of the project, the area is to be deeded to the Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,with deed restrictions requiring that the area be maintained in an acceptable manner. CR-3. In regards to the Ruined Structure, a complete excavation is recommended to determine if the structure is associated with the Tahquitz Ditch.If the Ruined Structure is determine to be related to the Tahquitz Ditch,it is to be preserved.Otherwise the structure remains may be removed. 15. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 15.a-b)NO IMPACT.A swimming pool and spa area is included as part of the project to meet the recreational needs of the residents. 16. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY a) Is the proposed project or action environmentally controversial in nature or can it reasonably be expected to become controversial upon disclosure to the public? 16 /3 *43� Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 16.a). POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT.The applicant has conducted a series of community meetings with neighboring residents,business people and property owners in order to keep them informed of the proposed project. The site has been vacant for a number of years. Adjacent residents are concerned that traffic in the area will increase,views in the area will be diminished and that the appropriate type of development for the area is single family residential development.The traffic report addresses traffic mitigation measures,including the payment of"fair share"fees to reduce the impact from project traffic to a level of less than significant.The proposed development includes a Planned Development District which complies with development standards established by the underlying zones,with the exception front setbacks, building separation, open space, landscape coverage and building heights. However, the project is consistent with historic development patterns in the area.The proposed residential development is adjacent to single family residences, a historic resort and a museum to the north, a restaurant,apartments and the Desert Fashion Plaza and hotels to the east,hotels and apartments to the south and unimproved land and single family residences to the west. Modifications to the site plan, including improvements at the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way,including the addition of bay parking and traffic calming measures such as the landscape median and monuments have been proposed as a direct result of these community meetings. Through these project modifications, the applicant has been able to reduce to a level of insignificance or eliminate the environmental impacts of the project, including but not limited to traffic impacts and visual impacts. These improvements will improve vehicular circulation in the immediate vicinity of the project as well as improve area aesthetics. MITIGATION MEASURE, PC-1.Department of Planning and Building staff will mail a notice of preparation of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration to interested parties that have corresponded with the City or attended community meetings in regards to this project PC-2 Department of Planning and Building staff will mail a Public Hearing Notice to all property owners located within 400'of the site.The notice will also be mailed to all interested parties which have corresponded with the City in regards to this project. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Does the project have impacts that are Individually limited,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and effects of probable future projects.) ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings? ❑ ❑ ❑ 17 J 344 32 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact e) Affect environment(Cultural Resources) ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f) Environmental Consequences - 1, Summary of impacts(Include a table summarizing the potential impacts by alternative. As much as possible, quantify the impacts. All of the BLM "critical elements"must be addressed whether or not they are affected by the proposal.Affected elements will be discussed in further detail in the following section, ❑ ❑ ❑ 17.a,b,&d)NO IMPACT. The project will not impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species, and the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The project will not achieve short-term goals to the detriment of long-term environmental goals. 17.c&e)SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Potential impacts associated with the project could be cumulatively considerable with respect to traffic and cultural resources. However,those impacts identified can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, as identified by mitigation measures proposed. 18. LISTED BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY: Douglas R.Evans,Director of Planning&Building Hope Sullivan, Planning Manager Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner David Barakian, City Engineer 19. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration ❑ 1 find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project is consistent with the Program EIR on: DouY las . Evans Auqust 23 2001 Date Director Planning&Building 18 / � A 3 � H:lUsers\AlexM5.0804 TM29077\IS 5.0804 19 MAIN �19leee •:/. -IIIIIIIIIIIIII ',, r?Il \ F!. - - —�:.��r�\.—�i_.r',.;j 11-3i:'{r' - a:,4t.. �ITngTnGlii IIIIIIIIIIIIIYI i i•.!.• _ Fi-i - I. . f�����I: r=' Ph i s?ice._•` 'eill717111 ii3� tvT.r .■ �IIII!_I?��I — i.irii . Mal: , f, r• .•rlrw.� :-'�•�•`�:' 'IFS_- •..'�JY�YYn./' IIII r.'�:aYFny }r" ii it i-Z�;vx+..Dn Y�Ynaal • I''II-�! = "�:.�":iei�+l Ie��IL :i :'�:�y FlYF�nrllYiii � • " �- er�nl I� G/!IFY.n)�II�[l�I�.11 —;—�••. at111F%•! k.l .MElFFl.nfFil lV -�'� !I—••.• nn.m f: n�iie}iFiY]!b, (]•- ^- >.1.,. �•IIIIIIII;;.,_..'}li�l Ivy;, tsFFFFFrv,lFn i.--=- E I•L::'...:.:`: "519nFlY. !}IInY,I 1�. � I� Li^9ann)��YY[FFq P. .. ,LI14�•. C. _�':���yar.� I •,{Yr!l�C.Fev}ml� 1�^ .. n',��IIIIi�01i� ^u.,y I��•_- � EI ..:iiyiiiC��iaiv� �:_� is".:�iF\\Y L:.�',w✓ I�. ;_i,l;•$�I�lFFMMAnrY�j. %�_/JI! :i.,'w...'•� �/� npJW/-' Y�II�r 1±1111114°°,: !p oil 9 30 y ,�� I ��j,?j�.., �!•�e.• � _ ate. �� Tc, i �. :.ifs-*a=.'!'-��i� .��•• ��:_.� -::j'j=� III �� �101111 �•{i .-,: .:,=, �I .� •[�' alt Il�lj';i 3"�' //%�',r liiwi�i 31L: II \�'� a';:°1 nii,i ai, � miry:-� •4�i0�i;'1,.._ 1 •% c •��:011��lllp S T 1 �1"�_� H__�.�__:^ ,.u..uu./i !�� ��'__�c�ill,� .'•'^•s/ice, ��•t .IF,s,;. :•., a II r.,:,•"; •F,I...\\.Y. I rr�+. �c�"are• ,. ........ �I II 41. Fl. •'... {".Y .tee Mr,� Liy I IRimI I,'i` Foint j ws� all 14 F �.'•�gi1�fe.� •'�%`?+ ` .�,�`" 1��%tee;... r� ems. I �1 j 9rl�i C::;rSCIG Iil"�I�� ,:ei.c.;i IIt�G^ _ III � :�::•,,,� I , \Y i ii OWE qq 'T'� � •'r' I��r mod- •nl\rr •pYlrrl i:s ly •\\Y :IIi.IY LLIr\I i�_ r.•IAI: /.3 3 r•Yi i'[:.MO\i• i�i� a.Yr�' �rti�[•�.\YYc'�`:•`n 9t iliia Ell, YYbI QQ_ 10 I �j•�, If'i ni�` .'♦.'' %i�� .,IQ�I j 1 Ili I- li:•'. I r.l r �'// �=ill• ��_�.�.�.-+�. �rSii�� i--'"�iY\Mry 1�47�--�I'�>LV u.'r orultvtY.. oil �1 tLJYI\ r ji i�� Yi.�ha•rs L''1 4p• I.��II YYIIMPY.a1•• I--I Afl: ' �''I vuFnYOIDIi•nii `� .i......11:.Y.Yf'I 1� lS`rIr I!�„�M I�'il� .Y.YIY httn��'•Y'i�' :�:��%.:, • :•lll.1/%.�. ',r•r�e�sG�.eY<�,.\'i�.'hnr'%� NO lip r f 'v � ,•ti• V ,�� alb L;� •.}g;• �-"�- � _ `�" .T IIIIIIIIII01'�'. INNER �rl•. 1-,'ll�''Jrnii�zn��i ;IPjII;I IIJ,llll�, ,11` 4.}s4u� (.li�. ri �.:}s..1Y1 !.•...:N�.'i.}4 '•411iF 11 Y:1Gil f:4Y Y11111 r e r i ��; plllillllilll =��' d �� l t .51 Alp- a;etp "rd�rarY 7,1 1 . . Rill i r l.., iF �-fit �R � • ��;�����/'F'•���H mKIR7101 r. W�4 .1 •� ji - £ •�{ III gg� f l . °I.� I v � f-t4 v >F"�" '1 _ +ZV•tiL'{�4 ���m\ _t . 1 1 1 i +^i 7,a •sa--' w tseo. x; � , kew7s s axis ' , > .. -• _ ---« OF tA �z.� �`\�+ ��� �`�•r: . POP P» Tahquitz — McCallum TTM 29077/P.D. Site Photos APN's: 513-121-35 & 513-141-12 i Fr'F- Ir ^ Looking east from the south central edge of the site Looking west fiom the south central edge of the site ' '6 h �� Tahquitz — McCallum TTM 29077/P.D. Site Photos APN's: 513-121-35 & 513-141-12 TT •5 I 4 f 4 sk, r Looking east along the Private portion of Tahquitz Canyon Way rt -c r _ yrt Looking east along Arenas Road / Tahquitz — McCallum TTM 29077/P.D. Site Photos API 513-121-35 & 513-141-12 4r. In fit Nil' Alf ai�,V.�e MST, i, INT!!,Ott IV" Looking north on Tahquitz Drive from the corner of Arenas Road ry Looking north along Taliquitz Drive 3h SO) Hlare Herbert 2864 Tito Creek Drive,No.4 Walnut Creek,Caliromia 94595. Moie(9255 932-5509 RECEIVED July 30, 2001 AUG 7 2001 City Council, City Planning Commission, PLANNING DIVISION City of Palm Springs, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, CA 92262. RE: Proposed Development of Vacant 6-Acre Parcel o�Tahy ui z Canyon Way Tract 29077' PAY 5.MM We are sure the City Council and the City Planning Commission are aware of the special nature of the vacant land involved here. This is not just another desert property but bears a key relation to a number of architectural landmarks--the Museum, the Willows, the Frey House, Vallauris restaurant-- and is a central element to the historic Tennis Club district, as well as close to our outstanding downtown. What is built here will have a direct impact on these neighbors for years into the future. That said, we find the proposed development by Bergheer California to be appallingly lacking in sensitivity and imagination. Where is the attention to the surroundings? Where is the recognition of the special Palm Springs lifestyle? No, this unique site is deserving of something much better than a"cookie cutter"program of lots and houses with no consideration to views, orientation and impact on abutting buildings and the area in general. Yet we know that this applicant is capable of producing high-quality work. Our property fronts on West Arenas Road, and our rear line is therefore along the southerly boundary of the plot in question. Regardless of what is approved,we ask that the overhead utility lines along this border be placed underground and the poles removed. New underground connections for buildings on West Arenas Road should be at the expense of the developer. The present rock barrier should be replaced with an attractive masonry wall,six feet in height, with surfaces properly finished on both sides. Appropriate landscaping should be installed adjacent to the new wall on the developer's side. Ask the applicant to provide a simple scale model of the proposal,showing the existing adjacent development. The Council and Commission will see at once how inappropriately dense, uniform and intrusive the project will be if allowed to be c6astr6cted as presented. Marc Herbert "AAL Rosy Mihata 468 West Tahquitz Canyon 17a'June, 2001 Palm Springs, California 92262 Office(760)320-0882 Fax(760)320-9395 City of Palm Springs, Planning Department P.O. Box 1786 Palm Springs CA 92263 Dear Sirs, RE : BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. —GATED COMMUNrff CASE NO : 5.0804 I strongly oppose the aboveproject to be located on West Tahquitz Way at the foot of Mt. San Jacinto in downtown Palm Springs. I purchased my home for the neighborhood setting and the spectacular view of depth and distance,which will be totally destroyed if this project is allowed to proceed. Before investing large sums of money to restore my property to its 1920's era, my contractor and I thoroughly researched and educated ourselves regarding the city restrictions on the subject property. My first and foremost concern was regarding future construction on the vacant land across from my impending purchase. Our research included the potential height requirements and extent of anyone obstructing my view, including set-back regulations, building codes, variances, restrictions and necessary laws and ordinances existing. After satisfactory assurances by the City Officials I ventured into a substantial investment of up-grading and restoration. I believe a full scale Environmental Impact Report is imperative. Such a report will bring to light, amongst other things, the many negative aspects of this project. Traffic, Fire,loss of view, pollution and congestion, noise, night time illuminations which will severely hamper a visual appreciation of the moon and stars, flooding due to change in patterns of water run-offs, plus the quiet enjoyment and security. I also feel it necessary to direct your attention to a previous letter I sent regarding the traffic problems this proposed project would create. My son was involved in an accident, he was hit by another vehicle which was leaving Le Vallouris, the driver of the vehicle leaving the restaurant failed to look for oncoming traffic before pulling.out into my son. On another occasion there was a fatal accident in the intersection of the said property. I witnessed this accident and took the man to the hospital but unfortunately he l 3AwatO died from his injuries. Lets not allow another person to die because our planning department failed to carry out an adequate traffic study. The volume of traffic that would be created by this project spells a nightmare of congestion. This would also assist in adding to the traffic-flow problem that already exists in the neighborhood. The Desert Fashion Plaza is practically closed at the present time, therefore it is only going to get worse when it re-opens for business. For these and other reasons a thorough traffic study is viable,imperative and necessary in order to safeguard the integrity, safety and history of this neighborhood. In closing,.I want you all to know that I love this city. It goes without question that all of you feel the same way, however, we owe it to ourselves to take a closer look at this proposed project. Not only for those of us whom it will affect now,but for all of those it will affect in the future of this beautiful city. Enclosed is a copy of a"Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report from Doug Evans dated August 18, 1988. I sincerely hope that the members of the Design Review Committee and Planning Department will take my fears and concerns into consideration and insist on an Environmental Impact Study being carried out. Respectfully submitted, ® "014- ROSEE-MMATA Property Owner 458 West Tahquitz.Way I &6h "Oil CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: Distribution List. FROM: City of Palm Springs Planning Division r, PO Box 1786 Palm Springs, CA 92263 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Palm Springs Planning Division will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency's statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location, and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study Q(� is, ( ) is not, attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Douglas R. Evans at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Planned Development District 196 (Case 5.0466). Project Applicant: Mel Haber Enterprises, Inc. DATE August 18, 1988 Signature Title Planner III Telephone 619 / 323-8245 Area Code i (Revised 6-87) -29- i NOTICE OF PREPARATION CASE 5.0466 - PD-196 - Haber Project Project Description: A Planned Development District PDD) application in-lieu of a change of zone to high density residential (R-4S has been filed for a 104-unit luxury apart- ment complex. The site area is 8.75 acres . The proposed apartment building may range from two to five stories in height and have a building height of up to 55.5 feet. The project will include lighted tennis courts, lakes, pools, recreation areas, underground parking, and extensive landscaping. The project is located at the west end of Tahquitz Way west of Museum Drive and the site abuts the base of the San Jacinto Mountains. The site is surrounded by single-family residences and a restaurant on the north, small hotels, apartments and condominiums on the east and south, and single- and multiple-family residences on the west. The subject property is zoned and planned for medium and high-density hotel or residential uses. Existing zoning would permit up to 183 residential units or up to 390 hotel rooms. Probable Environmental Affects of the Project: FLOOD CONTROL/WATER. Approximately 75 acres of watershed lies tributary to the proposal site. Currently storm runoff is concentrated in two watercourses which discharge onto the site. The western portion of the site currently retains storm flows; therefore, downstream properties are not affected by this tributary runoff. A preliminary drainage plan will be prepared by the applicant, and incorporated into the Draft EIR. (3.B&C) NOISE. The project, being a 104-unit residential development, will increase noise levels in the surrounding area during construction and during operation of the . project. The Draft EIR will address construction related noise impacts and operational impacts of the project. (6.A&B) LAND USE. The Draft EIR will address surrounding and proposed land use. The project, being 2 to 5 stories in height, may affect adjacent properties. 4 TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. A traffic study is being prepared and will be incorporated into the Draft EIR. The study will address average daily traffic, peak hour traffic volume, existing roadway design, signs and other concerns. (13.d&f) FIRE PROTECTION. The emergency service concerns regarding a 4 to 5-story building will be discussed. (14.a) 1 ` A NOTICE OF PREPARATONt Page 2 Case 5 .0466 - PD-196 AESTHETICS/SCENIC VISTAS. The proposed 4 to 5-story apartment complex may disrupt existing views from adjoining properties. The Draft EIR shall include visual impact analysis, site crossections and a narrative discussion. CULTURAL RESOURCES. w Archaeological/historical resources has four areas of concern and are as follows: (a) A rock wall runs along the northern property boundary and is within the setback area of the proposal . The Historical Society has expressed an interest in having this feature remain in its current location. The wall is a totally unreinforced rock wall constructed approximately 60-70 years ago. This wall element adds to the uniqueness and character of the area. (b) The water flume was constructed by the Indians sometime in the 1830's and is' considered one of the earliest pieces of agricultural engineering in this part of the country. This flume was utilized for irrigation and domestic purposes by the Indians and then by white settlers in the latter 1800's. The flume crosses the site in a diagonal direction from the southwest to the northeast. (c) Historical records indicate an Indian burial ground exists on or immediately north of the proposal site. These records have been con- firmed with members of the tribe. Preliminary information indicates the burial ground may be within the open space area along the northerly property line, but there is still some concern as to the southerly and easterly limits to the burial ground. The developer has agreed to the preservation of this area as to protect the integrity of the burial grounds. (d) Tribal and historical records indicate there is the possibility of sub- surface archaeological finds on-site. This possibility exists because of the close proximity of this property to the Agua Caliente Hot Spring (Spa Hotel property) which is known as an archaeological site of which the boundaries have been described as extending westward to the mountains . In order to determine specific boundaries of this site, excavations were conducted. A detailed cultural resource study made and will be conducted addressing resources located on-site. The results of these studies will be incor- porated into the report. WP/PLNG CORRES 1 23 AMY 0.. NOTICE OF PREPARATON� j Page 3 Case 5 .0466 - PD-196 Focused EIR. The information contained in this document, including the initial study, shall be used to focus the Draft EIR on significant issues. In addition, impact ar6as and concerns raised during the NOP process will be incorporated into the Draft EIR. r 3A� ��:Y;YrrNai1h•: r .Y.Y�.�;a1{+e. n?,�.. .may%Nq1•4^A Y. �:u.. '•_v'S'-�^:3J'�f�i'•b!�r'i.t"a.,\'�"�•j+•,•`'•r•'„_"w.'.%A",•ir'.':.7k".C:i,-a CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Environmental Check List Form -.' « • - r (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes Maybe No I. - Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes ✓ in geologic substructures? T b. Disruptiens, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? c. Chmge in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of v soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sends, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, in let or lake? g, Exposure of people or property .to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes; landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. ` Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient cir quality? b, The creation of objectionable odors? _ e, Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? -_ 7. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the-course of di- recticn of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? le b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface V runoff? ,�. ii• .:r:5:1 r ra, . / _ Lpwy!w.1: .����i1nw.T •.n. w� • i', ;,,, ay., •tea». ., .. - :'& d. Change in the amount of surface water,in any water body? 4 e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. ' Change in the quantity of ground waters; either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of on aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? ( 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or run-ber of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, gross, crops, and aquatic p icn is)? _ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? _ c. Introduction of new species of plants into on area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of speciest or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, —+ rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Year 6. Wise. Will the proposal result ins i_'• ; •., %�. . rs� ,;. a; a. Increases in existing noise levels? .; b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. ,, Light and Glare, Will the proposal produce new light or glare? ` 8, Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: . a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Srbstantial depletion of any nonrenewable x natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve a. A risk of on explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an occident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with on emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the 'human population of on area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circvlaticn. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? e. Substantial impact upon existing trorispor- Cation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air -- traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? i� aL/ . ll j .. .. ,.3Faa.•..+� rI�Y':,"'. ..`'"_2:Ke�`}.YY•fq !d:•17M"JM ' . r .� • • ..• • • I• _ .. .a "..iMi Y.n r Y^C I. OA oil 14. Pvblk Services. Will thepreposal have an Ves _� I.No .::i'•��:-_. �..•r- :', �� rS'!float tlppl, Of feSV1t In a need for new or ::ii.±"_•`•'n;.'::�i`•'e`D�is,'p:':'�.'r�: ii altered governmental services in any of the following areas: a. Fire protection? _ b. Police protection? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ ,e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? -_ y f. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: - — a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 15. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? X_ b. Communications systems? _X c. Water? _X d. Sewer or septic tanks? X e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the, creation of on aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in on impoct upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or Y It A ,4 2 I YYY A..a rM Y1y`� y11 .. .. .. Yes' a No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or oesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? _ d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or soared uses within the potential impact area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- toining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- sidercble? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? r Initial Study Prepared By: ( Initials_) � �--^ Initial Study Reviewed For Findings and Recommendation: MARVIN 0. ROOS anning Ulrector / 2AL.3 R \\i \ O ]YM1YRi-E JLLIY VT - f` N4 itutuat eu'rptinAniWl -SUBTERRANEAN LEUEL \ — FACILITIES 1Ntl , } Eaaa pxw TFLOOR EE] faEE �/ � ENO LOOR t]xw. 0R LCOR naB ITN FLOOR aww r.rL 4! # # o ,� -- i r - _��� r TRACT* 17151 1 (� � � El T ��:�� Y � - TApULATEN OF UND MEAL Y >'..-i awu•Na eurnuu, aL]xTI - "�'�.. > FuuwAW Earei tags PLOT PLAN ua�t a•> NVWEEitAEE1W 01Cx1 21. - •.tCJLL t•m-,w N �� >�ii •� ' 4�• MYYEEENYEITE 1W Mare Herbert 2864 Tice Creek Drive,No,4 Walnut Creek,California 94595. Phone(925)932-5509 July 30, 2001 City council, ECEVED City Planning Commission, City of Palm Springs, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, AUG ] 2001 Palm Springs, CA 92262. RE: ProposedIDevelopmentofVacant6-Ar [PLAN'NING 'DIVISION Parcel on West Tahquitz Canyon Way_ Tract 29077 PD 5,0804 We are sure the City Council and the City Planning Commission are aware of the special nature of the vacant land involved here. This is not just another desert property but bears a key relation to a number of architectural landmarks--the Museum,the Willows, the Frey House, Vallauris restaurant-- and is a central element to the historic Tennis Club district, as well as close to our outstanding downtown. What is built here will have a direct impact on these neighbors for years into the future. That said, we find the proposed development by Bergheer California to be appallingly lacking in sensitivity and imagination. Where is the attention to the surroundings? Where is the recognition of the special Palm Springs lifestyle? No,this unique site is deserving of something much better than a"cookie cutter"program of lots and houses with no consideration to views, orientation and impact on abutting buildings and the area in general. Yet we know that this applicant is capable of producing high-quality work. Our property fronts on West Arenas Road, and our rear line is therefore along the southerly boundary of the plot in question. Regardless of what is approved, we ask that the overhead utility lines along this border be placed underground and the poles removed. New underground connections for buildings on West Arenas Road should be at the expense of the developer. The present rock barrier should be replaced with an attractive masonry wall, six feet in height,with surfaces properly finished on both sides. Appropriate landscaping should be installed adjacent to the new wall on the developer's side. Ask the applicant to provide a simple scale model of the proposal showing the existing adjacent development. The Council and Commission will see at once how inappropriately dense, uniform and intrusive the project will be if allowed to be constructed as presented. A" I \li v Y v v" Marc Herbert 13A4r P. 01 THE WILLOWS HISTORIC PALM SPRINGS INN September 5,2001 Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner City of Palm Springs PO Box 2743 Palm Springs,CA 92263 And Via Facsimile 322-8360 Dear Alex, 1 am very concerned about the proposed Planned Development District for the Drown Foundation property at the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon,Case No.5.0804,Planned Development District No.254 and Tentative Map 29077. I have been involved in discussions for several years regarding this property. Attached please rind a copy Of a letter sent to Jim White,representing Karl Bergheer and Berghccr California in 1998 regarding our concerns,which have not changed. Mr.Burghcer did respond with changes to the architecture of which we wholeheartedly approve. We still do not want two-story elements along Tahquitz Canyon or Palisades Drive,we feel that the lowest possible density is appropriate and are concerned about the building schedule disrupting our tourist-basod business. We are also concerned that Mr.Berghccr himself will not,in the end,be the developer of this property. We would like any plan that is approved to be specific to Mr.Bergheer or direct an assignees regarding the quality of workmanship and the aesthetic points thni Mr.Berghccr has guaranteed us personally throughout our numerous discussion and during the public discourse at the previous Planning Commission Study Session. Thank you for your consideration and for entering the specific concerns detailed on the following page into the formal record. /Si ccrely,1 Tracy Conrad 412 West Taliquitz Canyon way.Palm Springs•California 9za6a,Tclop1101e:76u-320-0771 -Fax:760-321)-0780 T1IE WILLOWS HISTORIC PALM SPRINGS INN August 18, 1998 Jim White Lynwood Development Via Facsimile(619)224-9720 (619)224-6617 Dear Mr, White, Thank you very much for your phone call of today.As you know,The Willows has required a huge financial and emotional investment,and we are very concerned about anything that might deleteriously impact its value or viability.I appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns regarding any development of the Drown Foundation property. There are several aesthetic issues which are readily apparent regarding the property. 1. The entrance to the site is problematic,with limited ingress and egress,and an awkward approach. A reconfiguration of the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way in conjunction with the City of Palm Springs would be desirable. The schema would include limiting the"turnaround"traffic that now occurs,placing the telephone poles/utilities underground,and demarcating the transition from public to private street.The site entrance would also probably require some reconfiguration of the current placement of LoVallauris'trash area,as it would be inconsistent to have the trash Immediately adjacent to the entrance of an upscale residential project. Mitigation of the increased traffic to the site would be accomplished by a proper design of the site entrance and reconfiguration of Tahquitz Canyon Way from Museum Drive to the site. 2. The project would be low-density,low-profile and upscale in nature. 3. In keeping with the ambiance of the neighborhood,the rooftops would be high quality spanish tile of single form,rather than s-shaped form,preferably variegated in color. 4. The lighting plan would be low-voltage and incandescent,appearing upscale,and consistent with a residential neighborhood. Any"up lighting"or globe fixtures would be highly undesirable as they would glare and contribute to light pollution. S. Landscaping would be lush and generous,limiting hardscape. 6. The design would limit the number and placement of trash pick up sites,or use quieter,smaller, special trash vehicles,in order to mitigate the noise of trash pickup and contribution to noise pollution. Implementation of the development is also of concern.Hcavy construction would avoid"high season"of January through May and avoid Saturdays and Sundays,to limit the negative financial impact on the tourist-based businesses adjacent. Again,I appreciate the opportunity to express these concerns. I believe that their mitigation would result in an aesthetically appropriate development for the site. I am looking forward to seeing your specific proposal,and would reserve the ability to comment further regarding its particulars. I am looking forward to introducing you,the architect,and the new owner to The Willows personally on September 3, 1998, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tracy Conrad 412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way•Palm Springs•California 922.6-, Telephone,760-320-0771 ,Fax:760-320-o780 /3A 0 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 5.0699-PD-239/ BED-AND-BREAKFAST INN 412 WEST TABQUITZ CANYON WAY NOVEMBER 15, 1995 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. ENGINEERING: * Items to be deferred to Covenant and/or Covenant TABOUITZ CANYON WAY WEST 1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit: *2. Construct a minimum 5 foot wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. 3. The developer shall obtain a License Encroachment Agreement from the Director of Planning and Building to MAINTAIN rock walls, planters, stairs and gates on the north and west portions of the partial cul-de-sac on Tahquitz Canyon Way West and shall agree to relocate said structure(s) upon the request of the Director of Public Works at such time as deemed necessary. The License Encroachment shall be completed prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. *4. The Engineering Division recommends deferral of off-site improvement ITEM 2 at this time due to lack of full improvements in the immediate area. The developer shall enter into a covenant agreeing to construct all mentioned improvements along the entire frontage upon the request of the City of Palm Springs Director of Public Works at such time as deemed necessary. The covenant shall be completed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 5. All broken or off grade CURB, GUTTER, AC PAVEMENT AND SIDEWALK shall be repaired or replaced. ON-SITE G. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Televise existing sewer main prior to and after lateral connection. V14�! 166A 0 #Yd-.O GENERAL 7. A copy of a Title Report prepared/updated within the past three (3) months shall be submitted to the Director of Planning and Building prior to submittal of the Building Plan. 8. The developer shall accept all flows impinging upon his land and conduct these flows to an approved drainage structure. Predevelopment Q shall not be exceeded. 9. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any street intersection or driveway which does or will exceed three (3) feet in height in order to maintain an appropriate sight distance. 10. All tree wells within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. TRAFFIC 11. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum, all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of Transportation, "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES" dated 1991, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction. PLANNING: 12. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 13 . The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.0699-Planned Development District 239. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive further indemnification hereunder, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 14. This Planned Development District only entails a bed-and- breakfast use; should any other use on the site be proposed such as, but not limited to, a restaurant, the Planned Development District shall require an amendment to be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. *15. Should a street improvement plan for West Tahquitz Canyon Way be implemented in the future, if necessary, the property owners shall contribute to the cost on a fare share basis. This condition shall be included in and recorded with the covenant for the sidewalk requirement. 16. A parking management plan, in accordance with Section 9306.00 B.7 of the Zoning ordinance and as per the approved Planned Development District, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building for the additional three parking spaces required prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. 17. Final landscaping and irrigation plans shall be submitted for approval by the Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. Irrigation plans shall are subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 8.6 of the Municipal Code) and shall be reviewed by the Desert Water Agency. GDrainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks - 3' wide and 6" deep. The irrigation system shall be field tested prior to final approval of the project. Section 14.24.020 of the Municipal Code prohibits nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways or gutters. *Tree wells shall be provided within the parking lot and shall have a planting area of six feet in diameter/width. 18. A lighting plan for the parking area and driveway entrance shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Building. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting on the building, in the landscaping, and in the parking lot shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. •Illumination levels in the parking area shall be an average of one-foot candle (a photometric study shall be submitted for review) . •Parking lot light fixtures shall align with stall striping and shall be located two to three feet from curb face should they be located in the parking area. 19. Standard parking spaces shall be 17 feet deep by 9 feet wide; compact sized spaces shall be 15 feet deep by 8 feet wide. The handicap parking space shall be 17 feet deep by 9 feet wide plus a 8 foot walkway at the right side of the parking space and shall be designated as 11van accessible." *Parking stalls shall be delineated with a 22 inch wide decorative stripe. VAV3 YAVY *Concrete walks with a minimum width of two (2) feet shall be installed adjacent to end parking spaces or end spaces shall be increased to eleven (11) feet wide. *Curbs shall be installed at a minimum of five (5) feet from face of walls or other structures in the parking area; a 6" barrier curb shall serve as wheel stops in parking area. 20. A trash enclosure location shall be identified on the site plan to be approved by the Director of Planning and Building and the Palm Springs Disposal Services. Should a new enclosure be proposed, such enclosure shall require approval by the Director of Planning and Building prior to the issuance of a building permit for the trash enclosure. 21. No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except approved alarm systems. 22. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan. 23, separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs Prior to issuance of certificates of occupancy. 24. , This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the fee being 1/2% for commercial projects or 1/41 for residential projects with first $100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Building and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing. 25. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. POLICE DEPARTMENT: 26. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 27. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. / 3A 7� 3.4.7. W. Tahauitz Canyon Way. This isolated residential neighborhood on the edge of Downtown contains a unique mix of significant historic structures and custom homes of classic Modern architecture. Where access, circulation and other public facilities are adequate, the historic residences are appropriate for conversion to quality visitor-related residential use consistent with the Downtown redevelopment policies; the low-density residential character of the neighborhood shall be retained. The development of a master plan for circulation is encouraged as properties are (re)developed to prevent the intrusion of through-traffic and to provide localized parking. X S T / 3A hZ \ 0 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Fr September 26, 2001 1:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 FY 00-01 ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences This Meeting To Date To Date Philip Klatchko, Chr. X 5 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V.Chr. X 5 1 Ralph Raya X 5 1 Jon Shoenberger X 5 1 Stephen Payne X 4 2 Jon Caffery X 6 0 Mark Matthews* X 6 0 *Arrived at 2:00 p.m. STAFF PRESENT Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Dave Barakian, City Engineer Hope Sullivan, Planning Manager Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator ** ** * Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:36 p.m. ** *** The September 26, 2001 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, September 21, 2001. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Caffery/Jurasky 4-0, 2 abstain, 1 absent) to approve the minutes of August 22, 2001 as presented. w * * w * Page 7 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes a September 26, 2001 Case 5.0804—PD 254—TTM 19077—Application by Berg heer California, Inc. for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 52 parcels for a residential development within a gated community, located to the south west of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15. Continued from the September 12, 2001 lines. Commissioners Caffery and Shoenberger abstained due to conflicts of interest. Director reported that, at the September 12, 2001 meeting, a motion for denial was amended to a continuance in order to review certain issues and that the applicant has submitted revised plans to address those issues. He reported that the plan reviewed at the September 12, 2001 meeting proposed 64 units, but that the revised plan is for a 52-unit community. He reviewed the previously reviewed elevations along with the revised plans for the Planning Commission. He stated that the new plans include a substantial additional setback area and the relocation of the pool to directly west of the entry. He stated that the maximum building height has been reduced to 24 ft. from 26 ft. He reported that the City Engineer has recommended the removal of 3-4 bay parking spaces in the area of the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way but that staff believes parking is feasible there due to the nature of the condominium traffic and that the intent of the General Plan is to add parking spaces. Director reported that the developer intends to build models and the project in phases. He also reported that the most recent project which this developer built in phases was quickly completed in only two phases. He clarified that no phasing plan is being proposed today and that a proposal will be included with the Final Planned Development District application. / 3A 74 Page 8 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes �7 September 26 2001 Director reported that the owner of Le Valerius has been out of town and staff has been unable to get any comment regarding the proposed development but that the developer has offered to move the trash enclosure for that restaurant back closer to the building to better suit operational needs of Le Valerius. City Engineer stated that the traffic study indicates that, in the target year of 2020 (assuming the Desert Fashion Plaza is renovated and occupied), that the contribution to the total traffic by the proposed development will be 12% and that the developer will pay 12% (or $12,000) toward a traffic signal at Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road at that time. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing at 4:45 p.m. Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero, Smith&Associates,addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is representing Ms. Rose Mihata—a neighboring property owner to the proposed development. He stated that the Ordinance calls for single-story development for most of this site and that the distance between buildings is eight feet in width but that the code calls for 15 feet. He asked that the development be required to match the area as much as possible while allowing flexibility for superior design. He stated that his client feels the rhythm and size of the site plan is problematic —that there is no feeling of integration with the neighborhood. He sympathized that the parcel is a difficult one to develop but that the reduction of City standards is not worth the compromise. Mr. Frank Tyson, Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood, addressed the Planning Commission to ask that the view from the Casa Cody pool deck be protected. Ms. Tracy Conrad, The Willows Bed & Breakfast Inn, addressed the Planning Commission to thank them for their time and attention to this proposed development—that their input has greatly improved the project. She stated that she disagreed with the City Engineer regarding the removal of bay parking at the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way and asked that bay parking be allowed there. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn A&E,addressed the Planning Commission to state that the developer has changed the project substantially for the benefit of the neighborhood and community. He stated that properties across the street are two and three-stories in height. He stated that the developer is attempting to lower the pad elevation for Mr. Tyson, although, he stated that Casa Cody's pool is 110 feet from the subject property line and the proposed homes will not be visible from Casa Cody. He reported that the developer is working with an adjacent property owner(Mr. Wessman) for the sewer lines instead of going through Mr. Tyson's property. Mr. Mike Finely, real estate developer, stated that it is important to protect the expansive views in this neighborhood. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Raya stated that his concerns are the limited building separation, building heights, and the roof design (too much roof showing in the elevations). / 06 �s' Page 9 of 12 Rq� Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2001 Chairman Klatchko stated that he was pleased to see the improvement in the proposal and that all stated concerns had been addressed in the new plans. He stated that the developer should be allowed to build by right of the code and that it is the developer's prerogative to establish the building separation distances. Director reported that the final development plans will include pool design and embellishment of the recreation area. Commissioner Jurasky commented that he would like to see a decorative treatment of the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way such as decorative paving or a monument. He stated that he is in favor of bay parking in this area and that he felt the portion of cost for the traffic signal at Belardo Road is excessive. As he was absent at the meeting of September 12, 2001, Commissioner Payne confirmed that he had reviewed the video tape of that meeting and, therefore, did not recuse himself from today's review of this application. M/S/C(Matthews/Jurasky 3-2, 2 abstentions, Payne and Raya dissenting)to recommend that the City Council approve subject to the Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report; and a. The addition of a condition requiring a six foot block wall around the pool area;and b. The western terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way shall be improved to acceptable transportation and aesthetic standards, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, and as approved by the Planning Commission; and C. Condition No.31 shall be amended to read, "if in the course of doing grading for construction, human burial remains are discovered, the applicant shall require the contractor and/or developer to notify the Riverside County Coroner and the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribe Office. Once the Coroner's investigation is complete, the burial remains will be prepared for removal to a location specified by the Tribe. The actual removal of remains, and the method for such removal, shall be conducted by authorized representatives of the Tribe. To avoid delay in construction, if the Tribe has not removed the remains within 48 hours of receiving written notice from the landowner, developer or City of Palm Springs, the contractor and/or developer may arrange to have the remains removed and stored at an appropriate holding facility. If the Tribe has not acted to take possession of the remains, the remains can then be buried at the Palm Springs Public Cemetery." CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PDNI, PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING September 12, 2001 1:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 FY 00-01 ROLL CALL Present Present Excused Absences This Meeting To Date To Date Philip Klatchko, Chr. X 4 1 Jeffrey Jurasky, V.Chr. X 4 1 Ralph Raya X 4 1 Jon Shoenberger 4 1 Stephen Payne 3 2 Jon Caffery X 5 0 Mark Matthews X 5 0 STAFF PRESENT Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building Hope Sullivan, Planning Manager Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Sky Warden, Assistant Planner Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator * ** ** Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:40 p.m. **** * The September 12, 2001 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday, September 07, 2001. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: M/S/C (Caffery/Jurasky 4-0, 1 abstain, 2 absent) to approve the minutes of August 08, 2001 as presented. Planning Commissioner Matthews asked staff to confirm that the Public Hearing for Case 3.1950 was closed (see page 6/12) and that subsequent hearings from possible continuations will be noticed. * * * * * 3 l9 Qp) Page 4 of 13 9oRA� Planning Commission Minutes ^1 r September 12, 2001 Case 5.0804—PD254—TTM19077—Application byBergheer California, Inc. for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 52 parcels for a residential development within a gated community, located to the south west of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15. Commissioner Caffery abstained due to a conflict of interest. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that this application includes ten lettered lots which will be used for common area improvements and amenities such as guest parking, swimming pool and spa, roadways, and onsite retention area. He reported that the site is currently vacant and that an earthen swale crosses the northwest corner of the property. He stated that the proposed condominiums will be two-bedroom,detached units ranging in size from approximately 1,600 sq.ft. to 2,100 sq.ft. and will be offered in three different models. He stated that the key issues for review are the proposed setbacks to single family residences, yard minimums, separation of buildings, lot coverage, landscaping and open space percentages. He reported that the proposed project exceeds parking requirements (two-car garages for each condominium and a total of ten guest parking spaces). He reported that the project design features the grouping of residential units around central driveway courtyards which minimizes vehicular driveway areas and accompanying garage views. He stated that lot sizes will likely preclude the construction of individual pools, but that a single common pool and spa facility will be located at the westerly end of the project site. He reported that the applicant has proposed improvements to Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of the intersection with Museum Drive, in order to resolve current traffic and driveway conflicts and to provide traffic calming(e.g. narrowing the street right-of-way,adding a landscaped median with stone identification monuments, on-street bay parking on the south side of the street, and project entryway improvements). He stated that the improvements are also meant to reduce the number of misdirected vehicles in the vicinity. He reported that recent projects (e.g. The Willows Bed & Breakfast Inn) have been similarly conditioned to participate in improvements at the terminus of West Tahquitz Canyon Way. He reported that the gated entry will feature a 16 ft. wide guest lane and 8 ft. wide landscaped median to buffer between the main 20 ft. entry driveway. He stated that a second [teardrop-shaped to accommodate fire trucks] 16 ft. wide landscape median separates the primary entry lane and the 18 ft. wide exit lane. He reported that the applicant has incorporated a number of revisions into the project, as requested by staff, and that the final proposed architectural design is consistent with existing development in the area. He reported that the initial study/environmental assessment dated August 23, 2001 demonstrated a potential fora significant environmental impact on traffic,archeology, and air quality with respect to future short-term construction activity unless mitigated. 18A79 ' o Page 5 of 13 Planning Commission Minutes 4p September 12, 2001 Director reported that the development proposal history on this property includes apartment buildings of several hundred units and a monolithic 30 ft. tall building with 25 ft. setbacks. He explained that the intent of this proposed Planned Development District is to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to consider an overall sound development plan in the presence of issues such as the proposed reduced setbacks. He reported that the property to the north of the subject site is not flat land single family residences, but that it is hillside property with multi-story homes. He reported that the proposed density is substantially reduced from General Plan zoning allowances and that, although it was requested by the Planning Commission at a Study Session as an element to consider, the developer reports that single-story units will not allow enough density for a successful project. He reported that staff has received a letter from Mainiero, Smith &Associates, representing Ms. Rose Mihata, in objection to the project and a letter from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Planning Commission recommending approval with an additional condition regarding possible recovery of cultural and archeological resources. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing at 2:35 p.m. Ms. Tracy Conrad, neighborhood resident and owner of The Willows Bed & Breakfast Inn, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she has several concerns about the proposed project which include the site plan which she called unimaginative cookie-cutter units. She stated that the allowed General Plan density is misleading and that the allowed number would not be possible to implement. She stated that the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way is an ongoing problem which should be resolved prior to approval of the proposed project. She stated that the height of the buildings are problematic and that they are not oriented to the mountain. She stated that she is worried that, if the current applicant/developer were not the actual builder, concessions which have been made to the neighborhood (e.g. two piece barrel tile roofs and upscale design elements) will not be honored. She stated that she is also concerned about the landscaping, lighting, noise, and traffic. She stated that the proposed project will impact her business and every resident of the Historic Tennis Club neighborhood for a long time and urged the Planning Commission to give careful consideration to the proposal. Mr. Steve Cheranski (sp?) addressed the Planning Commission to state that the traffic at Tahquitz Canyon Way in this area is a concerning issue to him; as are the proposed setbacks and building heights. He stated that he felt the condominium project will affect the beauty and historical significance of the surrounding area. He stated that he felt the density was too great for the area and asked that the Planning Commission require adherence to all zoning requirements. Mr. Frank Tyson, President of the Historical Tennis Club Neighborhood, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the historical neighborhood has been improved over the years and has received national and international attention for its beauty. He stated that he is not prepared to support the proposal as it has been submitted. He stated that he heard that the Spanish Inn had fallen out of escrow and likened it to the proposed development. He stated that the present developer has not ironed out architectural details, density, and height issues. He stated that the developer promised another meeting with the neighborhood group but has not met with them. He asserted that the applicant has pulled the wool over the eyes of the Planning Commission regarding pad heights and drainage issues. He urged the Planning Commission to continue or deny the project. /�r9�79 Page 6 of 13 4' D" Planning Commission Minutes q�� September 12 2001 Ms. Rose Mihata, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she feels she is a good citizen and asserted that the applicant is wasting the Planning Commission's time and that the owner will sell the property immediately upon approval. She stated that drainage is a serious concern to her and that there should be a retention basin—that she has lived here for 20 years and has personally witnessed the subject property flooded on several occasions. She stated that she is concerned with fire — that the hillside has caught on fire twice in the past 20 years. She stated that traffic is also a concern and that she has witnessed one fatality. She invited the Planning Commissioners to visit the site before they take action on the application. She stated that she does not feel the proposed project will better the neighborhood and that all zoning laws should be adhered to. Mr. Bruce Page, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the concerns raised are legitimate; however, did give his support to developing the property. Mr. Jim White, consultant to the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state the Mr. Bergheer was not able to fly in for today's meeting and that he is available to answer any questions that the Planning Commission has. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he did not understand the comments regarding the drainage on the property because part of the development plan does include two separate onsite retention basins. He stated that the internal drainage system and retention area on the eastern property line will manage the majority of storm drain water underground. He stated that the pads need to be raised one foot in order to access sewers and that if the adjacent older homes were being built today, they would also have to be raised to that level. He stated that traffic issues are a concern and, therefore, a traffic study has been completed. He stated that a turnaround is proposed to improve traffic situation for the entire neighborhood and will be located entirely on the subject property and that the street would be narrowed to slow and discourage misdirected traffic. He reported that the City Engineer is in support of the proposal. Mr. Allen Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to comment on the development of the site design. He stated that, when the project was first started, the Planning Commission reviewed it at two Study Sessions and that concerns expressed at those meetings regarding the site plan were addressed and are included in the proposal being reviewed today. He stated that subsequent Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians issues stalled the project until acceptable Conditions of Approval could be drafted. He stated that the internal roadways were reconfigured to meander and open space was increased. He stated that the project is a creative use for housing downtown and is an upper-end, quality project which will outshine existing properties in the neighborhood. He stated that the applicant and development team have met numerous times with neighborhood residents and have addressed many concerns from those meetings. He stated that the applicant has demonstrated willingness to work with the neighborhood and staff. Mr. Mike Finely, real estate developer, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is concerned about accessibility, that the two-story units are too close to the property line, that the J3h 9b Page 7 of 13 O Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2001 quantity of vehicles would increase dramatically in the area. He asked that the developer consider eliminating four units to get more distance between buildings and use that space for a buffer. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed at 3:08 p.m. Director clarified that the predominant zoning of the subject site is R-3 and that, by right-of-zone, building height can be 26 ft. to the top of roof pitch, not including pad which needs to be elevated by four inches due to the sewer(which connects at Tahquitz Canyon Way.) He reported that, in order to make the substantial reduction to allowed density on this site, the developer is asking for trade-offs such as setback reductions. He reported that the Fire Department is comfortable with the project. He also reported that the Traffic Engineer eliminated some bay parking and would like more eliminated; however, planning staff believes that, due to the non-aggressive nature of condominium traffic, more spaces eliminated would be a detriment to the project. He reported that no need for a traffic light on Belardo Road has been established but that, when and if the Desert Fashion Plaza is redeveloped, it is likely that a light will be installed and the Traffic Engineer estimates that the applicant's fair share of this cost would be $12,000. He clarified that the site is overparked by 29 spaces for residents and proposes 10 spaces for guest parking where 13 are required. He reported that utility lines are planned to be relocated underground, although that mitigation measure will require the cooperation of neighboring property owners and that staff will monitor that progress. He stated that the property line wall on the north may have a wrought iron addition for additional security. He reported that Sanborn A&E has done a hydrology report on the site and that, historically, the flooding goes onto the adjacent property and then, if ponding occurs, the subject site receives that overflow. He reported that the predominant amount of flooding, when it occurs, comes from Arenas Canyon and flows out onto West Tahquitz Canyon Way. He stated that staff has looked carefully at the hillside residences to the north, setbacks, and height in relationship to proposed project and has determined a reasonable balance of setback from streets would be between 17 and 23 feet. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he is concerned that, in season, guest parking could be insufficient. He also stated that,while he enjoys the townhouse concept in the downtown business area, he recognizes that there are substantial neighborhood issues to be resolved. He stated that he does not feel the traffic is a potential problem and that he feels the project is well-done. He asked that the developer consider the fact that Model Three repeats itself in an awkward way and that the windows are positioned to look directly into the next door unit. Commissioner Raya stated that he is concerned with density and compromising setbacks; and two-story buildings creating a "sea of roofs"which would not be appropriate for the subject area. He stated that material selections are important for this project and that windows too close from building to building is also a concern. M/ (Raya) to deny. Motion withdrawn. Page 8 of 13 \ O� Planning Commission Minutes It� September 12 2001 Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. White, applicant's representative, reported that he would like to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and continue the item to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. M/S/C(Raya/Jurasky,3-1, Matthews dissenting, 1 abstention,2 absent)to continue to the meeting of September 26, 2001 in order to restudy the following: A. Pad heights on southern and eastern perimeter lots; B. Wall design on northern property line; C. Relationship of units to other units (especially Floor Plan #3) and corresponding fenestration; D. Density; E. Redesign including single story combination units on southern, eastern, and northern property lines. Chairman Klatchko called a brief recess. The Planning Commission was called back to order at 4:15 p.m. JQ1b_ IDMainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. Planning/Civil Engineering/Land Surveying 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 /Palm Springs, California 92262-6784 Telephone (760) 320-9811 /FAX (760) 323-7893 • e-mail info@ mainierosmith.com • www.mainierosmith.com September 12, 2001 Mr. Doug Evans RECEIVED Director of Planning and Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way SEP 12 2001 P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, California 92262 PLANNING DIVISION Re: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California Inc. Dear Doug: We represent Ms. Rose Mihata and she has asked us to review the proposed 52 unit condominium project proposed immediately adjacent to her personal residence at 468 West Tahquitz Canyon Way. She has already sent a letter to you requesting a more detailed environmental analysis in the form of an EIR. My purpose is to delve into the overall site plan and the variances being requested. In summary, we would request some restudy of the plans in hope that the project proponents be afforded the opportunity to resolve the areas of conflict. The Process: The Planned Development District (PDD) process is designed to improve the quality of development by allowing flexibility in development standards. To that end the proposed development is seeking reduced setbacks and reduced distances between buildings among other requests. We agree that the PDD affords the city and the developer the best opportunity to forge a quality plan for-this site. One of the objectives of the PDD has been to ensure that the resulting development exceeds right-of-zone standards. Another requirement in the Zoning Ordinance is that "the form and type of development of the surrounding neighborhoods." We believe that these two objectives have.not been met and point to further study and refinement'of the plan. Site Plan: The site plan issues that we believe need further study are the height and design of the units facing Tahquitz Canyon Way. The requirements of the zoning ordinance for R-2 and R-3 properties abutting R-1 zones include a 200-foot setback for any two-story buildings. The current design shows two story structures with only a 25- foot setback from the north property line. In addition, the buildings should all be single story and should be separated by at least the ordinance minimum of 15-feet, if not 20- feet, which would be the single-family standard. The greater distance between buildings would allow some view corridors through the development and the single story limit would insure that there were no second story windows looking down into the existing development. Mr. Doug Evans September 12, 2001 Page Two An alternative that might also work would be to extend the retention basin along the northerly property line thereby increasing the setback from the north property line. Concerning the proposed retention design, it seems like an opportunity for multiple use is being lost for the only significant open space on the site. Circulation: The access to the area remains a concern, particularly with the newly proposed angled parking in front of Le Valluris restaurant. The current design would be confusing to the folks that are wandering around in their "discovery" mode, as it does not create an easy turn-around area and work from that point. The conditions of approval also indicate that a new traffic light is being proposed for the tee-intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road. This signal should only be entertained if the entry to the Fashion Plaza parking is relocated to align with Belardo Road. Walls: The normal requirement for perimeter walls where R-3 or R-2 properties abut single-family properties is for a six-foot masonry wall. Since the existing historic and unique fieldstone wall along the north property line is only approximately 40" +/- in height, a new 6-foot wall would appear out-of-place if placed immediately adjacent to it. We would suggest eliminating the requirement for a six-foot wall along the north property line and if a privacy wall is desired, that it be limited to the patio areas of those units. In summary, we believe the site plan should be restudied to come closer to meeting the intent of the Planned Development District requirement for consistency with the adjacent properties, to increase the setback for two story development adjacent to T-1 zones, to open up the distance between buildings and to resolve the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way. Very truly yours, Marvin Roos Director of Planning Services MDR:cm cc: Rose Mihata Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 301/Palm Springs,California 92262-6784/Telephone(760)320-9811/FAX(760)323-7893 e-mail info@mainierosmith.com•www.mainierosmith.com � 39 � co = RECEIVED Q a Q� ��cgHU1��P� SEP 12 2001 September 12, 2001 PLANNING DIVISION` Mayor William Kleindienst and Palm Springs City Council c/o Doug Evans, Director of Building and Planning City of Palm Springs 3255 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Re: Planning Commission Meeting of September 13, 2001 Dear Mayor Kleindienst and City Council: The Tribal Council of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, at its meeting of September 11, 2001, has reviewed the City Planning Commission Agenda of September 13, 2001 and upon review and recommendation of the Indian Planning Commission recommends the following: 1. Regarding Case No. 5.0804 (Bergheer California) The Tribal Council recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map 29077, subject to the 13 conditions identified in the letter by Schlecht, Shevlin and Schoenberger dated September 8, 2000, and attached to Tribal Resolution 51-00, Amendment No. 1 (attached). In addition, the Tribal Council requests that an additional condition be added which states that: Upon recovery obhuman remains of burial features the applicant shall notify the Tribe in writing and by telephone. At the applicants expense, the applicant shall perform ground penetrating radar tests within a 100 foot radius of the find to determine the possible evidence of other human remains and/or burial sites. Results of said tests shall be immediatey disclosed to the Tribe. Written notice shall be delivered to: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 600 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA 92262 By Phone to: Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Department of Planning, Building and Engineering 325-3400 extensions 209, 204, or 207 /V 600 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY • PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 • TEL (760) 325-3400 • FM (760) 325-0593 a O ��CgHU11�P�� The Tribe shall have 72 hours from the above notice to respond and properly remove any remains. 2. Regarding Case No. 5.0827 (Lundin Development) The Tribal Council recommends approval of Case No. 5.0827 and Tentative Tract Map No. 29638, subject to the following conditions: • Prior to the issuance of a building permit the site plan and elevations shall be returned to the Indian Planning Commission and Tribal Council, showing the architectural detail for the Section 14 Gateway Concept. • Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall provide to the Tribe a cultural resource survey for parcels 1, 2 and 3 of Tentative Tract Map No. 29638. • At time of grading an archaeologist, together with a Native American monitor(s), shall be present to observe all activities. Please contact me if you require any additional information. T ours, Davis, AICP ing Director Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians TJD/ss Attachments C: Tribal Council James Schlecht, Esq, John Sanborn PALETTERS-TJD\9-11-01 Mayor Kleindienst and City Council Re Planning Commission Meeting 9-13-01 ley Ctr..doc 600 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY • PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 • TCL (760) 325-3400 • FAx (760) 3235903#8r QGJ� c441ey�� a = RESOLUTION NO: 51-00 a Q AMENDMENT NO: 1 OFC�9FIUII� WHEREAS, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians (the "Tribe") is a federally-recognized Indian Tribe governing itself according to a Constitution and By-Laws and exercising sovereign authority over the lands of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation; and WHEREAS, the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians have for years been trying to preserve the land located at the west end of Tahquitz Canyon Way also known as Assessor's Parcel Nos, (Replace 513-121- 035 with) 513-120-035 and 513-141-012 from urban disturbance due to its known sacred burial grounds; and WHEREAS, as far back as 1893, for over 106 years the United States Government through its Federal Agency known at that time as the Untied States Indian Service recognizes and acknowledges the land as an Indian Cemetery; and WHEREAS, the Trial Council on April 20, 1999 passed Tribal Resolution 24-99 declaring said parcels of land to be sacred ceremonial burial grounds; and WHEREAS, the Joseph Drown Foundation, the landowner, wishes to convey to the Tribe certain portions of said parcels known today to be sacred ceremonial burial grounds under conditions identified in the attached correspondence dated September 8, 2000, known as Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, the Tribal Council wishes to acquire certain parcels from the landowner known today to be sacred ceremonial burial grounds under conditions identified in the attached correspondence known as Exhibit "A" NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the Tribal Council of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians that Tribal staff, including the Tribal Planning Director and the Tribal Attorney, are hereby authorized to act on behalf of the Tribal Council and are hereby directed to take whatever other steps are necessary, and to prepare whatever other documents are needed, to accomplish the Tribe's goal of obtaining title to the parcel of land described as a portion of Assessor's Parcel Nos. (Replace 513-121- 035 with) 513-120-035 and 513-141-012, subject to the conditions identified in Exhibit"A". Dated: December 12, 2000 Richard M. Milanovich, Tribal Chairman 600 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY • PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 9W62 • TEL (760) 325-3400 FAX;60) 3054p# caJIF,y�� Resolution No: 51-00 Amendment#1 G Q Page No: 2 O CERTIFICATION I, the undersigned, the Secretary of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, hereby certify that the Tribal Council is composed of five members of whom 5, constituting a quorum, were present at a meeting whereof, duly called, and noticed, convened and held this 12th day of December, 2000; that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted at such meeting by the affirmative vote of 4-0-0, members and that said resolution has not been rescinded or amended in any way. _ NNc' �62 M c s J. P e Secretary/Treasurer SCH .L.: HT, SHEVLIN & SHOENBI 1GER LUM X 3CHLECHT A LAW CORPORATION TELEPHONE I76M 320.7161 ' SOHN C.SHEVL IN uyyYM TELEGOP11 SI"323-1753 3ON A.3HOFNBERGER EMAIL n4wftty a4 - DANIEL T.JOHNSON POST OFFICE BOX 2744 DAVID A.DARRIN 301 EAST TAHQUIIZ CANYON WAY,SOLrE 100 1N REPLY REFER TO: PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92263-2744 11829.1 September 8, 2000 Thomas 1. Davis Tribal Planning Director Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians 901 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite C-101 Palm Springs, California 92262 RE: JOSEPH DROWN FOUNDATION Dear Tom: As a follow-upto our recent meeting, this letter will sere to set forth the terms and conditions of an agreement under which the Drown Foundation is willing to convey the "cemetery parcel" to the Tribe: 1. Our client will prepare a parcel map or lot line adjustment map which will divide the cemetery propery including the drainage ditch from the rest of their property so we have a legal parcel which could be included in a grant deed at the time of conveyance. 2. Any and all cost related to any conditions imposed by the City of Palm Springs on the tentative map to obtain the final map which conditions are related to the parcel to be conveyed to the Tribe would be at the expense of the Tribe. 3• We will also supply an easement for pedestrian and vehicular access for the ten feet immediately to the east of the drainage ditch which easement will also be conveyed to the o Tribe at the time we make the above conveyance. , 4. Such conveyance and the easement shall be deemed a gift conveyance to the Tribe. The land and easement to be used only for the protection and preservation of cultural and natural resources of the Tribe, preservation of historic cemetery grounds, preservation of open space, and the preservation of in place or respectful public display of archeological and cultural resources of the land. $. It is understood our client would not have to take any further action with respect to which of the various possible access routes the Tribe would select. EXHIBIT A ) BA to SCHLECHT, SHEVL i & SHOENBERGER e uw coa2oxwaorr LAWYMM Thomas J. Davis September 8, 2000 Page 2 6. Once we have the legal description of the portion that will be included within the parcel, we will order a title commitment from a title company to be selected by the Drown Foundation. If based upon that title commitment the Tribe elects to have title insurance issued, the expense of a title policy will be absorbed by the Tribe. 7. The conveyance above described will take place no later than sixty days after final approval by the City of Palm Springs of a development project approved by the Drown Foundation on the remainder of the property. 8. If the conveyance does not occur within one year of the written acceptance by the Tribe of the proposal contained in this letter, then the Tribe can request that our client proceed with completion of a parcel map at the cost of the Tribe and when such map is recorded in the Riverside County records, our client will deliver the conveyance within ten days thereafter. 9. It is understood the Tribe needs to approve the title commitment and no conveyance will be sent to the Tribe until and unless we receive a written response from you that the title commitment has been approved. The title commiti-nent will include copies of any and all exceptions to title recited therein. 10. In order to remove a possible cloud on title, we would request the Tribal Council to agree to rescind its Resolution No. 24-99 at such time as our client delivers the conveyance referred to above. Such rescission would be deemed a waiver and release by the Tribe of any further claim to the balance of our client's property. However, if in the course of doing grading for construction, human burial remains are discovered, our client will require the contractor and/or developer to notify the Riverside County Coroner and the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribe Office. Once the Coroner's investigation is complete, the burial remains will be prepared for removal to a location specified by the Tribe. The actual removal of remains, and the method for such removal, ' shall be conducted by authorized representatives of the Tribe. To avoid delay in construction, if the Tribe has not removed the remains within 48 hours of receiving written notice from the landowner, developer or City of Palm Springs, the contractor and/or developer may arrange to have the remains removed and stored at the Palm Springs Public Cemetery for an additional period of seven ( ) days. If the Tribe has not acted to take possession of the remains within that time period, the remains can then be buried at the Palm Springs Public Cemetery. 11. The gift to the Tribe is conditioned on our client's establishing to its satisfaction that a gift to the Tribe is deductible for income tax purposes. SCHLECHT, SHMI lim SHOENBERGER e iaw COMIurtoH LAWYM Thomas T. Davis September 8, 2000 Page 3 12. If there is a sale of the remaining property, our client will require the Contract of Sale to contain a provision obligating the buyer therein to comply with the provisions contained herein. The Tribe will be given written notice of such sale and thereafter any unperformed provisions of this agreement shall become the obligation of the buyer therein and our client shall have no further obligation of performance. 13. The Drown Foundation or the subsequent buyer of the remaining property will hire, at their expense, archaeological monitor(s) recommended and approved by the Tribal Council, for all subsequent work involving any excavation related to the development of the remaining property. If the above meets your approval, would you please send this to the Tribe for formal action by them. We would like to have an approval in writing from such official as the Tribal Council authorizes to sign on behalf of the Tribe along with a copy of the Tribal Council Resolution approving thisl'iagreement. If you have any questions, please give me a call. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Very truly yours, APPROVED: THE IOSEPH DROWN FOUNDATION Norman Obrow, President ?A,NfF-S M. SCHLECHT ct Client bf. Laurie Murphy Dorothy C. & Harold J. Meyerman RECEIVED 550 Palisades Drive Palm Springs, California 92262 Tel.: (760) 318-6674 SEP 19 2001 Mr. Douglas Evans, Director $e Z� NNING DIVISION City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way P.O. Box 2743, Palm Springs, Ca. 92262 Dear Mr. Evans: Re: Case 5 0804-PD 2541Drown EQundation We were unable to attend yesterday's meeting in person nor, for that matter, will we be able to attend the follow up meeting scheduled for September 26. As residents of the area, we are not opposed to a high quality project which may well be contemplated for the acreage in question. We are strongly opposed, however, to a number of features which appear to be part of the present plans. I would summarize our concerns as follows: 1.) Insufficient setbacks from the 400 block of West Tahquitz. The very high quality and historic significance of the present homes along Tahquitz will be diminished unless setbacks are increased significantly; 2.) Height of the proposed structures adds to the "tunnel" problem which was referred to by one of the participants. As a result, the developer will need to consider single story structures along West Tahquitz in addition to (1) above; 3.) The fieldstone wall along Tahquitz should remain as an important and desirable feature for both the existing as well as the new residents; 4.) Density will need to be reduced as setbacks are increased, distances between structures increased and single story homes contemplated, and 5.) The new development will make congestion, which is already an issue, only worse. The City should also be assured by the developer that the property will not be "flipped" once again. Finally, the City has an unusual opportunity to extend the high quality of the existing neighborhood by approving a project which is consistent with the surrounding area, comprising notable landmarks such as the Willows, Vallouris, the existing homes referred to above as well as the home of Mr. Albert Frey, Mr. Halliday's home and our own residence inspired and designed in large part by the late Mr. Frey. Sincerely, - cam 9 o.c. Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Page 13 A 942 Rose Mihata 468 West Tahquitz Canyon Palm Springs, California 92262 Office(760)320-0882 Fax(760)320-9395 City of Palm Springs, Planning Department P.O. Box 1786 Palm Springs CA 92263 Dear Sirs, RE : BERGREER CALIFORNIA INC. —GATED COMMUNITY CASE NO • 5.0804 I strongly oppose the above project to be located on West Tahquitz Way at the foot of Mt. San Jacinto in downtown Palm Springs. I purchased my home for the neighborhood setting and the spectacular view of depth and distance,which will be totally destroyed if this project is allowed to proceed. Before investing large sums of money to restore my property to its 1920's era, my contractor and I thoroughly researched and educated ourselves regarding the city restrictions on the subject property. My first and foremost concern was regarding future construction on the vacant land across from my impending purchase. Our research included the potential height requirements and extent of anyone obstructing my view, including set-back regulations, building codes, variances, restrictions and necessary laws and ordinances existing. After satisfactory assurances by the City Officials I ventured into a substantial investment of up-grading and restoration. I believe a full scale Environmental Impact Report is imperative. Such a report will bring to light, amongst other things, the many negative aspects of this project. Traffic, Fire,loss of view, pollution and congestion, noise, nighttime illuminations which will severely hamper a visual appreciation of the moon and stars, flooding due to change in patterns of water run-offs, plus the quiet enjoyment and security. I also feel it necessary to direct your attention to a previous letter I sent regarding the traffic problems this proposed project would create. My son was involved in an accident, he was hit by another vehicle which was leaving Le Vallouris, the driver of the vehicle leaving the restaurant failed to look for oncoming traffic before pulling.out into my son. On another occasion there was a fatal accident in the intersection of the said property. I witnessed this accident and took the man to the hospital but unfortunately he 13h 93 l l � died from his injuries. Lets not allow another person to die because our planning department failed to carry out an adequate traffic study. The volume of traffic that would be created by this project spells a nightmare of congestion. This would also assist in adding to the traffic-flow problem that already exists in the neighborhood. The Desert Fashion Plaza is practically closed at the present time, therefore it is only going to get worse when it re-opens for business. For these and other reasons a thorough traffic study is viable, imperative and necessary in order to safeguard the integrity, safety and history of this neighborhood. la closing.I want you all to know that I love this city. It goes without question that all of you feel the same way, however,we owe it to ourselves to take a closer look at this proposed project. Notonly for those of.us whom it will affect now,but for all of those it will affect in the future of this beautiful city. Respectfully submitted, ]3.OS]?E..MIfic�TA Property Owner , 468 West Tahquitz.Way 1Vfainie6N Smith and Associates, Inc. kkenning/Civil Eng.moring i lJand,Survtymg„ 777 asc faaqui z'Canydn'Way, Suite 30i Palzn'Spcmgs.Cali ornia.9E62.6764 . ' „ -' Telephone'(760j,32U-9s11 /F.�7:('Iti(lY�'23-7843'y 6-mpiltafoC�maii.ierosn><the�cu• wwwtaxainia.osiYiitti.oum ' September 12,'� ' Mr;boug Eva'ps . Director of Planning and Building. CITY OV PALM;ORINGS 32go) ist Tahqultz danyon Way P.D;Sox 2743 Pafm,Springs,..Calebr" is 922G2 Re ,Case 5 6$Qg i .0 254/Bergheer California Inc,, De rboug: We represent Ms. .Rbse Mihate and she-has asked us,to review the proposed 52 unit c tni ondamum 'project proposed imrnedialiely.adjacent,to her personal residence at 468 West_Tahq itz Canyon Way. She has:already sent a )otter to you requesting a more detailed environmental analysis in the form of an'51R. My purpose is to delve into..the overall;gjfe plan,and the variances being requested. tn-summary, we-would request some; .restudy.of the, plans. in .hope that the project proponents be '.affords¢ tits opportunity to resdlv4.fhe,ar6as ofconflict. The Praeess:, .The 'Planned Development District. (PDD). procgss; is designed to Improve the quality`bf d`6velppMent by 211owing flexibility in development standards. 'To that end, the proposed .developmeht Is .,seeking. reduced 'setbacks and 'reduced' ;distances betwean.buildings among other requests. We,agree 4hat the PDD affords the 6ky and the developer the best opportunity to,forge'a quality•plan fqr this site. One of "th'e:objectives'of thb PDD has been to ensure that the resultlp'g,development exceeds, ,. right-of-zone standards) Another requirement in the Zoning Ordinance is that "the form and type of-development of the surrounding neighborhoods; We believe that these two objectives have xtotbeen met and point lb:further study and"refinement of the plan. me'Pi n .' T,hess plan issues that we believe need further'study are the height and design of the. unit's'.facing 7ahGuitz Canyon )Nay: . The'requirements, of the Yoning ordinance fdrR-2 and R-3 properties abutting R-.1 zones.include a 20Q-foot setback for any two-story buildings. The curreht design shows Ned story structures with bniy a _510 foot setback from the'north property line:. In•addition, the buildings should,all be single story,and should 'be separated by at least thb:ordinance minimum of. 15-feet, if not,20- feQt;,'which 'would be'.the single-family standard. The greater distance between, buildings would allow some view corridors through the development and the single story limit would insure that there were 'no .second.'story windows looking down into the, existing ld0velopmant. t�7r: 00 Evans, . September 12, 2001 . page An"alternativ'e that might also work tiuoufd bo,'tc extand tyre eetention basin 'alang the h6rtherfv property lke t6amllq increasing the setback from the north property% line. Conoerning„the,proposed,rvienticn design, it semis like an oppo.rtunity for multipia use Is balog lost for'th'e only signOcant opan space ort the�jte . irc lati The access to the area remains a concern, partirrriariy with the newly proposed. engled poirking in front off Le'Nallurls restaurant, i hEt ourrer it design would be . sxrnfusing; to,th fokks that are work ertng are'und in thisir "discaw=ry" ?node, as it does not',braate ari easy'furn-around area -and work from that point ' The donditions of .approve, else indicate that a new trafriv light is t;eing rrgposed for Moi tee-inlersection. of•Tahgw[tz Canyon, Way.arid Belar e Road. This sigma! should r niy be'entartained if the etntrj to thdFa'shion Plaza parking is relocated to align vkh Beta roo PZQa.d. Wa Is:' -,The;riormai requirernent:f+3r parimater wall; 'Vliere F .3 or, R-2 pro}rert+3s,abut sing164arnaly propeftles is for a elx foot masonry ti&L 5irice.'the e.xsting ttlstodc and. ` unlgr-p fieldstone wall aping the. north, propv y Me Mr alt9y 'approxamately'40" 4-1. In helght, anew 6-foot wall would{ appear out-of-place if piac'ed`imme'diotely adjacent to it. Ws 'W�uld suggest, elir;ainati g the requirenie.nt for .a six-foot wall along .the, north prgpetiky line and.if a;privacy wall is desirzd,, that-it be limited to the patio.,areas.'of algae units.' . ih-summary; we belkeve the site plan should be res;udied to.come tloser to rnestin'g the Intent' of thq"Planned [Development District . rcquiremertt fo'r consistency with the adjacent propedles; ta increase the setback f6r two story deveicprtient adjat;snt to T-1 zanesr ter, dpsr'„uF the.distance, betweenbuildings .and to',resol4e, the wrminus of FatigUltz,6nyon Way. 'Jery.tmlyfi'yoore, . tvterJin FEoas . Director of Plannini Services co; Rose,Mihat4 , vlatuui'e�u,5mktit and AAo iate.s,W . 777EaesTetrtruittGanYantvay',9uite391rPeJ,�nS�nn�,5,ire7.yffarnil4Zz'.62-�7fi4t'{�idyh��(7b03���-��+11iPa.�,t76Uj329-'893 . e-ixlaily-e6ngt�irunzrst7itk,.au�n+pivrwxcuuGur':cosuuzs.bosta ' � 3h 9� �KHBYREEM TO: MEMBERS OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL FROM: BOB&KAREN WEH'HORN,ORCHID TREE INN SUBJECT: CASE4 5 0804-PD 254/BERGHEER CALWORNIA,INC. DATE: 10/15/2001 We wish to express our concern and opposition to the proposed subject development as it now is planned. Briefly, our reasons and questions are as follows: We have major concerns regarding the impact of increased traffic in our area, especially as regards to an intersection about which we hear frequent complaints, namely Talquitz, Museum Drive, and Cahuilla Road. Visualize this if yen will: Think about current high season traffic, (not including event traffic when Palm Carryon Drive is closed), Museum, and LaVallauris traffic and Willows' guests with little parking. Add an essentially dead-end pocket with a single ingress and egress, a crossing point for the Heritage Bike Trail, Holiday lnm traffic, the added load imposed by John Wessman's planned residential development of the "Promenade" the planned Radisson Hotel fiuther down Belardo (approximately 5-6 blocks) and a reactivated Promenade mall. We are about to create perhaps the worst intersection in Palm Springs where we least would want it. What happens in the event. of another hillside FIRE? hi fact, suppose one of the proposed units, spaced 6-8 feet apart, bums. Suppose either fire occurs during an event at the Museum or the mall, or LaVallauris, or the Willows, or Rose Mihata's home, or Albert Frey's? Has the Fire Department been advised and reviewed the project in these regards? Has an environmental impact study been performed? Has the negative impact on surrounding property values been assessed'? What of non-compliance with zoning restrictions and requirements'? What are John Wessman's plans for the southwest corner of Tahquitz and Camilla? (We understand he is now the owner). 261 SOUTH BELARDO ROAD, PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 (760) 325-2791 FAX(760) 325-3855 Reservation (800) 733-3435 There are other issues, but SAFETY FIRST. We finrdy believe that it is irresponsible (playing with fire?) to deliberately create a hazardous condition, for traffic, convenience and SAFETY, at what could well become one of the most heavily travelled intersections off of Palm Canyon Drive. Then there's the issue of City arid/or Council liability We believe further review, discussion, and plan modification is necessary. Respectfully, t Bob &Karen Weithom Orchid Tree Inn 2 10-12-201 3-64PM FROM CNSLTNTSINTL WEITHRN 1 760 323 0309 P. 1 KNIMEEINN. „Y4";��d�1.L11��4 �t a 193Ja de4ent 9,zwde� tateas OCT 12 v c`k)4!ej. !" iv _ J1lJdCn .,1 � fit �ti'�. (J3 ! f LN�� i W P 1 i We Tail 261 SOUTH,EELARDO ROAD, PALM SPRINGS. CALIFORNIA 92262 (760) $25-2701 FAX(760)325-3855 Reserva[ion (800) 733-3435 10-12-231 3:S4PM FROM CNSLTNTSINTL WEITHRN 1 763 323 0309 P- 2 r..t c /jvar C� J7 AY G hQv c"h cvv tea, /1214 10/12/2001 00: 03 7603201420 SCD PAGE _ 06 SCD Steven Cheroske Design ASID 530 West Tahquitz Canyon Way Phone:760.320,4020 Patin Spdngs,California 92262 Fax:760.320.1426 October 12, 2001 Jeanne Spurgin City Hall /3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 13g Case 5.0804-PD 254 Bergheer California Inc. Dear Ms. Spurgin, I live at 530 W. Tahquitz Canyon way and face the proposed development of 53 condominiums, by Bergheer California Inc. I am strongly opposed to this development for the following reasons. 1. It is not compatible with the million dollar single family homes facing this project. I know that this project could impact the value of my property, if it is not re-designed to a higher scale 2. The development does NOT meet current set back and separation codes set by our city. Ether we are going to conform to codes or we are not. What good are the codes, if we do not follow them? 3. There is only one way in and one way out of this project. If the 8'separations are approved it will be a major fire hazard. If one condo catches fire it could endanger the entire complex, homes and hill side. I would find it hard to believe you could get the necessary f re trucks in to this area, while trying to get people out of danger. 4. The current area can not handle the traffic this project would bring. Just last week the Willows Inn had a party of 50 cars. It took me 10 minutes to gat down my street, to home. What will happen when we add 53 homes, pool men, mail men, repair people, utility people, the restaurant , the Willows, catering trucks, scd448@gtb.net 10/12/2001 00: 03 7603201428 SCD PAGE 07 Steven Cheroske Design Pago 2 odobw 12,2001 deliveries, the Museum? Just think about it and the new Desert Fashion Plaza Traffic. DO ROTAUHNP THE GUN ON THIS IKMECTllll! PLE K 7.0-PLANNING UNTIL WE GA"ET IT RIGRT 1Qi(E-WILL-L% 1.E.Tp1,LV- WJTk1_.TtHIS FOR DECADES TO COME IF WE RUSH IN ON AN APPROVAL, WE WILL BE SORRY LATF.RAft I sincerely hope you will review this project very closely. 1 will be at the meeting on the 17th of October and hope you will send this project back to planning. Sincerely Steven Cheroske &Timothy Helyer acd44lS@gte.n9t 10-12-201 3:SSPM FROM CNSLTNTSINTL WEITHRN 1 760 323 0309 P. 3 Llw� 14 1 :-:)ye�"Jtt�44(--6 ��U4, , OCT-12-01 03 - 18 PM WILLOWS 760 325 6451 F. 01 Tiir, WILLOWS HISTORIC CALM SPRrNC.q INN �1 T 122PECENEED 0�1, � 1, Np/ October 12,2001 Mayor Will Kleindienst Mayor Pro Tcm Ron Oden Councilmcmbcr Jeanne Reller Spurgin Councilnrcntber Deyna Hodges Councilmcmbcr Jim Jones Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmembers, I am writing regarding the proposed project for the Drown Foundation property at the western terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way. I am in favor of a quality development for the site,but have several concerns regarding the proposed project. 1 would like to enter these into the record. 1. The project is too dense currently and the site plan is unimaginative. 2. Traffic and noise generated from the project have not been adequately addressed. 3. Lighting needs to be high-quality,down-lighting and not light polluting. 4. Timing for implementation of theconsh'uction and earth-moving needs to avoid our high season. 5. The current owner will not be the developer of the project. As the current owner has promised many agreed upon details,such as the architectural qualities and specific design elements,we need assurance that these agreements will be honored by the subsequent owners. These elements are outlined in previous letters regarding the pi eject which I append here for your review. They include the old-world spanish architecture with two-piece barrel rile and cement roofs,minimalist lighting,lush landscaping, wooden,recessed windows and more. The architecture as presented now in this project is very attractive and is appropriate for the neighborhood. These details are expensive and we need to make sure no revision would occur with subsequent owners. 6. The lei Luinus of Tahquitz Canyon must be improved. I believe that the current proposal is better than what uow exists. 7. There should be a more substantial portion of the project that has one-story elements. 8. The OCRs for the project should address noise,trash,gardening and pool hours. This proposal has improved with every iteration. It needs further improvement. I agree that a Planned Development District with single family homes is an appropriate use for the site. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Si rely, Tracy Conrad 412 West'tahquitz Canyon Way•Palm Springs•CA101 11A 92262•'Telephone:76o-320-0771 -Fdx: 760 3zu-uylio OCT-12-01 03 : 18 PM WILLOWS 760 325 6451 F. 02 TILE WILLOWS I-IIS'foRIC PALM SPRINGS INN September 5,20o1 Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner City of Palm Springs PO Box 2743 Palm Springs,CA 92263 And Via Facsimile 322-8360 Dear Alex, 1 am very concerned about the proposed Planned Development District for the Drown Foundation property at the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon,Case No.5.0804,Planned Development District No.254 and Tentative Map 29077. I have been involved in discussions for several years regarding this property. Attached please rind a copy of a letter sent to Jim White,representing Karl Bergheer and Bergheer California in 1998 regarding our concerns,which have not changed. Mr.Bergheer did respond with changes to the architecture of which we wholeheartedly approve, We still do not want two-story elements along Tahquitz Canyon or Palisades Drive, we feel that the lowest possible density is appropriate and are concerned about the building schedule disrupting our tourist-based business, We are also concerned that Mr.Bergheer himself will not,in the end,be the developer of this property. We would like any plan that is approved to be specific to Mr.Bergheer or direct an assignees regarding the quality of workmanship and the aesthetic points that Mr.Bergheer has guaranteed us personally throughout our numerous discussion and during the public discourse at the previous Planning Commission Study Session. Thank you for your consideration and for entering the specific concerns detailed on the following page into the formal record. S� ifaccrely, Tracy Conrad 41a West Tahquitz Canyon Wary Palnt Springs-Caldornin g2a6a Telephone:760-320-07g1 •Fax:76o-3zu-0780 OCT-12-01 03 : 19 Plq WILLOWS 760 325 6451 P. 03 TiiE WILLOWS HISTORIC PALM SPRINGS INN August 18, 1998 Jim White Lynwood Development Via Fucsimilc(619)224-9720 (619)224-6617 Dear Mr. White, Thank you very much for your phone call or today.As you know,The Willows has required a huge financial and emotional investment,and we are very concemed about anything that might deleteriously impact its value or viability. I appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns regarding any development of the Drown Foundation property. There are several aesthetic issues which are readily apparent regarding the property. 1. The entrance to the site is problematic,with limited ingress and egress,and an awkward approach, A reconfiguration of the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way in conjunction with the City of Palm Springs would be desirable. The schema would include limiting the"turnaround"traffic that now occurs,placing the telephone poles/utilities underground,and demarcating the transition from public to private street.The site entrance would also probably require some reconfiguration of the current placement of LeVallauris' !rash area,as it would be inconsistent to have the trash immediately adjacent to the entrance of an upscale residential project. Mitigation of the increased traffic to the site would be accomplished by a proper design of the site entrance and reconfiguration of Tahquitz Canyon Way from Museum Drive to the site. 2. The project would be low-density,low-profile and upscale in nature. 3. In keeping with the ambiance of the neighborhood,the rooftops would be high quality spanish file of single form,rather than s-shaped form,preferably variegated in color. 4, The lighting plan would be low-voltage and incandescent,appearing upscale,and consistent with a residential neighborhood. Any"up lighting"or globe fixtures would be highly undesirable as they would glare and contribute to light pollution. 5. Landscaping would be lush and generous, limiting Inardscape. 6. The design would limit the number and placement of trash pick up sites,or use quieter,smaller, special trash vehicles, in order to mitigate the noise oftrash pickup and contribution to noise pollution. Implementation of the development is also of concern.Heavy construction would avoid"high season"of January through May and avoid Saturdays and Sundays,to limit the negative financial impact on the tourist-based businesses adjacent. Again,I appreciate the opportunity to express these concerns. I believe that their mitigation would result in an aesthetically appropriate development for the site. I am looking forward to seeing your specific proposal, and would reserve the ability to comment further regarding its particulars. I am looking forward to introducing you,the architect,and the new owner to The Willows personally on September 3, 1998, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, 'Tracy Conrad 412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way•Palm Springs-California 922.62•Telephone:76o-320-0771�Fax:76o-320-0780 IDMainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. Planning/Civil Engineering/Land Surveying - 777 Fast Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 /Palm Springs, California 92262-6784 Telephone(760) 320-9811 /FAX (760) 323-7893 • e-mail info@ maimerosmith.com • www.mainterosmitti.com October 12, 2001@��V1Spy�?� M-T d C'! Mr. Will Kleindienst Mayor �b CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Re: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California, Inc. Dear Will: Mainiero, Smith and Associates represents Ms. Rose Mihata and she has engaged us to represent her in the current City hearings concerning the proposed condominium development immediately adjacent to her residence at 468 West Tahquitz Canyon Way. My purpose in this letter is to inform the Council as to our concerns about the overall site plan and the many variances being requested in the Planned Development District application currently before the City Council on October 17, 2001. In summary, we continue to feel the quality of this project is not yet at a high enough level to justify a reduction in standards by the Council. The Planning Commission's narrow 3-2 vote certainly should be seen as evidence that not all of the issues have been fully resolved. The Process: The Planned Development District (PDD) process is designed to improve the quality of development by allowing flexibility in development standards. To that end, the proposed 'development is seeking reduced setbacks and reduced disiances between buildings among other requests. We agree that the PDD affords the City and the developer the best opportunity to forge a quality plan for the site. One of the objectives of the PDD has been to ensure that the resulting development exceeds right-of-zone standards. Another requirement in the Zoning Ordinance is that "the form and type of development on the PD site boundary shall be compatible with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods." We believe that these two objectives of the ordinance have not been met and strongly point to further study and refinement of the plan. Site Plan: . The site plan that the Planning Commission approved by a 3-2 vote still reflects a lack of sensitivity to the single family pattern that exists on the north side of the project. The buildings form a virtual wall with only 6 feet of clear opening between the 24-foot tall structures. �, H j rFi 1, Mr. Will Kleindienst October 12, 2001 Page Two There is no meaningful view corridor through the central portion of the project. The setback to two-story construction has been increased from 25 to 50 feet but is still far short of the 200-foot setback required under normal zoning considerations. The site plan has failed to integrate the project with its location by virtually ignoring views nor has it fulfilled the mandate of the Planned Development District requirement to adjust the project design at its boundaries to match the surrounding neighborhood. Circulation. The access to the area remains a significant concern, particularly with the newly proposed angled parking in front of Le Valluris restaurant. The current design would be confusing to the folks that are forever wandering around in their "discovery" mode, as it does not create an easy turn-around area and fails to resolve a difficult situation once and for all. This is the last chance we may have to cure this problem. Once the subject property is developed, we will be living with the results essentially forever. This solution is required in conjunction with the approval of this development. Summary: While some improvements to the project have been made, the unique nature of the subject property has hardly been capitalized on. The City Council is being asked to reduce several important development standards and we don't believe the overall design of the project is at a high enough level to justify an approval by the City Council. We understand and encourage a high quality development for this property but believe that that level has not been achieved. And finally, inherent in the approval of this development is that this will be the last opportunity we will have to resolve the already impacted nature of the local traffic circulation patterns that everyone agrees are a problem. We seek the Council's concurrence that a development for this property should be one that solves these problems and isn't just "a development." Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with the staff, Commission and Council to resolve these several issues. Very truly yours, Marvin Roos, AICP Director of Planning Services MDR/cm cc: Rose Mihata y� IUD Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. 777 East fahquitz C111nyo Way,Suite 301/Palm Springs,California 92262-6784/Telephone(760)320-9811/FAX(760)323-7893 e-mail iiifo@mainierosinith.com^www.maiiiierosnntli.com IP/15/2001 13:29 10000000000 ,1URISEARCH PAGE 01/02 Dorothy C. &c Harold L Meyerman J 550 Palisades Drive Palm Springs, Cah£ornia 92262 Tel.: (760) 318-6674 ,,gyp, yak( J j �f Mayor Will Kleindienst October 15, 2001 City of Palm Springs Dear Mr, Mayor and Members of the City Council: Re: Case No. 5,0804 Drown Foundation Property We are contacting you as concerned property owners directly impacted by the proposed development that will be reviewed by your Council, October 17. We are strongly in favor of a high quality project and, as a result, are concerned about a number of aspects that appear to be part of the present plans, We also have a request that, potentially, could be made a part of the development. 1 ) We are concerned that the present owner will not be the developer. In the event this is so, we would like the City Council and/or the City Manager approve of any successor owner/developer committed to a project of equal or better quality; 2.) We:are concerned about the setbacks, the density and the height of several of the buildings, particularly along West Tahquitz; 3.) We are concerned about traffic and wonder whether a second access and egress is possible. As it stands now, quite a few vehicles, including trucks, drive to the end of West Tabquitz every day, frequently causing damage to the gate by backing into it, as recent as last week, or by backing into and damaging the control box, which occurs all too frequently; 44.) We also agree with our neighbors that an environmental impact report would be desirable; 5.) We would also like to be assured of quality landscaping, low voltage lighting, and noise abatement such as reasonable pool hours; and 6.) Finally we wish to be satisfied that the project will be commenced and completed within an agreed timeframe, avoiding a project that may carry on for years. l ♦. 10/15/2001 13:29 10000000eua JHR.ISEAP.CH PAGE 02/02 Finally, we would like the City Planner and the City Engineer to consider alternatives for at least some of the properties along Palisades Drive to be hooked up to the public sewer system. We would hope that this could be provided for either as a part of the development of subject property or as an extension of the existing public sewer line which, we believe, ends at the Willows. As new residents of the area, we thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, c.c. ,Mr, Norman Halliday Mr. &Mrs. Bruce Page CHARLES STANLEY pub t�rrEFJq 46%w.Tninrvi4 C.ny..wnr ty/- Min Sprn p,CA 92236 Telephnne:(760)322-3339 Gnmil slanulmscnimaol cmn October 15,2001 City Council Members City Council Chamber Palm Springs City Hall 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA. 92262 RE: Proposed Development on Tahquitz Canyon Way Case 5.0804-PD-254JBergheer California, Inc. Honorable Council Members This is to express concern about the referenced project and the consideration that setback and other building codes and ordinances may be ignored in favor of this project Please consider that Palm Springs has some distinctive historical areas that gives it is unique standing as an end tourist destination. The referenced site is at the location of one of these special Palm Springs historical places. This is an area that is a gateway into the mountains that is lined by mansions and an Inn that includes the former residence of Albert Eienstein. This is an area that cannot be replicated and whose history should be preserved for future generations. The blend of natural beauty and architectural landmarks that should not be hidden by narrow setbacks, but rather kept in open space with a proper presentation into this special neighborhood of this wonderful city Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Charles E. Stanley r -d 98nnB--n9r e n Tn r n 11,7 LETTER OF SUPPORT °E r• ; TAHQUITZ PROJECT - BERGHEER CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 17, 2001 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I have met with Karl Bergheer over the past year to discuss the development adjacent to Le Vallauris and it's effect on our entry area. I have watched the plan develop to its current configuration. I believe the Developer has been generous and sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood and property owners. The most recent changes to the set backs and drainage certainly indicate this approach. I am in support of the Project and believe the quality of Buyer will benefit the area and business owners. PZA—Brugge ans Le Vallauris IL y: 14", v111 oup, Ltd, 5L..a„1 ,1a, Uct-11 -U1 12:31 ; Page 1/2 t*J Ni 011orm T �a 3 OCT i is 2cu, `�1 the palm springs modern oasis RECEIVED to/11io1 OCT 1 2 Eid VIAFACSIMILE: 760-322-8360 PLANNING DIVISION TO: Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner Department of Planning&Building City of Palm Springs s> FROM: Stan Amy Orbit In, LLCrti°°;_[`„`.:r ° RE: Case No. 5.0804 (PD No.254) Bergheer California, Inc. Project"In Tennis Club Historic District" Per our phone conversation, I would like to identify and establish standing with regard to the following issues of concern: 1. The appearance(material,finish and color) of the walls to be constructed on the south perimeter of the project,particularly where it abuts our property located at 370 W.Arenas. 2. The specific location along the south perimeter of any landscape materials which will attain a height of greater than 7 feet. My concern is to preserve a mountain view corridor to the north and west particularly from the northeast comer of our arbitin.com property. mail@orbitin com Alex,regarding these two issues, I request the opportunity to review and 562 w.arenas comment on specific designs following their submission and prior to their palm springs,ca 92262 approval. phone)760)323.3585 fax(760)323�3599 loll free 18771 99�rbif 11-8 77-9 9 6-72 4 81 sem dy. ..,.. Vlllc ea ui vUp, Ltu, Oct-11 -01 1[:aGg F'age SIC Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner Department of Planning& Building City of Palm Springs Page 2 Finally,although I did not mention it in our conversation, I would like to express concern and establish standing regarding the broader issue of the compatibility of this project with the character of the Tennis Cl#b Historic District and the project's effect on the opportunity to maximize property values and tax base over the long term. I am particularly conce#ned with the issues of density and side yard setbacks. Alex,thank you again for responding quickly and informatively.to our questions. Your helpfulness and even-toned manner inspire confidence in the public process. Sincerely, Stan Amy CC: William G.Kleindienst,Mayor Ronald Oden,Mayor Pro Tern Deyna L. Hodges,Council Jim Jones, Council Ronald Oden,Council Jeanne Reiler-Spurgin, Council Sunday, October 14, 2001 11 50 AM William E Davis 760-325-6979 p 01 QQ Z�T�,Ip ra 700 tiro I Honorable Mayor Will Kleindienst and Members of the Council: `�q My name is Bill Davis. My wife and I are homeowners and neighbors of the condominium development proposed by the Bergheer Group for West Tahquitz Canyon Way. As a Code Consultant and retired Plan Check Engineer for the City of Santa Barbara, I would like to address the Council from the perspective of Life Safety. The rurrent and recently revised site plan for this PDD provides an absolute minimum of Building Code Compliance relative to Exterior Wall and Opening Protection Based On Location On Property. This trtcans that no openings(such as windows and doors)would be allowed by the Code within the exterior walls of these structures where they face one another should they be located any closer together. Within the City of Santa Barbara Building and Safety Division interpretation, condominiums are considered a Cn-oup R Division One Occupancy and thereby applying Table 5-A of the current Uniform Building Code, a mitumum of ten feet would be required between these units in order to allow openings. The Fire Department and the Division of Building and Safety in the City of Santa Barbara work band in hand to consider the potential for providing life safety and property protection in the review of similar proposed developments. Having been continually involved in that co-operative effort with the Fire Marshall and Assistant Fire Chief for many years,I can assure this Council that, given the proximity of these structures to one another and, combined with the single proposed means of access to and egress from the entire development,this design would be rejected out of hand. The developer would be directed to generate a more realistic method by which the fire protection and rescue units of the City could be guaranteed reasonable access to both people and property within the development. In the specific case of this proposal for West Tahquitz Canyon Way, the circumstance of limited access is Rather exacerbated with the conversion of traffic generated by transitory lodging,dining, retail shopping and the Desert Museum. Excluding school children,the Museum alone hosts more than 30,000 visitors annually during the off-season. Ladies and Gentlemen,I strongly recommend that this proposal be returned to our Planning Staff and Plarming Commission for further study. Please be aware that thre findings by Planning Staff were based upon a prior site plan in which project density was reduced in the light of greater perimeter setback encroachments. This current and hastily revised proposal does not provide our protective agencies the opportunity for adequate response time. Thank you for your consideration. Bill and Trisha Davis 227 S. Cahuilla Road Patin Springs, CA 92262 760 325-6979 home office/facsimile b davi sharmuav(Raol,com FRDM ROSE—MIHATA FAX MD. : 7663209395 Oct. 15 2001 03:13PM P1 SOLD OF PALM SPRINGS 2r Mark Duggan 32 N.Palm Canyon Dr Palm Springs - __ CA. 92262 12'"October 2001 City Council Members City Ball Dear City Council'Members RE: Proposed development on Tahquitz Canyon Way Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California,Inc With reference to the above,proposed project. I moved to Palm Springs several years ago. A main attraction being the beautiful mountains and scenic vistas and our unrestricted view ofthem. I consider the project,has not considered the environmental and visual impact on the beautiful neighborhood in which it is to be built. I feel strongly that this would be just the start of the deterioration. 'When I am visiting that neighborhood,I always experience difficulty with the traffic. The proposed development would only impact the traffic congestion more. I thank you for your time Qytx—� oK ROSE MIHATA 468 WEST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 619-320-0882 12'h October 2001 Deyna Hodges City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA. 92262 Dear Deyna Hodges, RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California Inc With reference to the above project, I would like to bring to your attention, certain issues. I have retained Mr Marvin Roos to review the project for me, a copy of his review is attached. I am not apposed to a quality development being built on subject land, so long as they adhere to codes and restrictions. The builder was aware of the codes and restrictions, during his due diligence, before escrow closed. Wlry is (Doug Evans) bending these codes and restrictions, to accommodate the builder?. From the onset Mr Evans has tried constantly, to intimidate the neighbors. Stating that if the neighborhood apposes this project, they could have a project similar to the unsightly one previously proposed. Another main concern is we are aware that the land is already back in escrow again for the second time, so it is doubtful that Mr Bergheer, will be the final builder on this development. Please also note that Ralph Raya at the Planning Commision, motioned to turn down the project, Doug Evans immediately requested they withdraw the motion, it barely passed 3 to 2. Doug Evans is using his position to push through, a project that will grossly affect the neighborhood. I am deeply upset that the Planned Development District and Zoning Ordinance requirements are not adhered to. Could I ask you to please read the enclosed letter from Marvin Roos and letter I had previously sent. This project is coming before you on October 17"' , we will be requesting a complete Environmental Impact Study Report, before the Council makes any ldeciision on this project. Rose E. Mihata r OQtober 'i2, 200I Mr, Will Kle"sndinnst Mayor CITY OF PALM SPRiNGS 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 22262 Re. Case 6.0804,-PD 254/Pergheer California, Inc. Dear Will: Mainlero, Smith and Associates roprosents M:a, Rose. Whata and she has engaged is to represent her in the current Ort{ hearings concerning the propc}sed conderninturn development immediately adjecent to her residence at 468 West's ahgruitz Canyon Way. My purpose in this fetter is to Inform the Council as iu our concerns about the overall site plan and the many variances being requested it the Planneo Development District application currently before the City Council on October 17, 2001. In summary, we continue to Peel the quality of this prcjeci is not yet at a high enough level to justify a reduction in standards by the Council. The Planning Coil)raiisslon's narrow 3-2 vote Geainly should be seen as evidence that not all of the issuers have been fully resolvad. The Process, The Planned Deve)vprnent Olstriot ,PDD) pro,ess is designed to Improve the quality of development by allowing flexiUK'y in devolopment standards. To that end, the proposed development is seeking redra,:ied setbacks and reduced distances between buildings among other requests. WE atrep that the RID,Q af-iords the City and the developer the belt opportunity to forGae a quality plan for this site, One of the objectives of the PDD has been to ensure that the resulting developrnerst exceeds right-of-zona standards. Another reyuirc rnent in the Zoning Ordinance is that "the form and type of development on the i site boundary shall be ccmpafible+ with the existing or potential development of the surrounding n6ghiaarhoods," We believe 'hal. these two objectives of the ordinance have riot bow'i met and A tVongly point to further study and refinement of the plan. Site I�,I�r ;, The site plan That the Planning C ontmist,on approved by a .1-2 vote still reflects a lack of sensitivity to the single frirnily pattern that exists on the north side of the projem. The buildings form a victual well with r?rily 0 feet cif clear opening between the 24-foot tall structures. There is no meaningful view; corridor thrcurgh the central portion of the project. The setback to bvo-story construcr vn hue been increased from 25 to 50 feet but is still far short of the 200-fact setback required under normal zoning considerations. The alto plan has failed to integrate the project with its location by virtually ignoring views nor has it fulfilled the mandate of the Planned Development District requirement to adjust the project design at Its boundaries to match the surrounding neighborhood. Gtrculatlon: The access to the area remains a significant concern, particularly with the newly proposed angled parking in front of t.e Valluris restaurant. The current design would be confusing to the folks that are forever wandering around in their"discovery" mode, as it does not create an easy turnaround area and falls to resolve a difficult situation once and for all. This is the last chance we may have to cure this problem. Once the subject property is developed, we will be living with the results essentially forever. This solution is required in conjunction with the approval of this development. Summary; While some improvements to the project have been made, the unique nature of the subject property has hardly been capitalized on. The City Council is being asked to reduce several important development standards and we don't believe the overall design of the project is at a high enough level to justlfy an approval by the City Council. We understand and encourage a high quality development for this property but believe that that level has not been achieved. And finally, inherent in the approval of this development is that this will be the last opportunity we will have to resolve the already impacted nature of the local traffic circulation patterns that everyone agrees are a problem, We seek the Council's concurrence that a development for this property should be one that solves these problems and isn't just "a development." Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with the staff, Commission and Council to resolve these several issues. Very truly yours, Marvin Roos, AICP Director of Planning Services MDR/cm co: Rose Mihata .���• Rose Mihata 468 West Tahquitz Canyon Palm Springs, California 92262 Office(760)320-0882 Fax(760)320.9395 City of Palm Springs, Planning Department P.O. Box 1786 Palm Springs CA 92263 Dear Sirs, RE : BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. —GATED COMMUNITY CASE NO : 5.0804 I strongly oppose the above project to be located on West Tahquitz Way at the foot of Mt. San Jacinto in downtown Palm Springs. I purchased my home for the neighborhood setting and the spectacular view of depth and distance,which will be totally destroyed if this project is allowed to proceed. Before investing large sums of money to restore my property to its 1920's era,my contractor and I thoroughly researched and educated ourselves regarding the city restrictions on the subject property. My first and foremost concern was regarding future construction on the vacant land across from my impending purchase. Our research included the potential height requirements and extent of anyone obstructing my view, including set-back regulations, building codes, variances, restrictions and necessary laws and ordinances existing. After satisfactory assurances by the City Officials I ventured into a substantial investment of up-grading and restoration. I believe a full scale Environmental Impact Report is imperative. Such a report will bring to light, amongst other things, the many negative aspects of this project. Traffic, Fire,loss of view, pollution and congestion, noise, nighttime illuminations which will severely hamper a visual appreciation of the moon and stars, flooding due to change in patterns of water run-offs, plus the quiet enjoyment and security. I also feel it necessary to direct your attention to a previous letter I sent regarding the traffic problems this proposed project would create. My son was involved in an accident, he was hit by another vehicle which was leaving Le Vallouris, the driver of the vehicle leaving the restaurant failed to look for oncoming traffic before pulling_out into my son. On another occasion there was a fatal accident in the intersection of the said property, I witnessed this accident and took the man to the hospital but unfortunately he died from his injuries. Lets not allow another person to die because our planning department failed to carry out an adequate traffic study. The volume of traffic that would be created by this project spells a nightmare of congestion. This would also assist in adding to the traffic-flow problem that already exists in the neighborhood. The Desert Fashion Plaza is practically closed at the present time,therefore it is only going to get worse when it re-opens for business. For these and other reasons a thorough traffic study is viable,imperative and necessary in order to safeguard the integrity, safety and history of this neighborhood. In closing,f want you all to know that I love this city. It goes without question that all of you feel the same way, however,we owe it to ourselves to take a closer look at this proposed-project. Not only for those of us whom.it will affect now,but for all of_those it will affect in the future of this beautiful city. Enclosed is a copy of a`Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report from Doug Evans dated August 18, 1988. I sincerely hope that the members of the Design Review Committee and Planning Department will take my fears and concerns into consideration and insist on an Environmental Impact Study being carried out. Respectfully submitted, ROSE_E_MII3,TA Property Owner , 4,68 West TahquimWay Sharon Rogers 468 W. Tahquitz Cyn Way Palm Springs CA. 92262 12a'October 2001 City Members Palm Springs City Hall Dear Council Members RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California, Inc I am writing with reference to the above proposed project, as I live in the neighborhood in question. On a daily basis I deal with the ongoing traffic problem,that exists around the area of the proposed development. When passing the Willows hotel and Le Vallauris I have to manouvre around catering vehicles and valet parking. Not only that, but when the Follies show is running,the large buses come to the end of Tahquitz Canyon, to turn round. As you can see there is already an existing Traffic Congestion Problem, the proposed project will only increase the traffic,therefore making the problem worse. I urge you to have an Environmental Impact Study Report carried out. Yours truly, R �o S.Rogers. "� , Albert Duro P.O.Box 3 Palm De rt CA.N 60 12a'October 2001 City Council Members Pahn Springs City Hall RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Begheer California, Inc. With reference to the above project,that I am apposed to for the following reason. I am a Real Estate Agent that works with Rose Mihata and whenever we have had to meet for business, I always encounter traffic problems. On one occasion I had to reverse back, to allow traffic through and because of the congestion my Mercedes was hit and badly damaged. From a real estate point of view, I would be strongly against the project as it would seriously devalue the surrounding homes, especially the home of Rose Mihata. Yours trul , Albert Duron y, i, J AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE) I,the undersigned,say: I am and was at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Riverside, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action or proceeding; that my business address is 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California; that on the 23rd day of August, 2001, 1 served the within (NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING) on PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 5.0804/TTM 29077/PD254 to consider an application by Bergheer California, Inc. for a Preliminary Planned Development District, and Tentative Tract Map for a subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 52 parcels for single family residences within a gated community, located to the southwest of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15, on persons contained in Exhibit"A" attached hereto in said action or proceeding by depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a mailbox, sub-post office, substation or mail chute,or other like facility, regularly maintained by the Government of the United States in the City of Palm Springs, California, addressed to the list of persons or firms indicated on the report received from the City Planning Technician, dated August 22, 2001and certified by the City's Planning Technician, and attached hereto as Exhibit"A". I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Carrie-L-.-Rovne J Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 23`d day of August 23, 2001. PALM S of �� � N City of Palm Springs Department of Planning & Building MEMORANDUM Date: August 22, 2001 From: Yoav Shernock Planning Technician Subject: Mailing Labels for Case No. 5.0804/TTM 29077 This is to certify that the attached labels were created on August 22, 2001 using the most current information available. To the best of my knowledge, the labels are complete and accurate. Yoav Sternock , Date" /clr CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Case No. 5.0804, a Preliminary Planned Development District (PD No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map 29077, for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel (APN#513-121-035 and 513-141- 012) into 52 parcels for single family residences within a gated community, located to the south west of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15 Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of September 12, 2001. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 1:30 p.m. (Public Hearings begin at 2:00 p.m.) in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary planned development district and a tentative tract map. Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.At this meeting,the Planning Commission is expected to make a recommendation of approval of the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration to the City Council. The proposed map, Initial Study and related documents are available for public review daily, between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Building Department, located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the Commission meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400)feet of the subject property. An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Alex P. Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Building, (760) 323-8245. PLANNING COMMISSION Douglas Evans Director of Planning & Building Mailing: August 23, 2001, Fax to Desert Sun : August 20, 2001 Printed in Desert Sun August 23, 2001 I 513 110 002 035 1 513 110005513110020 Paul Marut&Tracy Conrad Steven Cherherost &Timothy Hel yer Springs Desert Museum Palm 412 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 530 W Tahquitz Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 686 Palisades Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 110 034 513 110 035 Palm Springs Desert Museum Jnc 513 110 036 PO Box 2310 ( Paul Marut omad Rose Mihata Palm Springs, CA 92263 412 Wwwgimtz Way 468 W Tahquitz Way pangs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 110 042 513 110 043 Harold&Dorothy Meyennan 513 120 002 ,oo 3 Harold&Dorothy Meyerman Rashad Wasef&Eva Wasef 2234 E Colorado Blvd 935 Hillcrest Pl Pasadena, CA 91107 Pasadena, CA 91106 500 Madeline Dr Pasadena, CA 91105 513 120 003 513 120 010,011,812,0151 OIL-,Duo,OW, Rashad W va Wasef David&Trudy Johnston a i L,nu 5 uql 513 120 011 500 me Dr 147 S Tah uitz Dr 0q-7,o4O,0qq David&Trudy Johagpo dena, CA 91105 q C60 051 o5a, 147 S T Palm Springs, CA 92262 5i3-4-?0-ool 1'aiVMn�"ngs, CA 92262 513 120 012 513 120 013 David&T ston Lee&Teryl Coit 513 120 015 147 uitz Dr 1806 Avenida Salvador David&�Dr m Springs, CA 92262 San Clemente,CA 92672 147 Jign Sp , 513 120 016 513 120 017 513 120 025 David&Trud ston James Manion 147� Dr Keith Sondrall&Luc Dal r/i�m Springs, CA 92262 151 S Tahquitz Dr 544 W Arenas Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 120 026/513-14 I-Ci 1 513 120 028 513 120 029 WahOo-Cal Hotels Lle Richard Hirsch 4109 NE 19Th Ave Paul&Deena Brand Portland, OR 97211 606 W Arenas Rd David Dore Palm Springs, CA 92262 2403 Crest View Dr Los Angeles, CA 90046 513 120 035 513 120040 Joseph Drown Foundation 513 120 041 MEL IIAREOR ENTERPRIS ;14 vid&Tn on David Johnsto u Dr rs on 1999 Avenue Of The Stars#1930 14 Utz Dr Los Angeles, CA 90067 Springs, CA 92262 ��Springs, CA 92262 513 120 042 513 120 045 513 120 046 David&T ton David&Tr �Stg}I ton 14 quitz Dr David Johnsto ston m Springs, CA 92262 147 " (' 147 Dr m Springs, CA 92262 Springs, CA 92262 ) l a 120 047 513 120 048 i 513 120 049 David&Trud on David&Ti nson David&T 147 S T Dr 147 uitz Canyon Way 14 P rings, CA 92262 Springs, CA 92262 gmtz Canyon Way I m Springs, CA 92262 513 120 050 513 120 051 j 513 120 052 David Johnston David Johnston rndy Johnston I David& ton 147 S T Johnstonton r 147 S r j 147 quitz Dr P rings, CA 92262 pnngs, CA 92262 Springs,CA 92262 I 513 131 023 513 132 003 513 132 007 Petty Enterprises Inc Pilger Assoc Inc Patencio Estates 601 W Arenas Rd 221 S Patencio Rd 28640 Landau Blvd#1 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cathedral City, CA 92234 513 132 017 513 132 018 513 133 001 Roger Malone&Eugene Milligan Albert Carl Taucher Rose Mihata&Rose Mihata 529 W Arenas Rd Wilda Looff Taucher 487 W Arenas Rd Palm Springs,CA 92262 280 Corona Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262 Long Beach, CA 90803 513 133 0021 54 3-151-0?0 513 133 004 513 133 013 Emil&Joan Forrer George Marion&Louisa Sanborn Men Don Arthur Kuzma&Dale Burr PO Box 198 231 S Lugo Rd 6506 NE Highway 99 Tahoe Vista, CA 96148 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Vancouver,WA 98665 513 133 014 513 134 001 513 134 002 Herbert&Mary Hodson Christy Eugenis Francis&Evelyn Bushman 701 Texas St 411 W Arenas Rd#1 5515 Inner Circle Dr Redlands, CA 92374 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Riverside, CA 92506 513 134 003 513 134 004 513 134 005 Jerry&Janice Tippin Mario Hernandez&Michael Ross Frances Nadoldski&Dianne Sluzas PO Box 8171 68725 Panorama Rd 411 W Arenas Rd#5 Tahoe City, CA 96145 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Palm Springs,CA 92262 513 134 006 513 134 007 513 134 008 Fay Lecerf&Jacqueline Alp Eugene&Adriana Rossi Neil Graham Box 114 Eckville Fa Rossi 20982 Brookhurst St#201 AB TOM OXO 3215 E Ocean Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646 CANADA Long Beach, CA 90803 513 134 009 513 134 010 513 134 011 Ludwig Uri Roland&Sandra Tmex Kalsman&Associates 625 N Canon Dr 411 W Arenas Rd#10 47 N Pasco Laredo Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cathedral City, CA 92234 513 135 001 513 135 002 513 135 003 Jean Smallwood Joan Henry Twohey&Tempe Twohey Russell&Alice Yensen 555 W Arenas Rd#3 555 W Arenas Rd#2 1 N Stonington Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 513 135 004 513 135 005 1 513 135 006 George&Karen Whicker Ellis Robin Sharp E Alan Petty&Petty 12285 Woodley Ave 4316 Marina City Dr 3480 Torrance Blvd#212 Granada Hills, CA 91344 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Torrance,CA 90503 513 141 001 513 141004 j 013 513 141005 Paul Bmggemans&Michel Despras John Wessman Frances Winter 385 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr 4G106 904 N Rexford Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 513141011 513141013 513141015 1 C)I(e Wahl oo-Cal Llc �r�♦'a John man_,�r�� Casa Cody B&B Con Inn Lie 4109 ve#B 1555 tyon Dr#G106 175 S Cahuilla Rd nd,OR 97211 prangs, CA 92264 Palm Springs,CA 92262 >15011C 16 513 142 001 513 142 003 BInn William Mcwethy Jr. Craig Blau o Dr11839 Sorrento Valley Rd 200 W Arenas Rd aks, CA 91403 San Diego, CA 92121 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 151 002 513 151 006 513 151 010 Larry&Sharon Kramer William&Trisha Davis Steven Weiland 1909 El Camino Real 1187 Coast Village Rd#1209 316 NE 24Th Ave Redwood City, CA 94063 Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Portland, OR 97232 513 151017 513 151 020 513 470 001 Louis Miller&Matthew Miller Emil&Joa r T David& u�ston 1155 Tiffany Cir N 371.AW hams Rd 147 quitz Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 PaWE Springs, CA 92262 Springs,CA 92262 513 470 002)013, 01 K 513 470 003 513 470 004 John Gerard Jr. Barney&Phyllis Parker Marc Herbert&Groth Ric VonHungen 20533 Rancho La Floresta Rd 931 Argyll Dr 2864 Tice Creek Dr#4 Covina, CA 91724 Boise,ID 83702 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 513 470 005 513 470 006 513 470 007 t O i D Wanda&J Richard Walker Paul Marks&Paul Marks John&Jean Metzger Walker Wand Es 34597 Via Catalina 600 Arbolado Dr 3512 Ross Rd Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Fullerton, CA 92835 Palo Alto, CA 94303 513 470 008 513 470 009 513 470 010 Peter Phillips Randall&Joan Boise John&Jean PO Box 115 1808 NB Knott St F Metz Fawnskin, CA 92333 Portland, OR 97212 60 lado Dr lerton, CA 92835 513470011 � ;� 513470013 513470014 Area Common John Gerard J a Belem Gerard John Gerard Jr. NO S or NUMBER PO B��1 2053� a loresta Rd na, CA 91722 C A 91724 I � 513 501 001 513 501 002 513 501 003 100q,CO(OfO01,0081Cbb,010 Robert Barthel&Vinetta Barthel Lisle Taaje R K Miller Inv Co&Susan Lse Bennet 123 NW 4Th St#412 500 W Arenas Rd#2 500 W Arenas Rd#3 Evansville,IN 47708 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 i 513 501 004 513 501 005 513 5010�h..,s.nolr 6 R K Mille o Inc Joan Levine — R Kof c Kathl ghsn th NOS T NAME or NUMBER P ' 5 est Glen Ln SW Springs, CA 92262 4 11Th Ave acvma, WA 98498 Salt Lake City,UT 84103 I 513 501007 513 501008 513 501009 R K Miller Inv ent Co Inc R K Miller Inve o Inc R K Mill nc&Terry Hauswir 554 11 1450 La ve 19 va Dr S e City,UT 84103 Lo ach, CA 90815 rdiffBy The Sea CA 92007 513 501 O10 513 501011 513 560 008 1 CS R K Miller o Inc&Carman Bre Lot Common Fashion Plaza Desert 1447 up Dr PO Box 2002 563 W 500 S#440 Rosa CA 95403 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Bountiful,UT 84010 513 560 009 1 Fashion Pl 563 W 440 B 'LT 84010 i Christine Hammond Keith Sandrall Leonard Colombo 373 South Monte Vista Drive 544 West Arenas Road 241 Furness Avenue Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Los Angeles, CA 90042 Greg Demetre Craig Blau Logan Need Historic Tennis Club Area 200 West Arenas Road 324 South Monte Vista Drive 343 West Baristo Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 � Elena Stancill Steve Cheroske Stan Amy TKD Associates 530 West Tahquitz Canyon Way 41098 Northeast 19'h 2121 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Portland, OR 97202 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Tracy Conrad Frank Tysen Rose E. Mihata 412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way Casa Cody 468 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 175 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Bob Weithorn Christy Eugenis Trisha Davis Orchid Tree Inn Orbit Inn Hotel 500 West Arenas Road 261 South Belardo Road 532 West Arenas Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Bill Davis Jane SmithThe Movie Colony Association Lola Rossi 500 West Arenas Road 227 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 928 Avenida Palmas Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Michael Atencio A.C.B.C.I. Hope V. van Michele o 600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Princi lanner Assis Planner Palm Springs, CA 92262 Douglas R. ns Director lanning & Building i Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 5160(9 NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION LABELS Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter 280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.O. Box 2824 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Philip Tedesco Sharon Lock Frank Tysen 1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 175 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92264 Bob Weithorn Jane Smith 261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter 280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.O. Box 2824 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Philip Tedesco Sharon Lock Frank Tysen 1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 175 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92264 Bob Weithorn Jane Smith 261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter 280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.O. Box 2824 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Philip Tedesco Sharon Lock Frank Tysen 1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 175 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92264 Bob Weithorn Jane Smith 8 LABELS PER SET 261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas 3 SETS OF LABELS Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 1 SET MAILED "AlAVERY@ Address Labels i - r +TM i SPONSOR LABELS BERGHEER, INC. 5.0804 / TTM 29077 Bergheer California, Inc. CYP Architects AIE-CASC Attn: Karl Bergheer, President Attn: Don Corbin Attn: Tom Nievez 1601 Dove Street, #170 170 Newport Center Drive, #225 937 South Via Lata, #500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Colton, CA 92324 l ' Bergheer California, Inc, CYP Architects AIE-CASC Attn: Karl Bergheer, President Attn: Don Corbin Attn: Tom Nievez 1601 Dove Street, #170 170 Newport Center Drive, # 225 937 South Via Lata, #500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Colton, CA 92324 Bergheer California, Inc. CYP Architects AIE-CASC Attn: Karl Bergheer, President Attn: Don Corbin Attn: Tom Nievez 1601 Dove Street, #170 170 Newport Center Drive, #225 937 South Via Lata, #500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Colton, CA 92324 I TKD Associates, Inc. Attn: Tom Doczi 2121 E. Tahquitz Cnyn Way, #1 Palm Springs, CA 92262 TKD Associates, Inc. Attn: Tom Doczi 2121 E. Tahquitz Cnyn Way, #1 Palm Springs, CA 92262 TKD Associates, Inc. Attn: Tom Doczi 2121 E. Tahquitz Cnyn Way, #1 Palm Springs, CA 92262 4 LABELS PER SET 3 SETS OF LABELS 1 SET MAILED AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, in conjunction with Cs. 5.0804, Preliminary Planned Development District(PD No.254)and Tentative Tract Map 29077, subdivision for condominiums within a gated community, located south west of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, applicant, Bergheer California, Inc., was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on the 5th day of October, 2001. A copy of said Notice is attached hereto. Said mailing was completed by placing a copy of said Notice in a sealed envelope,with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 5`h day of October, 2001. C( 1 PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk n �; NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL Case No. 5.0804, a Preliminary Planned Development District (PD No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map 29077, for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel (APN # 513-121-035 and 513-141-012) into 52 parcels for condominiums within a gated community, located to the south west of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15 Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of October 17, 2001. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary planned development district and a tentative tract map. Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. At this meeting, the City Council is expected to approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed map, Initial Study and related documents are available for public review daily, between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Building Department, located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the Commission meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400) feet of the subject property.An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Building, (760) 323-8245. Patricia A. Sanders City Clerk Mailing: October 1, 2001, Fax to Desert Sun: October 1, 2001 Printed in Desert Sun October 5, 2001 VIGINTY MAP N. T.S, 0 m& SITE, � D: rc o I 13ARISTO ROAD ' � V a z CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. caseNo.5.0804, (PDNo,254). DESCRIPTION 4 Tentative Tract Map 28077 Map 290 7,for thDeveloe subdivision oment District fPD No.f a 6 8 sots parcel Into 52 parce and Tentative ls APPLICANT for single family residences within a galad pommunky,located to ' Bergheer Cawmia, inc• theseu south Drive of the eInte R42, not T uRz Canyon Way and SPONSOR LABELS BERGHEER, INC. 5.0804 / TTM 29077 Bergheer California, Inc. CYP Architects AIE-CASC Attn: Karl Bergheer, President Attn: Don Corbin Attn: Tom Nievez 1601 Dove Street, #170 170 Newport Center Drive, #225 937 South Via Lata, #500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Colton, CA 92324 Bergheer California, Inc. CYP Architects AIE-CASC Attn: Karl Bergheer, President Attn: Don Corbin Attn: Tom Nievez 1601 Dove Street, #170 170 Newport Center Drive, #225 937 South Via Lata, #500 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Colton, CA 92324 TKD Associates, Inc. Attn: Tom Doczi 2121 E. Tahquitz Cnyn Way, #1 Palm Springs, CA 92262 TKD Associates, Inc. Attn: Tom Doczi 2121 E. Tahquitz Cnyn Way, #1 Palm Springs, CA 92262 4 LABELS PER SET 3 SETS OF LABELS 1 SET MAILED Christine Hammond Keith Sandrall Leonard Colombo 373 South Monte Vista Drive 544 West Arenas Road 241 Furness Avenue Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Los Angeles, CA 90042 Greg Demetre Craig Blau Logan Need Historic Tennis Club Area 200 West Arenas Road 324 South Monte Vista Drive 343 West Baristo Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Elena Stancill Steve Cheroske Stan Amy TKD Associates 530 West Tahquitz Canyon Way 41098 Northeast 19'h 2121 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Portland, OR 97202 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Tracy Conrad Frank Tysen Rose E. Mihata 412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way Casa Cody 468 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 175 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Bob Weithorn Christy Eugenis Trisha Davis Orchid Tree Inn Orbit Inn Hotel 261 South Belardo Road 532 West Arenas Road 500 West Arenas Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Bill Davis Jane SmithThe Movie Colon Association Lola Rossi y 500 West Arenas Road 227 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 928 Avenida Palmas Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Michael Atencio A.C.B.C.I. Hope V, van Michele o 600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Princi tanner Assis Planner Palm Springs, CA 92262 Douglas R. ns Director lanning & Building SCOW n �DU U�C�GI oV-� 513 110 002 1035 513 110 005 513 110 020 Paul Marut&Tracy Conrad Steven Cheroske&Timothy Helyer Springs Desert Museum Palm 412 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 530 W Tahquitz Way 686 Palisades Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs,CA 92262 513 110 034 513 110 035 513 110 036 Palm Springs Desert Museum Inc Paul Marut ourad Rose Mihata PO Box 2310 412 urtz Way 468 W Tahquitz Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 prings, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 110 042 513 110 043 513 120 002 1003 Harold&Dorothy Meyerman Harold&Dorothy Meyerman Rashad Wasef&Eva Wasef 2234 E Colorado Blvd 935 Hillcrest Pi 500 Madeline Dr Pasadena, CA 91107 Pasadena, CA 91106 Pasadena, CA 91105 513120003 � 513120010,011,012,015101O,()gD,dJ1, 513120011 Rashad W va Wasef David&TrudyJohnston Na,Ok6,0tic, 500 me Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr Oq-7,04,0<1 I David&Trudy Jo 4 050 0s1105a 147 S T dena, CA 91105 Palm Springs, CA 92262 51a'4-7 0-00 rings, CA 92262 513120012 513120013 513120015 David&T nston Lee&Teryl Coit David&Tru�yildlER 147 quitz Dr 1806 Avenida Salvador 147 urtz Dr m r Springs Springs,CA 92262 San Clemente, CA 92672 , CA 92262 513 120 016 513 120 017 513 120 025 David&Tmd mston James Manion Keith Sondrall&Luc Bal 147 Dr 151 S Tahquitz Dr 544 W Arenas Rd w0PIMPS'prings, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 120 026/513 -14I-I]11 513 120 028 513 120 029 Wahoo-Cal Hotels Lie Richard Hirsch Paul&Deena Brand 4109 NE 19Th Ave 606 W Arenas Rd David Dore Portland, OR 97211 Palm Springs, CA 92262 2403 Crest View Dr Los Angeles, CA 90046 513 120 035 513 120 040 513 120 041 Joseph Drown Foundation David&T on David Johnsto n MEL HARBOR ENTERPRIS 14 mtz Dr 147 S iz Dr 1999 Avenue Of The Stars#1930 m Springs, CA 92262 Qoff Springs, CA 92262 Los Angeles, CA 90067 513 120 042 513 120 045 513 120 046 David&T ton David&T ton David Johnstor o on 14 quitz Dr 147 uitz Dr 147 Dr m Springs, CA 92262 m Springs, CA 92262 r Springs, CA 92262 513 120 047 513 120 048 513 120 049 David&Trod on David&T on David&T � 147 S T Dr 147 quitz Canyon Way 14 quitz Canyon Way P rings,CA 92262 Springs, CA 92262 m Springs,CA 92262 11 „ 513 120 050 513 120 051 513 120 052 David Johnston y Johnston David Johnston rndy Johnston David& ton 147 S TAWff5r 147 S jjkq1firTYr 147 quitz Dr P rings, CA 92262 prings, CA 92262 Springs, CA 92262 513 131 023 513 132 003 513 132 007 Petty Enterprises Inc Pilger Assoc Inc Patencio Estates 601 W Arenas Rd 221 S Patencio Rd 28640 Landau Blvd#1 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Cathedral City, CA 92234 513 132 017 513 132 018 513 133 001 Roger Malone&Eugene Milligan Albert Carl Taucher Rose Mihata&Rose Mihata 529 W Arenas Rd Wilda Looff Taucher 487 W Arenas Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 280 Corona Ave Palm Springs,CA 92262 Long Beach, CA 90803 513 133 002 161-D20 513 133 004 513 133 013 Emil&Joan Forrer George Marion&Louisa Sanborn Men Don Arthur Kuzma&Dale Buff PO Box 198 231 S Lugo Rd 6506 NE Highway 99 Tahoe Vista, CA 96148 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Vancouver, WA 98665 513 133 014 513 134 001 513 134 002 Herbert&Mary Hodson Christy Eugenis Francis&Evelyn Bushman 701 Texas St 411 W Arenas Rd#1 5515 Inner Circle Dr Redlands, CA 92374 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Riverside, CA 92506 513 134 003 513 134 004 513 134 005 Jerry&Janice Tippin Mario Hernandez&Michael Ross Frances Nadoldski&Dianne Sluzas PO Box 8171 68725 Panorama Rd 411 W Arenas Rd#5 Tahoe City, CA 96145 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Palm Springs,CA 92262 513 134 006 513 134 007 513 134 008 Fay Lecerf&Jacqueline Alp Eugene&Adriana Rossi Neil Graham Box 114 Eckville Fa Rossi 20982 Brookhurst St#201 AB TOM OXO 3215 E Ocean Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646 CANADA Long Beach, CA 90803 513 134 009 513 134 010 513 134 011 Ludwig Uri Roland&Sandra Tmex Kalsman&Associates 625 N Canon Dr 411 W Arenas Rd#10 47 N Pasco Laredo Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cathedral City,CA 92234 513 135 001 513 135 002 513 135 003 Jean Smallwood Joan Henry Twohey&Tempe Twohey Russell&Alice Yensen 555 W Arenas Rd#3 555 W Arenas Rd#2 1 N StoningtonRd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 513 135 004 513 135 005 513 135 006 George&Karen Whicker Ellis Robin Sharp E Alan Petty&Petty 12285 Woodley Ave 4316 Marina City Dr 3480 Torrance Blvd#212 Granada Hills, CA 91344 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Torrance, CA 90503 �1 513 141 001 513 141 0041013 513 141 005 Paul Bruggemans&Michel Despras John Wessman Frances Winter 385 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr#GI06 904 N Rexford Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 513 141 011 513 141 013 513 141 015 1 CU I tP Wahoo-Cal Llc John Wessman Casa Cody B&B Con Inn Lie 4109 ve#B 1555 ryon Dr#GI06 175 S Cahuilla Rd �d, OR 97211 prings, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 141016 4 513 142 001 513 142 003 Casa Cody B Inn William Mcwethy Jr. Craig Blau 1501a o Dr 11839 Sorrento Valley Rd 200 W Arenas Rd Oaks, CA 91403 San Diego, CA 92121 Palm Springs,CA 92262 513 151 002 513 151 006 513 151 010 Larry&Sharon Kramer William&Trisha Davis Steven Weiland 1909 El Camino Real 1187 Coast Village Rd#1209 316 NE 24Th Ave Redwood City, CA 94063 Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Portland,OR 97232 513 151 017 513 151 020 5134701 01 Louis Miller&Matthew Miller Emil&Joa r David&T u�ston 1155 Tiffany Cir N 375 nas Rd 147 quitz Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 P Springs, CA 92262 Springs,CA 92262 513 470 002�C/3, O! ( 513 470 003 513 470 004 John Gerard Jr. Barney&Phyllis Parker Marc Herbert&Groth Ric VonHungen 20533 Rancho La Floresta Rd 931 Argyll Dr 2864 Tice Creek Dr#4 Covina, CA 91724 Boise, ID 83702 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 513 470 005 513 470 006 513 470 007 t b 10 Wanda&J Richard Walker Paul Marks&Paul Marks John&Jean Metzger Walker Wand Es 34597 Via Catalina 600 Arbolado Dr 3512 Ross Rd Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Fullerton,CA 92835 Palo Alto, CA 94303 513 470 008 513 470 009 513 470 010 Peter Phillips Randall&Joan Boose John&Jean PO Box 115 1808 NE Knott St F Metz Fawnskin, CA 92333 Portland, OR 97212 60 ladoDr lerton, CA 92835 513 470 011 513 470 013 513 470 014 Area Common John Gerard J a Belem Gerard John Gerard Jr. NO or NUMBER PO B 20533 oresta Rd na, CA 91722 C A 91724 513 501001 513 501 002 513 501 003 1170U ( P �Z.C(�,OfF(Dt0 Robert Barthel&Vinetta Barthel Lisle Taaje R K Miller Inv Co&Susan Lse Bennet 123 NW 4Th St#412 500 W Arenas Rd#2 500 W Arenas Rd#3 Evansville,IN 47708 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 501 004 513 501005 513501006 R K Miller 0 Inc Joan Levine ' R K Mil o Inc Kathl ghsmith No T NAME or NUMBER P ' ompson Jr. 5 est Glen Ln SW Springs, CA 92262 4 11Th Ave acoma, WA 98498 Salt Lake City,UT 84103 513 501 007 513 501008 513 501009 R K Miller Inv ent Co Inc R K Miller Inve o Inc R K Mill c&Terry Hauswir 554 11 a 1450 La ve 19 va Dr S e City,UT 84103 Lo ch, CA 90815 49diff By The Sea, CA 92007 513 501 010 513 501011 513 560 008 1 1)0'� R K Miller o Inc&Carmann Bre Lot Common Fashion Plaza Desert 1447 up Dr PO Box 2002 563 W 500 S#440 Siffffa Rosa, CA 95403 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Bountiful,UT 84010 513 560 009 Fashion PI 563 W 40 B ,UT 84010 �-(in PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) `� STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside No 9497 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL Case No.5.0804, a Preliminary Planned Devel- opment District (PD No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map 29077, for the subdivision of a 6.8 acro parcel (APN 9513-121-035 and I and a citizen of the United States and a resident of 513-141-012) into 52 parcels for condominiums within a gated community, located to the the e o Count'aforesaid; I am Over the age eighteen south west of the intersection of TahGuitz 1 g Canyon Way and Museum Drive years,and not a party to or interested in the zone R-3/R-2, Section 15 above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc. printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, 111W"`'` printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, Comity of Riverside,and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case Number 191236; that the notice,of which the -I annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller 1`1r vx than non pariel,has been published In each regular 9 and entire issue 9f said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: _ fn" OF PALM,aPRINGS October 5t11 „�W,._' :-,7.x .. OTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council the City of Palm Spr meeting of October will hold a public City dingCouncil at its meeting begins s at 7r 17, m. i ----_ - ---------------------------------_------ The City Council meeting begins at 700 p.200 in ---- the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E ' Tahgwiz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California. All in the year 2001 The purpose of the hearing is to consider an do- p icalen for a preliminary planned development drsL rat and a tentative tract map I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Envi- forC oin is true and correct. ronmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Deo- g g proton has been prepared. At this meeting, the 5111 City Council is expected to approve the proposed Dated at Palm Sprigs,California this--------------day Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed map, for Study and related dbe- Oct06Cr be- tween are available For public review daily,Sla be- tween 8 am and 5 Sat the CityDepartment, rt Palm Springs of -----e in the Planning and Canyon n- Department, located _at 3200 Tahgmtz Cenllan �ay. _ --- q If any individual or group challenges the only those e K,d court, issues raised may be hmaetl to only those —_----------- issues raised at the public hearings described in Signature or to the Commissinhis notice or hr tnnmeeting correspondence at or prr- Notice.of Public Hearing is being sent to all pri erty owners within four hundred (400) feet of the subject property. An opportunity will he given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard Questions regarding this case may be di- ' crated to Alex Meyerhoff,m n Principal Planner, De- partent of Planing & Building, (760)323-8245 Patricia A. Sanders Cty Glerk PUB. October 5, 2001 2 fP ak"] �r�l ca ' S 0 C Tc'Tit ),- .. �R�aQlV Stan Amy 41098 Northeast th Portland, OR 972 `n 5 p C r 513120 028 160 Palm sp-rings Ad92262 OCT-17-01 WED 04:01 PM WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT FAX NO. 760 325 5848 P. 01 N. i,i.�, ,�;a9 i4.l.l.r,9i'z7(JI' per::k,l,,;I oiJd ,:'l,,•I�.rac i.p...J'p,i / ��g'6 Y �1C.�� 6 s ;,.:. ,,."�%i' ,..:G. •. ,`•,.. . ., i„tll 1:61 (,T�k''saJwE'v�{;!` �:;', WeaSman ftlnzrt ULV'cLOf-". C1 NT COMPANY Temerul,n VNu+,i V+larn WicAdo 1'ho C;ontrn' M,ed,ee,{ Pl.,ct I M12.1 dui 80) Canyon Pl,ir,.i ;;_nynn Flaea NoWi i; d wkilh IUuc,nns^ (':a,lc ShoPf',inry Uontors h'iuhidinUc I'Igra Fal7gUilr Mc;,;., VJin,; Odle: Pr.ln,•ny,mrc CI'srt f R-".A;t:l,not Indio 111o&t Pima In_. r-larc;r. Plato nt 4unn;n 'iahyuiiz r3r,janro 17 October 2001 Mr.Karl Bergheer Bergheer California 1601 Dove St. Suite 170 Newport beach, CA 92660 Re: '1TTM 29077 Tahquilz Canyon Drive Dear Karl: 1 inet with John Sanborn of Sanborn AJF, Inc. to review the possibility of using the existing private S" sewer main that crosses my property (APN 4513-141-004, 013) 1 would be happy to work out an agreement with you to use said rnain provided you relocate said new sewerline.within 5 feet of the southerly property line of said property. We can complete a formal agreement once the:tentative Map has been approved, Sincerely, Sohn Wessman 1555 PAW CANY(M O = 1:,Ll1'f L G 10G PAI M.tif'FiID1C3S, CA 92264 • wHUMi (760) 3P5,3 50 FAX (7G0) 10/17/2001 15:05 FAX 760 327 1247 FEY'S CANYON REALTORS 9 001 FEY'S E-C E o bp IE CANYON - REALTORS® oC, t 2001 J MLS PLANNINIAVISION Wednesday,October 17,2001 ALEX MEYERHOFF CITY OF PALM SPRINGS RO_BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263 VIA FAX=8360 RE TE:NTATNETRACTMAP2�1680 Dear ALEX: Thank you for the time you spent with me today regarding the above tract map.As you are aware,we only received the notice yesterday. The conditions of appmvaI-require that the developer acquire access rightsfrom the Rose Hill Association for lots#4&#5 and for utilities(I think that is condition 3C?).That has not been done! In fact,the HOA president is currently out of the country as are most of the owners. Nevertheless,we(owners of 855 Coronado Ave,)do not object as long as the above issues are addressed and, most particularly, candilipns#-26&fk 27 retating tother roof height restrictions-on tots#4 &#5 are part of the final map and recorded against those lots.These conditions were critical to our removing our objections torthe original project submittal_l mi0ht point dut that the slab orr 855 Ceropado is 10 feet below the curb and not at 682'. Since y, ROBERT M. 1001 South Palm Canyon Drive • P.O. Box 2849. Palm Springs,CA 92263 • (760)325-0905 - FAX(760)327-1247 t r, ,p A � s Go A . jl IF ww .S .,a 9w ,r N N . A...'f�b''a,.V � n 14.1 73 �11 .. rt 71 O V LA3 P P\ tfrit � t � off( F{ e { } P Y - 1 � - L� -Gw � Gt i y c �� L��Cc= %l jfv� j 1 1� /G G c ✓� �i�L' sz Gt �c s t c� wi� �' H c= c 7 .r. s i / f . P t v d g t )12 U� } f � AM w e � Ar 4T - y _ rr _ _ _ ' n""a , ,fah• _ - .,�=•{` _ .-- psi .^ �__..:, .t'� "- t : � a .. '� R f _ .04 « » r` , t c(tAUG'78 'Q-0 PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of RiversideNo 9120 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING Case No.5.0804, a Preliminary Planned Tract Mapsstrict 29077,(f or tie subdlvis on of tat8.8 acre parcel (APN g513-121-035 and 513 141-012) into 52 parcels for single famltl residences within a Voted community, to the south west of the intersection of Tah- and I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of quiz Cany_one -3/R-2,Museum Section 15 Drive. the Comity aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen Applicant: neighbor California, Inc. years,and not a party to or interested in the NOTICE IS HEREBY GIveN that the Planning above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a Commission of the City of Palm Springs, ColBor- me will hold a pubhc hearing at its meeting of printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING September 12, Z001.The Planning Commission COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, r;,sea{' oars at�r1 i 0 pCity.m. cdble He"h,i of printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, Sly Hall, 3200 F. Tahgnitz Canyon way, Palm 1 P Y Spnngs, Oahfornla. County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been The purpose of the hearing is to consider an so- adjudged a newspaper of general Circulation by the p me tion for a preliminary planned development district and a tentative tract map Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of California tinder the date of March 24,1988.Case Number 191236;that the notice,of which the „ annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller . than non pariel,has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: oil J August 23rd --- ____________________________________________________________ _ CIiY O�PnISA 9FPII Tf_ All in the year 2001 Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Enw- momental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Dec- I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the aration has been prepared. At this meeting, the f01'eg01Rg IS true and correct. Planning Commission is expeceed to make a rec- 23rd gatedbnNegativee�eclaraliel to the Cry Co ncllti- Dated at Palm Springs,California this--------------day The h enpr proposedavailable p, Initial Studpubli and r latedvaba- August [seen 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Building Department, located of---------------------------------------2001 at 3200 Tahgutz Canyon Way. c If anyy Individual or groupchallenges the action In n !1 n oourt, issues ralsedm%be limited to only those F p ^^— C � Issues raised at the ubhc hearings described in this notice or In written correspondence at or pri- or to the Commisson meeting. Signature Notice of Publio Hearing is beh�q sent to all prop- srrtyty owners with' four hundred (400) feet of the subject property. An opportunity will he given to card hearings for all me rested persons to be heard Questions regarding this case may be di ,acted to Alex P. Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Building, (760)323- 8246. PLANNING COMMISSION /s/Coughs R.Evans1HRS ❑ir - r _ P into a 2u,1 IS 470 aul�a Op6 5 34597 VI ka&Paul 1 Via CaPlsttaLo each � rn � �� T 24 e Ji I -r ,k pi3, oi�1 WCf 192001 513 4'10 002) � RECEPIED John Gerard Jr. Rd .-. 20533 Rauch°La Floresta Ck 91124 F 7''?_ 1k 1E YN �O rN M „P -r P.Pr�un Y1 E.. F 04RPF Y1 .nµ5y�.17r -8,}5 R� Cry 11V f ' n\ F L7 \` S'31 340 71 Ate, d? f� two eo �Sqc eyo'aEes - C14 I Cso , J j t P 513 120 013 513 501011 Lee&Teryl Coit Lot Common 1806 Avenida Salvador PO Box 2002 -= San Clemente, CA 92672 Palm Springs, CA 92263 COtWApn ; T9 ' i 0'i3 i 40U 0 SOCOT- N3i0 VIA OOL, SEr, �\ 8AN QLf r'len- 2'P iS' �`�l jl� ���4,==.�• :,, S, 311 ciJ���rq `'a �, 68 lj�gs 020 ;. AVI S �Bse, 3 a "Lair, d+ 4Gye r� I T / , /0 ly I - RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 5.0804-PD (PD 254) FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TM 29077) FOR A GATED 52-UNIT CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT LOCATED SOUTH WEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONE, SECTION 15. WHEREAS, Bergheer California Inc. (the "Applicants") filed an application with the City pursuant to Sections 9403.00 and 9402.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Planned Development District and Preliminary Development Plan for a 52-unit condominium project for the property located on Tahquitz Drive between Tahquitz Canyon Way and Arenas Road, east of Cahuilla Road, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 15; and WHEREAS, the Drown Foundation, the property owner, filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9.62.00 et. seq. of the Municipal Code for a Tentative Tract Map for the subdivision of a 6.5 acre parcel into a 52 numbered lots and 8 lettered lots for the property located on Tahquitz Way,west of Museum Drive, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 15; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider an application for a Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Development District 5.0804(PD 254) (the Project)was issued in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS,said Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map were submitted to appropriate agencies as required by the subdivision requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, with the request for their review, comments and requirements; and WHEREAS, the proposed Project (Case No 5.0804) and Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 29077 is considered a"project'pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act("CEQA"), and a Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project, has been distributed for public review and comment in accordance with CEQA; and WHEREAS, on September 12, 2001, and September 26,2001, a public hearing on the application for a Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Development District 5.0804(PD 254)was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the initial study,the proposed Negative Declaration and all written and oral testimony presented; and WHEREAS,the Planning Commission voted to recommend thatthe City Council approve the proposed Project, subject to the conditions of approval; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider the proposed Project was given in accordance with applicable law; and /3 6 WHEREAS,on October 17,2001,a public hearing on the application for the proposed project was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS,pursuant to Government Code Section 66412.3,the City Council has considered the effect of the proposed Subdivision, Tentative Tract Map 29077, on the housing needs of the region in which Palm Springs is situated and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of its residents and available fiscal and environmental resources;the approval of the proposed Subdivision represents the balance of these respective needs in a manner which is most consistent with the City's obligation pursuant to its police powers to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the Project, including but not limited to the staff report, all environmental data including the initial study, the proposed Negative Declaration and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds that, with the incorporation of proposed mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this project will be reduced to a level of insignificance and therefore recommends adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. Section 2: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9402.00, the City Council finds that: a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a Planned Development District is authorized by the City's zoning ordinance. Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance, cluster residential detached homes are a permitted use within the both the R-2 zone and R-3 zones. b. The said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the existing or future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The proposed project consists the subdivision of 6.54 acres into 52 lots and the development of a 52 unit, two story, detached condominium complex. The use is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, and numerous improvements have been proposed in conjunction with the subject application(s). General Plan Policy 3.4.7, 'West Tahquitz Canyon Way", requires the development of a master plan for circulation in the area, as properties are developed, in order to prevent the intrusion of through-traffic and to provide localized parking. The proposed project includes a number of traffic calming measures including entry monuments, divided traffic flows through the use of a median, textured paving, bay parking, landscaping and signage. The street improvements are designed to reduce vehicle speeds, establish logical traffic patterns, provide additional parking, establish a sense of privacy and discourage additional traffic from entering the area.The proposed project complies with relevant General Plan policies. / 3G 2 C. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood. The proposed project includes a maximum building height of 24'feet, which is allowed by the R-2 and R-3 zones.The adjacent development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way includes single family residences, a historic resort property, the Desert Museum and the Desert Fashion Plaza. The existing R-1 zoned, multi-story homes to the north of the site feature ground level parking and garage areas, ground level residential uses with no view corridors, elevated second floors with limited views and third floor residences with views to the south of Tahquitz Canyon. The Zoning Ordinance standards for augmented R-2 and R-3 setbacks in the case of multi-story buildings adjacent to R-1 zoned properties, was designed to protect the privacy and view corridors of R-1 properties, which have historically been single story residential units. In this case, the proposed project is adjacent to two and three story hillside residences, many of which exceed the height of the proposed project. Because the R-1 zoned properties in this case are not single story residences, but are in fact two and three story residences with pad elevations above the proposed development and maximum heights above the proposed development, a reduction of the required 150' and 200' setbacks has been proposed. Therefore, the proposed setbacks to adjacent R-1 zoned properties are consistent with development patterns in the area and the project will not be detrimental to the existing or future uses permitted in the zone in which the use is located. In addition, the proposed building heights are is consistent with development in the area, particularly the existing two-and three-story residences to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way and multi-story multi family residential development located directly to the south of the property. The site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses, and the proposed project requests lower densities than those allowed within the R-2 and R-3 zones. If developed as a resort hotel, as permitted under the General Plan and in the R-3 zone, the maximum number of rooms could be calculated using one of two formulas contained in Section 92.04.03.C.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In the R-3 zone, maximum density for hotels utilizing above ground parking is calculated at a ratio 1,000 square feet of net lot area for each dwelling unit of a hotel or resort hotel. Therefore,with above ground parking, a maximum of 227 hotels units on the R-3 portion of the site, in addition to 19 hotel units on the R-2 portion of the site,for a combined total of 246 total dwelling units could be allowable. The density of hotels with underground parking is calculated at a rate of one hotel unit per every 800 square feet of net lot area. Were the property to be developed with underground parking, a maximum of 284 hotel units on the R-3 portion of the site, in addition to the 19 hotel units on the R-2 portion of the site, for a combined total of 303 dwelling units could be allowable. Therefore, the in terms of the density proposed, the proposed project is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses. d. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. / 03 The traffic study prepared for this project indicates that with the addition of project generated traffic acceptable levels of service will be maintained. A traffic study was prepared for this project. The western terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way is to be improved to acceptable transportation and aesthetic standards as part of the proposed Proiect.The proposed project will not meaningfully impact access to and traffic circulation in the vicinity of the Desert Museum. The applicant will be required to pay a"Fair share"contribution of$12,000 for traffic control improvements at Tahquitz Canyon and Belardo Road. The proposed project will contribute to improvement of the existing street system that will serve the site, and with said improvements,the public street system will be adequate to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. e. The conditions to be imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, of the existing neighborhood in which this project is situated. The conditions imposed are necessary to bring the project into compliance with applicable zoning, building, and other regulations to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare of the existing neighborhood in which this project is located. Section 3: Pursuant to 9.62.010 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code and Section 92.01.00 et. sec. of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds that: a. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals and objectives of the H43/30, High Density Residential, General Plan designation which governs the subject property as well as all property adjacent to the subject site. b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the R-2 and R-3 zones within which the property is located. The Zoning Ordinance allows a density of one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet and 2,000 square feet of lot area in the R-2 and R-3 zones, respectively. The proposed project is consistent with existing development in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project, particularly the existing two-story and three-story residences located directly north of the site across Tahquitz Canyon Way and multi- story multi family residential development located directly to the south of the property. The adjacent residential development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way are single family residential units and a historic resort property. These multistory homes feature ground level parking and garage areas, ground level residential uses with limited view corridors, elevated second floors with limited views and third floor residences with views to the south of Tahquitz Canyon. Additional hillside residences exist further to the north, which are directly west of the Desert Museum and are only accessible from Palisades Drive. The Desert Fashion Plaza and the Desert Museum are also located within 600' of the project area. C. The site is physically suited for this type of development. Although significant slopes exist adjacent to the subject property, the project site is level and each lot contains adequate developable building area. There are no bodies of water, ravines, or significant topographic features on the subject property. d. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development. The site is physically suited for the proposed number of lots, and the density of the subdivision is consistent with the General Plan. e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats. The Initial Study prepared for the project determined that the project is surrounded by development. Through the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures any environmental impacts regarding animal or plant life will be reduced to a level of less than significant. There are no bodies of water on the subject property and therefore no fish will be disturbed. f. The design of the subdivision ortype of improvements will not conflict with easements,acquired by the public at large,for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through or use of the property. A number of easements,which are not plottable, transect the property; however,the proposed subdivision will not interfere with these easements. NOW,THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED that,based upon the foregoing,the City Council hereby orders a filing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and approves Case No. 8.0804, Preliminary Planned Development District#254 and Tentative Tract Map 29077, subject to those conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which are to be satisfied prior to the issuance of building permits unless otherwise specified. ADOPTED this 17th day of October, 2001. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By: City Clerk City Manager REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM EXHIBIT A CASE 5.0804-PD (PD 254) TM 29077 BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL October 17, 2001 Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. la. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.0804-PD.The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not,thereafter,be responsible to defend,indemnify,orhold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive further indemnification hereunder, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 2. If, within two (2) years after the date of approval by the city council of the preliminary development plan,the final development plan,as indicated in Section 94.03.00(I), has not been approved by the planning commission, the procedures and actions which have taken place up to that time shall be null and void and the planned development district shall expire. Extensions of time may be allowed for good cause. 3. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 9403.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Final construction plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor plans, roof plans, grading plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, sign program, mitigation monitoring program,site cross sections, property development standards, West Tahquitz Canyon Way street improvement plans and other such documents as required by the Planning Commission. Final construction plans shall be submitted within two years of the Planning Commission approval. ! 3e 4. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's")to the Director of Planning and Building for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to issuance of occupancy permits. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City approval, shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances. 5. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs,a deposit in the amount of$5,000 for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. 6. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning and Building prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. 7. The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document Package to the Director of Planning and Building for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 8. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. 9. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage points both existing and future per Section 9303.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. The screening shall be considered as an element of the overall design and must blend with the architectural design of the building(s). The exterior elevations and roof plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of screening. Parapets shall be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening 10. No exterior down spouts shall be permitted on any facade on the proposed building(s) which are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial areas. 11. The design, height, texture and color of building(s), fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 12. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 13. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 93.21.00, Outdoor Lighting Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning & Building priorto the issuance of building permits.Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to issuance of a building permit. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized. 14. The detention basins and archeological sites shall be landscaped, to the extent possible. 15. Plans meeting City standards for approval on the proposed trash and recyclable materials enclosure shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit. 16. Details of pool fencing (materials and color) and equipment area shall be submitted with final landscape plan. / 347 IT Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location of handicapped parking spaces, the main entrance to the proposed pool structure and the path of travel to the main entrance. Consideration shall be given to potential difficulties with the handicapped accessibility to the building due to the future grading plans for the property. 18. The applicant shall construct the proposed Tahquitz Drive off-site improvements as part of Phase I. 19. Restricted pool hours shall be posted.The pool shall not be used between the hours of 10 pm to 7 am. 20. The maximum building height shall be 24'. 21. The applicant shall revise the grading plan to lower the grade in the easterly portion of the project, with the objective of minimizing grade differences on site and off-site, to the greatest extent possible. 22. The applicant shall prepare a parcel map or lot line adjustment map which will divide the cemetery property including the drainage ditch from the rest of their property so that a legal parcel which could be included in a grant deed to the Tribe at the time of conveyance. 23. Any and all cost related to any conditions imposed by the City of Palm Springs on the tentative map to obtain the final map which conditions are related to the parcel to be conveyed to the Tribe would be at the expense of the Tribe. 24. The applicant shall supply an easement for pedestrian and vehicular access for the ten feet immediately to the east of the drainage ditch which easement will also be conveyed to the Tribe at the time of the above conveyance. 25. Such conveyance and the easement shall be deemed a gift conveyance to the Tribe. The land and easement to be used only for the protection and preservation of cultural and natural resources of the Tribe, preservation of historic cemetery grounds, preservation of open space, and the preservation of in place or respectful public display of archeological and cultural resources of the land. 26. The applicant shall not have to take any further action with respect to which of the various possible access routes the Tribe would select. 27. The applicant shall prepare a legal description of the portion that will be included within the parcel, and order a title commitment from a title company to be selected by the Drown Foundation. If based upon that title commitment the Tribe elects to have title insurance issued, the expense of a title policy will be absorbed by the Tribe. 28. The conveyance above described will take place no later than sixty days after final approval by the City of Palm Springs of a development project approved by the Drown Foundation on the remainder of the property. 29. If the conveyance does not occur within one year of the written acceptance by the Tribe of the proposal contained in this letter, then the Tribe can request that the applicant proceed with completion of a parcel map at the cost of the Tribe and when such map is recorded in the Riverside County records, the applicant will deliver the conveyance within ten days thereafter. 30. The Tribe may approve the title commitment and no conveyance will be sent to the Tribe until and unless the applicant receives a written response from the applicant that the title commitment has been approved. The title commitment will include copies of any and all exceptions to title recited therein. 31. If in the course of doing grading for construction, human burial remains are discovered, the applicant shall require the contractor and/or developer to notify the Riverside County Coroner and the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribe Office. Once the Coroner's investigation is complete,the burial remains will be prepared for removal to a location specified by the Tribe. The actual removal of remains, and the method for such removal, shall be conducted by authorized representatives of the Tribe. To avoid delay in construction, if the Tribe has not removed the remains within 48 hours of receiving written notice from the landowner, developer or City of Palm Springs, the contractor and/or developer may arrange to have the remains removed and stored at an appropriate holding facility. If the Tribe has not acted to take possession of the remains, the remains can then be buried at the Palm Springs Public Cemetery. 32. The gift to the Tribe is conditioned on our client's establishing to its satisfaction that a gift to the Tribe is deductible for income tax purposes. 33. If there is a sale of remaining property, our client will require the Contract of Sale to contain a provision obligating the buyertherein to comply with the provisions contained herein. The Tribe will be given written notice of such sale and thereafter any underperformed provisions of this agreement shall become the obligation of the buyer therein and our client shall have no further obligation of performance. 34. The applicant will hire,at their expense,archaeological monitor(s)recommended and approved by the Tribal Council, for all subsequent work involving any excavation related to the development of the remaining property. 35. The applicant shall construct a 6' decorative block wall around the swimming pool. MITIGATION MEASURES W-1. The applicant shall construct on site detention areas and related facilities as depicted on Tentative Tract Map 29077.This includes,"Lot F",which measures just over half an acre in area (23,213 square feet). The basin is designed with a 2:1 slope, or a slope angle of 50%.The bottom of the basin is located at an elevation of 452, the top of the basin is located at an elevation of 459.On-site storm flows will be directed to a proposed retention basin located along the property's eastern boundary, which is depicted as Lot"G" on Tentative Tract Map 29077. The "Lot G" detention basin, which measures approximately one quarter of an acre in area (15,176 square feet) and features a slope of 2:1, or a slope angle of 50%.The basin is located as a buffer along the south eastern boundary of the project. In order to enhance views from the surrounding hillside areas and in order to prevent on-going problems with erosion,the detention basins shall be landscaped. These basins shall be subject to regular landscape maintained. AQ-1. The applicant shall comply with Section 8.50 of the Palm Spring Municipal Code, Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control (PM-10) and prepare and submit a plan to the Building Department to control fugitive dust emissions in compliance with the South Coact Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD).The plan must implement reasonably available control measures to ensure that project emissions are in compliance with the SCAQMD. T-1. The developer shall pay the "fair share" cost of a two phase signal to be located at the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Street. The fair share is to be calculated as a percentage of overall traffic growth from 2001 to 2010 at the intersection. Based on a fair share percentage of 12%, the developers contribution of the cost of the new signal is$12,000. T-2. The western terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way shall be improved to acceptable transportation and aesthetic standards,to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, and as approved by the Planning Commission. U-1. All utilities including cable television, telephone and electrical lines less than 35 KV shall be relocated underground as part of the project in order to be consistent with the General Plan. CR-1. In regards to the Native American Cemetery, if construction within the area northwest of the Tahquitz Ditch is not proposed as part of the project, the area northwest of the ditch is to be deeded to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,with deed restrictions requiring that the area be maintained in an acceptable manner. CR-2. In regards to the Tahquitz Ditch segment, if construction within the area of the ditch segment is not proposed as part of the project, the area is to be deeded to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, with deed restrictions requiring that the area be maintained in an acceptable manner. CR-3. In regards to the Ruined Structure, a complete excavation is recommended to determine if the structure is associated with the Tahquitz Ditch. If the Ruined Structure is determined to be related to the Tahquitz Ditch, the applicant shall submit an application to the City of Palm Springs for historic designation of the structure. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: The Public Works & Engineering Department recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and ordinances: Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. STREETS 1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit.Work shall be allowed according to Resolution 17950-Restricting Street Work on Major and Secondary Thoroughfares. 2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering Department.The plan(s)shall be approved bythe City Engineer priorto issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal shall include the following, IF applicable: A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. B. Street Vacation plat and all agreements and improvement plans approved by City Engineer, IF applicable. /3 e. C. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc. required by these conditions. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY WEST 3. Construct project entry improvements and entry drive to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 3A. Six(6)inch curb and gutter shall be constructed 7 feet south of the base centerline of the street along the Le Vallauris frontage per CPS Std. Dwg. No. 200. 3B. Bay parking may be constructed on Tahquitz Canyon Way, with a 5 foot wide sidewalk going around the perimeter of the parking bays and continuing westerly to the project entry, to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Planning and the City Engineer. 3C. Driveways for La Vallauris shall be extended to the new curb and gutter location and driveway approaches constructed per CPS Std. Dwg. No.204. 3D. The 36 foot long, 5 foot wide decorative, raised median island on the west side of the intersection with Museum Drive may be constructed. Details shall be approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Planing and Building. ON-SITE STREETS (PRIVATE) 4. Construct a 6 or 8 inch curb and gutter(as required by the hydrology study), 14 feet both sides of centerline along on-site streets, per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200. 5. On-site vehicular turnarounds(hammerhead orsimilar configuration)shall be constructed atthe end of all driveways accessing Lots 2 through 4, 7 through 10, 13 through 16, 19 through 22, 25 through 28, 31 through 34, 37 through 40, 43 through 48, and 50 through 52 to the satisfaction of the Fire Chief and City Engineer. 6. The minimum pavement section for all on-site streets/parking areas shall be 2-1/2 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4-inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, OR equal. The pavement section shall be designed, using "R" values, determined by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted with the Fine Grading Plan to the City Engineer for approval. 7. The following requirements for a gated entry shall be met to provide adequate setbacks and turning movements for vehicles entering the primary parking facilities of this project: A. Provide a minimum curb cut of 60 feet B. Provide a minimum 50 foot setback to the access gate control mechanism. C. Provide a turnaround after the mechanism for vehicles unable to enter the project D. Security gates shall be a minimum of 14 feet clear width in each direction. 8. On-street parking on the on-site private streets shall be prohibited by the HOA, except for parking in designated spaces off of on-site streets. The HOA shall monitor and enforce 'no parking'via the installation of'no parking'signs and painting of red curb along all on-site private streets. SANITARY SEWER 9. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Lateral shall not be connected at manhole. Sewer mains and laterals in Private Streets shall be maintained by the HOA. GRADING 10. A copy of a Title Report prepared/updated within the past 3 months and copies of record documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer with the first submittal of the Grading Plan. 11. Submit a Grading Plan prepared by a Registered Professional to the Engineering Department for plan check.Grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for comments prior to submittal to the Engineering Department. The PM 10 (dust control) Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Division prior to approval of the grading plan. The Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer priorto issuance of any grading or building permits. Minimum submittal includes the following: A. Copy of Planning Department comments regarding the grading plan. B. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. C. Copy of Site Plan stamped approved and signed by the Planning Department. D. Copy of Title Report prepared/updated within past 3 months. E. Copy of Soils Report, IF required by these conditions. F. Copy of Hydrology Study/Report, IF required by these conditions. G. Copy of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. 916 657-0687)to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 12. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks-3'wide and 6"deep- to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters. 13. Developer shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. (916)-657-0687) and provide a copy of same, when executed, to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit. 14. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.00, the developer shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per acre for mitigation measures of erosion/blowsand relating to his property and development. 15. A soils report prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed site. A copy of the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the Engineering Department along with plans, calculations and other information subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to the issuance of the grading permit. 16. Contact the Building Department to get information regarding the preparation of the PM 10(dust control) Plan requirements. e. 17. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving an engineered grading plan and the export of native soil from the site will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties' (RIFA Form CA-1) or a verbal release from that office prior to the issuance of the City grading permit. The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert. (Phone: 760-776-8208) DRAINAGE 18, The developer shall accept all flows impinging upon his land and conduct these flows to an approved drainage structure. On-site retention/detention or other measures approved by the City Engineer shall be required if off-site facilities are determined to be unable to handle the increased flows generated by the development of the site. Provide calculations to determine if the developed Q exceeds the capacity of the approved drainage carriers. 19. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees.The acreage drainage fee at the present time is$9,212.00 per acre per Resolution No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. GENERAL 20. Any utility cuts in the existing off-site pavement made by this development shall receive trench replacement pavement to match existing pavement plus one additional inch. See City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Pavement shall be restored to a smooth rideable surface. 21. All proposed utility lines on/or adjacent to this project shall be undergrounded prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 22. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading/street plans. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. The approved original grading/street plans shall be as-built and returned to the City of Palm Springs Engineering Department prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy. 23. All existing and proposed utility lines that are less than 35 kV on/or adjacent to this project shall be undergrounded.The location and size of the existing overhead facilities shall be provided to the Engineering Department along with written confirmation from the involved utility company(s) that the required deposit to underground the facility(s) has been paid, prior to issuance of a grading permit. All undergrounding of utilities shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 24. The developer is advised to contact all utility purveyors for detailed requirements for this project at the earliest possible date. 25. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 203. 26. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. a e. MAP 27. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies of record documents shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering Department. 28. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property and the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all areas of right-of-way or easement dedication shall be submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval with the Grant Deed. 29. The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Submittal shall be made priorto issuance of grading or building permits. TRAFFIC 30. The developer shall provide a minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk clearance around all street furniture, fire hydrants and other above-ground facilities for handicap accessibility. The developer shall provide same through dedication of additional right-of-way and widening of the sidewalk or shall be responsible for the relocation of all existing traffic signal/safety light poles, conduit, pull boxes and all appurtenances located on the TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY WEST frontage of the subject property. 31. The developer shall re-stripe the northbound and westbound approaches to the Tahquitz Canyon Way/Belardo Road intersection to provide for two-lane approaches. The developer shall provide traffic striping plans for City Engineer approval. 32. The developer shall pay its"fair share"amount of$12,000.00 toward a future Tahquitz Canyon Way/ Belardo Road traffic signal. 33. Separate striping plans are to be prepared and submitted along with street improvement plans for review and approval by the City Engineer. 34. Street name signs shall be required at each intersection in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620 through 625. 35. The developer shall install a 30 inch "STOP" sign and standard "STOP BAR" and "STOP LEGEND"fortraffic exiting the project site per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos.620 through 625 at the following locations: SE COR. PROJECT ENTRY @ TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY WEST 36. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.As a minimum, all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of Transportation, "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES"dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction. 37. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on the MULTI- FAMILY ITE Code 8 land use. FIRE DEPARTMENT 1. Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location of handicapped parking spaces,the main entrance to the proposed structure and the path of travel to the main entrance. Consideration shall be given to potential difficulties with the handicapped accessibility to the building due to the future grading plans for the property. 2. Construction shall be in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code, 1998 California Building Code,Desert WaterAgency standards, NFPA standards,plus UL/CSFM listings and approvals. 3. Addresses shall be in accordance with the 1998 Building Code. 4. Palm Springs fire apparatus require an outside turning radius of 43'from centerline. An inside turning radius of 30' is required. 5. Construction site fencing is required; access gates shall be at least 14"in width and equipped with a frangible chain and lock. 6. All water supplies, standpipes, and fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code and Desert Water Agency standards. 7. An automatic fire sprinkler system with 24 hour monitoring shall be required. 8. Portable fire extinguishers are required in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code. 9. Vertical Fire Apparatus Clearance: Palm Spring Fire apparatus require an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 14' -6". 10. Road Design: Fire Apparatus access roads shall be designed and constructed as all weather capable and able to support a fire truck weighting 67,500 lbs., per the 98 CFC, Art. 9, Sec 902.2.2.2 and City of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570. 11. Building or Complex Gate Locking Devices: Gate(s) shall be equipped with KNOX key switch device or key box. Contact Fire Inspector for a KNOX application form. 12. Driveway Width: Driveways shall be a minimum of 12' of unobstructed width. 13. Site Plan: Provide Fire Inspector with two 8.5"x 11"site plans.Approved locations for the Fire Department connection and fire hydrants will be marked on this site plan, with one copy being returned to the applicant. The second copy will be retained by the Fire Department. 14. Because of the narrow width of the roadways, parking will only be allowed on one side. Red curbs restricting parking on the opposite side of the streets will be required. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 1. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. The / ��