HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/21/2016 - STAFF REPORTS - 2.B. QALM ao
DOE 9�
V N
k f
t C4bfLifo i9
Cq��FORa�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: September 21, 2016 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: APPEAL BY WESSMAN HOLDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
ACTION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR THE
CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 294); A
PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF A TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP (TTM 31766), AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
294 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 79 HOMES LOCATED AT W.
RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE; (CASE
5.0996/PDD 294/TTM 31766).
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY
This is a request for the City Council to consider an appeal filed by Wessman Holdings,
regarding the action of the Planning Commission on August 10, 2016, to deny a request
for a one-year extension of time for the Crescendo development; a previously approved
project consisting of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 31766) and Planned Development
District 294. The project was originally approved by the City Council on October 17,
2007, for a 79-lot subdivision on an undeveloped 42.2-acre parcel located along West
Racquet Club Drive and Vista Grande Avenue.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE PLANNING
COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR
THE CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 79 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON A 42.2-
ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA
GRANDE AVENUE;"
Or—Alternatively:
Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE PLANNI,,NG..�,
ITEM NO.._Q,�_
City Council Staff Report September 21,2016
Case No.5.0996-PDD 294-Appeal Page 2
COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR
THE CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294; AND
GRANTING A LIMITED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A PERIOD OF THREE
MONTHS TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT TIME TO SUBMIT AN AMENDED
CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 294) FOR THE
42.2-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA
GRANDE AVENUE (CASE 5.0996-PDD 294)."
ISSUES:
• In May 2016, the applicant submitted a Final Map, Rough Grading Plan, Sewer
Plan, on-site Street Plan, off-site Street Plan, Water Quality Management Plan and
Hydrology Report. These submittals are in compliance with the project's conditions
of approval.
• All of the above stated plans and Hydrology Report are currently under review by
the Planning Department, the Engineering Department and by the City's outside
Engineering consultant who is reviewing the rough grading plan check.
• Final design work and other related studies requested by the City are in progress.
• Planning Administrative Condition #11 "Final Design" stipulates that if the final
development plan for PDD 294 is not approved, "...the procedures and actions
which have taken place up to that time shall be null and void and the Planned
Development District and Tentative Tract Map shall expire."
• A Final Map cannot be approved for Crescendo until Condition #11 is satisfied.
PRIOR ACTIONS:
Most Recent Ownership
2003 Wessman Holdings
Related Relevant City Actions by Planning, Fire, Building, etc...
09/26/07 The Planning Commission certified the EIR, approved the PDD and
recommended approval of the project to the City Council.
10/17/07 The City Council certified a final EIR and approved TTM 31766 & PDD 294.
05/29/08 The City and Wessman Development reached a "Settlement and Release
Agreement" aranting a 5-year entitlement until 10/16/2012.
01/23/12 The Planning Commission granted a one-year time extension for PDD 294.
10/23/13 The Planning Commission granted a one-year time extension for PDD 294.
07/23/14 The Planning Commission granted a one-year time extension for PDD 294.
09/15/15 The Planning Commission granted a one-year time extension for PDD 294.
08/10/16 The Planning Commission denied an extension request for PDD 294 by a
vote of 5-1-1; Donenfeld opposed, Chair Calerdine recused himself.
BACKGROUND AND SETTING:
On October 17, 2007, the City Council certified a Final EIR and approved the
Crescendo project. The project consisted of a Tentative Tract Map (TTM 31766) and a
Planned Development District (PD 294). Planned Development District 294 established
02
City Council Staff Report September 21,2016
Case No.5.0996-PDD 294-Appeal Page 3
new design and development standards for the project while Tentative Tract Map 31766
created the 79 single-family residential lots to construct upscale homes. The lots range
between 15,077 square feet and 54,500 square feet in size; the average lot size in the
development is 21,195 square feet. (Among other development standards, PDD 294
established a smaller lot size than the minimum lot size of 20,000 square feet normally
required by the underlying R-1-A Zoning District standards). The subject site is an
undeveloped 42-acre triangular parcel bounded by Racquet Club Road to the south,
single-family residential uses to the east and the south, Tram Way to the north and a
portion of the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation to the west. The site is currently
covered by rocks, loose cobbles and large boulders. The slopes are between eight and
ten percent from east to west; the elevation ranges from 680 to 840 feet above sea
level. The subject property is surrounded by well-established residential developments
with unique building pads and street patterns. A site plan showing the approved PDD
294, and a copy of TTM 31766, are included as attachments to this report.
Following the approval of the Crescendo project, lawsuits were filed and as a result, on
May 29, 2008, a Settlement and Release Agreement was reached between the City and
the applicant, Wessman Development. Language in the Settlement Agreement states
"...in the event that any State Legislation is adopted which would extend the life of any
Entitlements, such an extension shall be in addition to the extension granted herein".
The original expiration date of Tentative Tract Map 31766 with the automatic five (5)-
year extension granted by the State Legislature was October 17, 2016; however, the
Settlement Agreement has established a further extension of three (3) years to
Tentative Tract Map 31766 which will now expire on October 17, 2019. However, the
State Legislature did not grant any automatic extension to local zoning entitlements,
such as PDD 294, and extension of time for PDD 294 is now required. A copy of the
Settlement Agreement is included as an attachment to this report.
ANALYSIS:
The entitlement for Planned Development District 294 expires on October 1, 2016, and
pursuant to the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, the appellant submitted a letter
for an extension of time request. In the letter dated June 13, 2016, the applicant stated
that they intend to commence construction by late 2017; however, concerns that the
time necessary to obtain approval of the final map, plan checks and building permits
may not be sufficient given the expiration date of PDD-294. According to the applicant,
since the last extension in 2015, a series of steps to advance the project have been
taken: the Final Map, grading plans, and off-site/on-site improvement plans have been
submitted to the City for review and permitting. The Final Map, Subdivision
Improvement Agreement (SIA) and Community Facility District (CFD) are scheduled to
go to the City Council for a final action. However, the applicant opted to request for an
extension of time just in case the review of those submittals are not completed prior to
the expiration date of the project entitlement.
According to Section 94.03.00(H) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, extensions of time
for Planned Development District entitlements may be allowed by demonstration of
good cause. No specific findings or determinations are required to grant time extensions
for previously-approved Planned Development District projects. On August 10, 2016,
03
City Council Staff Report September 21,2016
Case No.5.0996-PDD 294-Appeal Page 4
the extension of time request was considered and denied by the Planning Commission
on the basis that the project was approved almost ten years ago and that the applicant
has failed to demonstrate the ability to advance development of the project. On August
15, 2016, Wessman Development filed an appeal of the Commission's action.
APPEAL AND STAFF ANALYSIS:
On August 15, 2016, Wessman Development appealed the action of the Planning
Commission; the basis of the appeal is the following:
Appellant: "We have submitted substantially all documents necessary for filing of the
final map. Under State law, the City may not deny or condition a final map
if the developer has complied with all conditions of approval attached to
the tentative map. Therefore we will be completing the recording of the
map shortly".
Staff Response: In May 2016, the appellant did submit a Final Map, Rough Grading
Plan, Sewer Plan, on-site Street Plan, off-site Street Plan, Water Quality
Management Plan and Hydrology Report to the City. These plans are
currently in plan check at Development Services and at the outside
Engineering consultant firm who works for the City. Again, the Planning
Commission made a determination that the project was approved almost
ten years ago and that the developer had made little progress in the
intervening years to advance the project.
Appellant: "The PDD provided the residential designs that fit within the map
parameters, and should therefore run concurrently with the map. The
objections raised at the Planning Commission were based on both factual
and legal misrepresentations".
Staff Response: Condition of approval No. 11 clearly states that... If, within two (2)
years after the date of approval by the City Council of the preliminary
development plan, the final development plan...has not been approved as
provided below in Condition No. 12, the procedures and actions which
have taken place up to that time shall be null and void and the Planned
Development District and Tentative Tract Map shall expire. Condition No.
12 states that...the final development plans shall be submitted in
accordance with Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. Final
construction plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor plans,
roof plans, fence and wall plans, entry plans, landscape plans, irrigation
plans, exterior lighting plans, street improvement plans and other such
documents as required by the Planning Commission and City Council. No
such plans have been submitted to date; consequently, the Planning
Commission found that the applicant had not made adequate progress in
advancing the project.
Appellant: "The objection that the CEQA documents is 9 years old and therefore no
longer valid runs in direct opposition to the State law regarding CEQA.
04
City Council Staff Report September 21,2016
Case No.5.0996-PDD 294-Appeal Page 5
Under state law, the City may not require further environmental analysis
unless there are changed circumstances such that the project will
generate significant impacts that were not previously analyzed or will
significantly increase impacts beyond those analyzed. Those
circumstances do not exist in this case. As staff notes in its staff report,
there have been no changes on the property, and there are no changes in
circumstances which could justify requiring additional environmental
review"
Staff Response: Members of the public who spoke at the hearing made references to
the EIR being nine years old and that new studies are necessary to
address changed environmental factors in the area. The Planning
Commission did not reference the EIR in its motion to deny the extension
of time request.
Appellant: "Project opponents cite the development that has occurred in Desert
Palisades to say that the EIR must be revised, however, this is incorrect.
When the EIR for Crescendo was completed, it included a cumulative
impact analysis that considered the City's build out scenario and all
foreseeable projects planned for the area. When the EIR for Desert
Palisades was completed, it too included a cumulative impact analysis that
considered all projects in the area. Therefore, there has been complete
environmental review of these projects, and all of those environmental
documents are now beyond challenge".
Staff Response: The reference to the Desert Palisades project was made by speakers
opposing the extension request. The Planning Commission did not make
such a reference in their motion to deny the extension request.
Appellant: "Crescendo was a hard fought entitlement when it was originally granted.
There were two major EIR revisions to make certain all issues were
covered and the neighbors still filed a CEQA suit against the project at the
time. The neighbors ultimately agreed to and did settle that CEQA suit,
releasing all claims against Crescendo, and in return, the developer made
concessions to the neighborhood including a commitment there would be
no mass grading. The neighbors now attempting to fight this project
appears to be a violation of their obligations under the settlement
agreement".
Staff Response: The settlement agreement and CEQA lawsuit were not deliberated
upon by the Planning Commission at the hearing of August 10, 2016. The
Planning Commission voted to deny the extension because they were not
persuaded that appellant demonstrated a good cause to grant one more
extension of time.
Appellant: "The opponents also made claims that this developer had already
impacted the area with work on the site. That is a factual error in that there
has been no work on the site. The photographs that were produced by the
05
City Council Staff Report September 21, 2016
Case No.5.0996-PDD 294-Appeal Page 6
project opponents were pictures of work being done in the area by other
developers. The berm which they object to, for example, was originally a
requirement of the Desert Palisades project. There is simply no
justification for penalizing the developer because they don't like what
others have done':
Staff Response: The validity of the pictures presented at the hearing did not factor in
the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the extension of time
request; however, the Commission stated that further directions are
needed from the City Council on how to proceed with extension of time
requests for projects that have received multiple extensions and no sign of
progress.
Appellant: "As staff is aware, Wessman Development has completed virtually all the
plans for the final map on this site. Having endured the expense of those
plans, the entitlement process, two EIR rounds, and a lawsuit, it is fair and
reasonable to allow the developer the time makes use of the map by
extending the PDD"
Staff Response: Again the Planning Commission determined that nine (9) was long
enough for Wessman Development to have commenced construction at
the site.
Alternative Proposal
On September 15, 2016, the appellant submitted a request proposing to amend PDD
294 to eliminate all of the previously approved architectural approvals, but preserving
the currently approved lot configurations identified on Tentative Tract Map 31766 (i.e.
maintaining the minimum lot size of 15,077 square feet) and setbacks established by
PDD 294. In this way, the Crescendo project would be developed as a custom home
subdivision with construction of homes on each individual lot subject to the City's Major
Architectural Approval process, in the same way as the Boulders or Desert Palisades
development projects. On-site construction would be limited to the on-site streets,
utilities and related storm drainage infrastructure across the property.
The appellant has also committed to direct all construction traffic to Tram Way, and has
negotiated a construction easement with the San Jacinto Winter Park Authority to
facilitate this commitment.
A copy of the appellant's request letter is included as an attachment to this staff report.
This alternative proposal would negate the need for final development plans, given that
the amended PDD 294 would be limited to preserving the development standards (lot
sizes and property line setbacks), and not any architectural approvals related to single
family home construction.
06
City Council Staff Report September 21,2016
Case No.5.0996-PDD 294-Appeal Page 7
Based on this alternative proposal, staff has provided City Council with an alternative
Resolution for consideration which would overturn the Planning Commission's action to
deny an extension of PDD 294 only insofar as to provide a three-month extension of
PDD 294 to facilitate the appellant's request to amend PDD 294. If the alternative
proposal is considered, the request to amend PDD 294 would be referred to the
Planning Commission for review and recommendation, with final approval by City
Council.
NOTIFICATION:
The applicant was notified of the City Council hearing of the appeal; a public hearing
notice was mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site.
Additionally, the public hearing was published in the local newspaper and the
surrounding neighborhood organizations were also notified.
SUBMITTED:
inn Fagg, AlCP1 NMarcus Fuller, MPA, P.E., P.L.S.
Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
David H. Ready, Esq.
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1 . Vicinity Map.
2. PDD 294 Site Plan
3. TTM 31766
4. Settlement and Release Agreement
5. Resolution Denying Appeal
6. Resolution Granting Appeal
7. Letter of extension request from the applicant dated June 13, 2016
8. Letter of Appeal dated August 11, 2016.
9. Letter requesting alternative proposal dated September 15, 2016
07
ATTACHMENT 1
08
{pt PPLM Sao
Department of Planning Services
Vicinity Map
C4<If00.N�P,
ESA-SP RGA6
`v
—, RG A6
ESA-SP R3 T RGA6:
ri
�O RGA6
P{
SFIN MARCO WAY C1
ESA-SP
R1C RICIRGA6 -..
C1
'4y R1C
O C RIC RGA6
BRI LORD
7 R2
RIA 94� RGA6
URIC - R1C. _
Ri
RIC
RACQUET CLUB RD
p
--
i
R1 B -- ........--- Z
___-._......... �, .�......... R1 B RIB R1 B_.
_ - R1B —R1B -z RIB c . ..r
Legend aA OIV LERA rp ... RIB_ m VI -
® r� O Lu
O _
Site .� V6q CYVORNO try
�500-€t" Site Radius
RIB -# RIB
SANBORN-WAY
Zoning R1B R1G
-- Parcels R1A
i
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
U9
ATTACHMENT 2
10
Wt�SMAN ♦r '0N/Alt\
i
CRESCENDO
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
ILLUSTRATIVE LANDSCAPE PLAN
4
e
! „ Al
I
,
_ 3 �
21
I
n
s4• � r i LI � ' � � .. ,. E
ti
! 1
x �
} r� f
9 '
A � `�`•a �. Lam._._. .
o c
all
rAO ✓br IIRP
EAR! ;RACQUET CLUB �N tsic�
� 1
ATTACHMENT 3
32
• LOT SUMMARY NOTES
VICINITY MAP A
IN RIND NO ON6v9 IEI 101 FN9 Y, 1. E%RIINO IWD USE: VA:AM
r n MOPES.INO USE: SNGIE FNULr Nt50EMYL
' \ \ YJ 1'v v tIAI I Y YI I m ] EXIS.INE IOHIN2 R-I-A(SAGE FIWILY RESIOIM'u IWE'30,000 SOFT.)
i YI P Y I P II 9 3Y
.. PROPOSED zonWc rov P..WNE EEvaoruwr
STREER: MIWADE
I 4JM ]81 R F P.n e. DROSS ADIRME. 31 MNE:.
fh V t I rei v F O N
DISTRICT: PNM 5%iXIGS Ux FED 'L'WVL G'S1RIR
PHA. EPRI=k3 \ .k, / / -ro. w n A Y 9� Y /Y N ROW IOAF: ME".3 tS - ,1 5D& ROPFR'IES F, GTEU Ox
r THIS SURhr.WE AS SH V,ON F'..INSURANCE.RATE YM
T M FOR ME G OF Pwl SFAINGS,COYVUWI 1.WE1 u..MR
_ nm Y t n u M 1b 08O357 WOIO.DAM'Al z IY99. 3oNE C.ARUM OF
SITE - .< r [ E 3' u W "• u I m MixWAL nOWiHo(No S:ROVAG).
I /I r P.' R t I Y Wr I isa 9. ND SEMI v-3 Du/AD
® 1P r t r t 'E" _ n u
1 t O t N 1P 1a No MCIEO_OEC4 RLWJRgs, Hsm C UJuuwCE W ENDANGERED ON
sPEE WUI IRus ue XWwx TO WwR ON TSIE snE.
"} SC i] ESOWIFD W(I IIprM OLLWTIOFS: fM:335,W0.
\ \y r ] On R'l9.CW CTS
{� ( '. ] M IJm A jY. I`IN WPoM:O ll5
• I R �P A W D II 13. A FIRN SOe-WO-OAB
1
IrslIF PEp6TRlS/CCE5510 Rf I.D..' TO FAST cWOWut-K CLUB AT
c L.Cf-SKs'C IMl'V MO 10 1RWW Ai CUI-CE-SG'E'-
1. M'u J J 11 A ORI STORM ORVA PIPE r0 RE 1.11)MI H N'C STFREr FOR
1. Ym 6
TO�Y RELOCATE IO'T S'p=Gi.EV STxO 36 STORM CYRry
EtiS.y[M
15, HE TAT,g SIRLCNRE TO RE WO Ab ON LOTS 1,3, 3,9,10.38,
/ TAM.NYPMRSN(R 16..S.y 61.MO IT.
UTILITIES
LECENOSEME
PAm nm vnulv.. R R mu fmD�v
hl£FMIN 6x [1ERKYE COUPA = 1111
wunweR u.9¢ .M WC1xWWV0 uRvrs♦pT leuoj SN�zsoo
r LAND USE SUMMARY
LOT No. USE AfOiE�DE
..
" ' � } LEGAL DESCRIPTION
�ry/ O f FAREL3tY PYRE.WPNO]]I]p ARSNP WYW ON Il Y801'w IRI FADES
A R A'Y Y i} 50 TO f] Sv' fA PAIR.WI'Y.R v.M ON:C'Juury,C4 fMWA
r ;, Ts I �: L'1 I 1 :Q-_: - STATEMENT OF OWNERSHIP
l y f �A F m�I �fp -�-1 ^ A > �\ HEREBY STATE 1MAT iMrs WP w/5 PREPMEO F S unP.OER
E HAS
FROM LOSE OFNM1 D.1OCO\SLNI5 TO E FUND 01 11111 RM.
1 /l r61 I
DATE
9p;,
v�Y v
/ F �
1 "11-0
L � _
a a 'Y` yRIT? uve uvmow W
FARR
EErm®rc ^°
TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS
RR�E1N
a R.w "'P" ] '• Hl DAIS __ tYiVO4
— M
WA
" y -. .. -�• _s .1 �— "L—F x V> aCWNIDLR MwVA. ��A ��'
TOTAL Lon
FAIMBFA WF LFrIIA®E(F 5 _ - O w 10 OF
FMRY i1' .Y�51REEI5
EAST RACQUET aua (PRIVATE) (PRIVATE) 6M911Q CU11B ZIEFM
(FROM 150' WEST OF MILE DRIVE EASTERLY TO TRADE I O"A"D') xln m S— PREPARED FOR: PREPARED Br:
Pu"Iry
WESSMAN
,,,,, `-"'•R°' T-= DEVELOPMENT COMPANY L
300 5.Palm Canyon Drive "
w,.
'+"".�.��•, _ __ W}#iL� ,� t" '"'^ -F Palm SprinI CA 92262 ^
(760)325.3050 ;ro
I
TENTATIVE TRACT
EAST RACQUET CLUB TRAPO WAY DRIVE V67A CRANDE AVENUE N
(FROM 150- WEST OF MILO WIVE IMESTERLY TO TRACT 30JNOARY) (NO IMPROVFYFNTS PROPOSED) (EXISUNC - PUEI]C) N O. 31766 4
(PUeuC) (EX6TING- PURUC) R
! 3
a1PYm S~T.an;..A-1»\iMwLNvw31rn u>eD.e.E
SIDE 2.YD'i
ATTACHMENT 4
14
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
Tk.i v Setflzwtiewf- a4-.& Raza,�& Agre entie.K,(- (fk e "Agra we w{") iy
made., e.vvt e-d i fo- ati of fk-w C�OL datij of t1cq , 200 S b4i
a.+tid betweew Wedywaaw. De,rel.opwLea a", a- Co- ro z,
uwpora Li , ow behalf of Uve .f a wd Lis, a 4%& a�, i kLs,
(co{,(.ec,finrel.y, "WESSMAN"), FrU*t4 of Pat*w Sr-w, ;, Movvvtvi,wv
(4r r "Fri.e '), "Ld, fk.& Gi4hj of PcLty Spri. gv, a, Oka4-fer
Clay (kt re,waffe r, fine «Mty„). Fri e Ldy iy se� re fe4-e r t e
be-� av W vAw 4,K,, Fri,e+id v a4,L& .Ci f y a.r&
sow+vti vY H ee ei K a ffer catd e�ti vet y re�e re vLce d a�f{tie «Pa�-Fi ey," a vial
a.f,�erw<a�ixe-Ly refrrevLeed.ay a«P� ,>
RECITALS
A. Wes t L4,fhe, owwer of uetzt. real. property LA--fkt- Cvty Of
O Pai4w Spri"s-, Ca.lAfv o- a- wwyi qt of appr&xZw 44t,Ly 42
ae rey L ywg sou of Tra. Km" Ronal, wort iti of Racg.+.+.e,(- GW)k�
Drive, aL& ivwv+neaCiatoly west- of Viola Grawwde Avenu.e.
(k.e rei.Kafte r r0wred,-to-av fh.&`<Cre scewd a Property„ )
a. Wessvavv proposed,fitiaf " Crew-eorto- Proparfy hf dA"r .aped
milt 79 Y.AgL& fa*KU.y resi.de� a.nd rela,teoL eowuv44w area,
(kt. + fke,`<Projue ).
C. To-"4fLarme of fk,e Project-, Wevyw+aw yu i�ffeoL
a*e .& f %.e Ci ty prroce sled fk-e p la w +erg e wFv1Le Hn evert
ap}yLi co iawv (c4tttc(i,veLy referred, fa- k.e.reA*La ffer av fl e j
a. PUL4� e.aL Develapwuwl Pigr.c,t- 2R4 avLd. PUu-,*�
DevttorHv,e v - Ka+ , Caste No: 5.0996-PD294
(kzreiNLa fter fk-e«PD")�
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT 1
Oann I of V
b: Te Lfa(vv Tra.cf- Map 31766 (ke.rei*Laffer "TrM
O 31766") fa• Akk,) ,ai.de, fke, CrVAULdo- Property i4w 79
.s,L�U-faotit y re4-idzwtial Iofy on, aw afproxi*v% feLy
42-acre sife,
. Sfree4-.vaca,fi.aw far fke, We4ter-Ly 23 fee*of Vi vfa, GraoAe
Avc� rigk,f- of way; (kt-rt,rtaflar fk& "Sfree,t-
D. To- wwfAy.. wi fk- fk-e re4v-. rew x n,ts, &f 1 k& Cai i f arwi L.
EnAr.r&K*v� Qua-I i,ty Act- ("CEQA"), aw Eve won w,e vvFaL
ImAp"G-Report far fke,Crwe-,Ao Project; referred,
fo ay fke, "EIR") wa,, prepare& a.rLd, way wzLd,& a.va.i,CabLe, far
Pu.4yl,ic,cowwvLevut:
E. Ow SepfewLber 26, 2007, fk& PL H� CovA LSSi ow of fke,
Goy Of Pa4w Sprutigs" afhr a, Av bj Aeri cede PV-bki.& k-eari.vtg,
Oac yiaLare , the. EIR "-& fi-w Ewfi{{z�we w ar� � avwL
ruz"W vev� fkaf- fke' City Coa*LeAL eerb f y f-k.e, EI R a,w
a.pproye,fkt,E�
F. Ow Oaaber- 17, 2007, ff-%& City Cm",t 1, of fke, CLfy of P&LK4,
Spri"s,, offer a,oLt . A4fi.ceol, pvk,,t i.e. k-uw wg, vofrd,fa-ee vti f y
fke,EIR a td.fo-approve,fke E�
I
G• Ov, Deoew+dser 12, 2007, FrUA%dy fUe,& a• Pe;fUi&v,for Wri,f- of
Ma 'Lol PI WW4 A t-fo-fke, CaCi farwi.a, E:K-V ronOLC4� Qua f ury
Acf; Ca4e, No: RIC489512 (kereictiaffer tk.e "Li�tigat%on'")
c4A4iLe l,g i v<g the/ Ci;(y'Y ce.rti fi c a,f Lon, of fK& EIR avL& a prw&v -L
of the, EvLhfuw"Vts,
H. Tke' Parfie,Y w44vat. d xtre,, Lvw fkztr 4Lared, i,v�fereyt; to
avoid,fke, co:4p of f 4tgati ow wwe .w fk ewe, a,L& fo- ie� "N4b
O reso" f a u L J, f+ It�� a v,d f i v a l l y, a U rwalters i v„ d ihp wfe
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
bef we ew fkzm i vLcG Ld i v�g ex prey,yf y, bu f w i fitio wt i o ,
cL" a 4va.L or pofe*gf clai,aw ari sZ. f -o- Lfkel I-bfLgafLo*'A
1. Tke Pa4luk k.cwe agreed, fo- reach- a eowLprekenyiive a*t&
un"e &f aU, of fkcw wL4fk,
grizvav,zeh,a, oa avL& e(.ai,4 aga.fto 4-eachofk.erar4" fro1w
fke,L4igahoiv, at),aYd�yed LPU fwrfkzr dtiat , heCow
NOW, THEREFORE, for good' aoL& va kw-(>te, cov,yi.derafiaw,
i v c LuA(i Kg bi4-. Kof- (.ivwi feat fa- " m 4u" praw it s k-ereL*v
cowtaiened, file ruzWf- "L& adecyuaey of wk-ick- are kereby
a ckvwur(eolged, fk e Parfi e,., kere,fa-agree.a3,faWno ..
Z. SETTLEMENT
f w eow,.i.alera,liov„ for tkv Seffiem,ev�f- o f fkz Li,figa,tw+v avLd- fkv
pe&w,,L3e a.vL& release, eovtfai,v�& ke.retw, fkz parfi.eir agree, ak
faLtn'w5!
a. WWAvva4v agrees,fv- a4*v i�, a" rackl crwyki,vLg ow fk.e,
C-WA4Lda- Property. Tke- pariiey "kftowledge- fka,f-
e iow Of rockI crwyk.i, tg wi LL K.eeeyyi,fwfv eK,por(-
o,K4 4v4icn(- of m.aferiaL frown fke, Oreseen.do Property.
Weyy� agrezy -M- Kego ULiv w Of flee-
rraawwa.y Awfkoruty for fkz vigkf-la- wsz Trarwwa,y Road.
for fkz, puwpoye, of keg w a,terw L f)- a.vL& f roves fk&
Greue4n Property. If fke- rramway ALA4k ify does. v of-
agree. iv- allow WE44~.w fa- w whk,,zv Tra4wW w Road,
for fke, k.a.u"g of wta to aL fa a+,&froves fke, GrvxziLa
Property as, Azeeysary v-Kd fetirewy readovLab{.y
accz� fo- Weymaw, tke.w fkz Pav-fie agree fka,(-
ewitifiwg pwblie. roaalwayy wLa.y be, wtilizeof, for fk-e,
ka.wLi,vLg of M4,ty- i,a.l, fa- 0-, d troves -H- orw&ft .O-
Property. lwfk.e eve,v�f-f�Laf i,!- iti weceysa�-y to- uye pwGy(,i.e
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT , ry
P— a „rn i
raa.d+vayy fo- ka"•matr. L4L to- or from. fk.e Crel,4 do
Propwiy, Wes,+ a agrees fa- ko(.d, a- w4&[,wg witlti fkt,
swrrowrl� Prey owners, i"v adva*L. Of i*�a,ti.wg
w4M L, kaudi" fo- a4v4e, fkz"w of fkt, x4adu for (z i
kaaii4tg. Wesywo*v f,,4.rfker ogreey fko*a"+.y kaWAP%g of
wateriaL fo-.. ar frovw fk-e Crew Alto- Property s,&W
com}�Ly wv� fke Li wn.Lta� ovv kowrs a o,d, d a yy of
oPerafwv ay seat- oat- L*v fke, City of Pad"w srww,gs3
M Code,xt ti.ow 8.04.220.
W4 + f wrtker agrees fo- i o e lu a(e Several
a.rr�l�.fecturad, sf slay tnri�tt^-i.w fke Cresce"w(o- Project; .
i.v�clud-i.v�.g, {aw(' wof- trr, Mid,-Gewtury Moderw,
-rv4 a"v a.v,.& Mediferram-ee WWk each„
sf (t-, W esyma"v ska)l provid&for af-Le aML B we ,d,i f f wcev-
f loor pda"x-p a",.ab w4&t;h e. ed,eva,ti ows, a ,d, wins ak w
WVL5iralC'Y CA,44 w kow,.fy ow,. fh.e CreU* do- Properhf,
Os u lif eT�t fo-Cvty a prwavaL a"-dd re vi en Weswowa.rv,agrees,fo-
eowforvw f»-eo"Avti.ow of approval 2.9(a,) wkZc4,provide,.
fl4. -"No-seeo*n story be'aido, eat ado" the
r>e-r,4� of fkt- project- ar apjaum*iv- av-� s.eeo*�
story u",A* StC,01-d, spry Wl-tt skald, {ye LUV4 e& to- a
mayi.w,.u.ow of 2517. of fkt, fmta nv4K)yer of lots (ue< 19
!� lw wA,s4,derati.o*- for flo& wadi fi,ca,Fi,owy iv- fk.e projetf
agreed, fo- by Wesyw,awofker� "'prami�ey
aowta.i",.ed, keee�w I Y wfy
, C4, ogre es, fo- a m d r w e y ( zr6e—y
ex t fk.e Ewe for a perw7k of fk.ree years
4�eyowd fk.e origi",al fwa- years approve.(- 1,�y fk,e Ctt.Y,
su e lv fka f fkt, e wpirati ow of f k.e. skald. v,.
lye Datvbtr 16, 2012. IVV, fke, evev,d' fk.a,(- a",.y State
legv,t-L iow 4, aa(opfed, wk444k wvud.d- &XjsA4 fk-e Li fe of
0
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
Mann A M 17
a" of BA-e EmfL H erwewt y, stick, a4,, ex4tA. +aw yk a(l 6v i,w
add�fo•-H-e gray.fed, kere k,
Frv-otY ag rw, fk 4- upon, e xzc� of fk4,Y Se,ffU*we+,
Agr"4,vl� by atL Parfi. , awd wi&i,w fkrm
"At43, days of f4zw rece4g - of of
affnrn.eyY feet wend . covlY ay st.F forhiv, in, a yepc a,�2
agreemuv! befwreew FrLtA. a.n.d, Wv/mq& ,, Fru*Ldy
*aU fUxl wifk, fke CCerk, of fk.e- Couch; a, Req,u.ey,F for
D40wthial, WW Prejudice, °G� g tke Li,figa,hion . iev
i,fy e�i,ref-y.
z. RELEASE.
f n,caK"t ra,hi ow for fkz,agreew.e vu(y aY x*f orfk, kzru*,, Fri en o�Y, ow
bek.adf of fke vwyed ve,Y, and ea.c of fk.e i..r rtWtc tw w�ev�be rY,
aysocia,�ey, p� rY, S�ticceS6orY, a4yigwY, pa.rewh,, S�b�i.ali.a,rie5,,
Oa-Li er egos,, aft& of f i-Li a f e , i f aw.y (a 4--& ea.ek, of fke4.r reti�
Preyewr ao-d- forw.er offiGiLtk, offuzrp, tayet.Y, i.vdepe+tidew(-
Ganfi'a�'oYY, d i rme ori,, Ykaa' k&ULerk, pa.rfK.erY, agewfs% a,t¢o-r'weyS%
i ny�M erY, a ecav�fa y�fy, k"rY, a*Ld, w-"z k a kLd, ayyi gwY, if any)
(eo{Le�hi vel y refwred, fo• aY "RUa,ed, En4i fi ') kute fully a.v.d,
forever wa,V Y and, raZ4e t a.n y anal, a.k rigkip, a44,vvY, Yu i fs,
rigkhY of aaA4vt n.i y(rahi ace wv, or append,, c,. y i., , ar i ow, awa[,
eauseY of acli of every wahwre- wka6oever wk a, v fk.ey I
k.cwe,or w.a-y ka re agat*LL WeyyWA4. or fke, Ci,hy and eack, Of fk ei r
resp� wtt4 ers,, aySocia,heY, predece6 p, S.cczySorY, &5,5 gKY,
Pare.*"fs,, yudyyidiaries, alter egov, a & aHi(,i,a,heY, L a" (a ,& eack,
offkeir evwt� prw* f awd,fo•rwer ofjFicia!Y, off+ wk, oyeeY,
i ndeq�ev.de v� cowf racjhorY, dire orY, Yka rP k oLoLe rY, paxfw e rs ag e fY,
affvrweyY, i %44 rerp, �, keWr ,, a.H.d.StticeeS p anal, aw.,6 y
i f av cJ) a-m. " fro w (i) flee Li;�iga4wi ay.d, (40 f C,[ yV
a.pp-rova.(. of fk.e Ewfi4(ew,ewfY, i.n.cLu,di Wi, ow (,i,�w,, fk�
Oys.an ce o f a v`tiJ f.v`ali v`gY, re,,o�, ordi*La-�ceY, or e.w(v(f e vwewlY
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
Donn C M 17
for fkz, Projec4- (eoid.eeti,vei.y, fke, "Re(&wd, Oai, ')
Nofwvtk4tawdi,ng ff t, foregoing, fkt, Ra aye& C{ai,wvv yl a l( vw--
v� a.wy aawi fo- ev-force- f! & c� of a f>pr va for -H�
Project; or a" aCit o-K,for personal, i vywry a tdlor property da�e
Wks h vv Wv4td, di,rectl.y by +-& WIK plzw�zv�ta Of BILL, Project:
Friz , ovv W k.alf of a*%d eaek, of fk e-lr ry pe�fwe,
Reta,lyd- Ew{�, k.ereby dlwc gey WeysvKa.vv a.wol fk.y Cilty a.v,ov
fk e-w Relaited, EwfLtu, fro , a" aA,.& a.Ll, Relzased, Cla t wn .
Friends; on,, br� of fk u+tiseLve,Y a,L& each, of fkt.ti r Re la 42d,
Evvta ys,, cove.wa.wtY wot- fa' fk rea,t &v, briwg, cowLvvLev�,
LwytiJtwty, fie,, jou1,, mai,vvtai.h,, provzv—fe,, swpp , or fk-re.ate.w a"
Aq i viv based i.w wlko tt- or part- wpow any .of fk z, ReLea3ed, Clai,wvs<
F"Jl of " Pavfi,ey wndx rstands a-,& agrees, fk.at- f k i y Agree wee.
" be• pled, ay a,fLka anal covwplzty defe4,-se' a.wd• bar fo', awd, "
be, we-d- ay fk.y basis Iv- aLisvwiss wick, prejudley or "ovvv, a.wy
Acti.ow based vvv,Wk.oi.e,or L v pa4+af"vv w Rettv4td,cia-4w.
3. CALIFORNIA GVIL. CODE SECTION 254.Z.
Fri e kay read- a.nd k.a3, a*,ww•vsy ksc n i.wforw.eal, of tk e
weav,.,-" Of See,fiavv 1.542 of fkz Cali farAAOa Cwi.L Cod.e,, and, k as
cowsu lted, w tk- LiT cou�, fv- fk& eYr,Pe.v„t- fiti * a*vj wz Y dzs.i,red,,
am wv,, Plv-tidy f{n.e, proviyi.ays, of Seefiow 2542, a.vL&, ay fa- 4 &
ReLW6,ed, Cla lwu, kere, y ex p eYt q waLve,Y fk rigk,k a*%& bewe fvh,
cor fet red wpow vf- by ik& provvA4*L , of SectL. 2542 of 4L&
Ca Lvfarv�la,Ci,vi,L Code•, w{tii.ek,provi.dey.
"A guLera.l re.f.eayy does, vwt ewtvwd fo- ci4i*v,5, w{ Lek,
" ere.d or Aoey vw-t kvww• or swspecl iv- ey,y i,vv k Lf,,
fa.var a1- ii .y fim.y of ex ee ral i" fk.e, rel.eayy, wka ck of
kvwww Gry Itiivw wwcvF- Itiave wafr.+-i,a.LLy a f feted, k-is,
se�ttlemewt-vv�,fk-y debtor.'
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
�� FriavLdy
4. INTEGRATION, MODIFICATION.
a. Twe Parli.ey a.elutiaw(zdge-14�.at-fl�-iti Agreemxvl�- iy s.ig�:eol,
a4-,& ey-u. e wvtk&tA - ra i.a.n.r e v fAnu 6L" a.av o-, or
i +.e& ffovwi se , warraivli;ey or rWe&,f fiov wla:dz,
" of fire Pa*-&i or by ",uy rWc3,ewf� of a.h.y
of fwe Parliey, otwer -ff v fi� wwLc. are exIaaeyy{y
cov�f ai.�.eaL wvt{�.i,w tl�.iy Agre•emewF:
b TwLY Agreew�ev�f; i vLe(iLdi v g f{�e frwe aid wrree*
Reel laLy above., i vLcor�oraf4d by re¢ere,v werei vv ay
opz ra#we. cove vLavvly aM d we ci f i.ca.U.y retie& "o-K, by
fwe Parlizy um, ex eeu,li,vLg twig Agrez.wLevul-, eon li,{u�te y fkt,
e v lire afire *",v,4- .a.*LcL v4gAerS laaLd iang a~" a.vL&
ble,tweewfwe Parfi,ey.
ex Twi& Agrezwv� yu.Yae seder a.CL r-wwr a.vL&
eov�{r wLpora vzouy afire a r»a wly, wvLolars la v�af i vLgy, f e rms,,
eovLdifi.~, avLd, rep+wAgati.o- , wrL fe L, or oral, made
by fkt, Parker werefa-or {weir a1f'arweyy, covLcer" fkt,
m-ou err covered 4 lfuw Agrez vw-vuF
d, Twi.Y Agr&uwe Li- aavwLof be vvLo fi ,& or c,ka edb extt&
by wri,(f siKzd- by a.U,of fkz, Park -s,
S. SETTLEMENT, NO ADMISSION 6Y PARTIES.
EcLc{ of " Pavfi.ev azaavw.nrl,edge&, fitio* ikw AgreewLe r&taisp fc-
fwe seeUm� Of fwe Liliga,liovv aw%4 fwe rxruktAs,,Ovv of Aa(i�
bayed, L*V Wko{.e Or i,vL- Part- urov,. Retease& ClztA~ Tlw Pa4ltty,
fktrefore., ogre,, filial- fk4,5- Afire&/",Kf- iy vLOf fa- be• frea, && or
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT 21
Oenn J N IJ
eovy(rued, a,!- a" fGvwfi or idv a" wia.vuA.er wk 4s4t , ap a4,
a�w tko* a.wy of *-e a.U.egatiowY tAv B-,& LwLLgatL. , or' a"
a aua.L Or pate� Re lease& CLa.i,vw, k L, a wy mt4-i*
�. 13INDINe7 EFFECT.
TO- fke- MaY.i,vw� ewtev�aLloww-e& by LaAAr CL4 a& &W-ery(- ay of{�erwi,Ae'
weeiPi ed- kelre.i i�, fk;* Agreevwe LA . e.Y tO- tI4 e Px*ue fvF of av d i;Y
bl�' L Lt o -tke. Paxf� a#-L& a.LL tkei r res.peawe, YyrPdeeeAsorY,
av,igK4,, +arieY, yee5; offi. wfe& ewfi-f, Aka rekoLaLexY, .
of f u erY .a A4 Ai*-u4vrY, Ioa+^htie rY, Jam h-werY, d-ef� ,
s pouhe-Y, respezfi ve rwresevqa t, oge v�fY, a cco u wtavvty, 'aftorh e yY;
i.4�a.wce carri ErY, SuccCASorY•
7. RESPONS18ILITY FOR COSTS TO DATE.
Tl-.e Pa.rtizY agree, fi� wtle , of &ewe, Ab,.a.LL /year fkur owwv w-,F
a4 u& alto rwey. ' feet, d i ru ttg or i. Awe&}Ly rela.� {� or a.ri,A* g
fravw*-& t- gafLe a.v,d, a*er vwa,( p wvereal, by fki.Y Agreew o*,
e.y-czpf- ay pravtAc,d, %ry a, szptwate agreewLte by a,,& be twee
WW4s vta.vv a.wd Friewdy to be ewecwted cov�currev�{Ly ltierewi�{v,
provided, koweve r fk,9*MO-tkd.K.g c avDfai,we oL kere *v A A-aGL ba d e u,w
iv- wegafe, fke, i,wde.tm.wi,ty a-btLga,tL, pe!- fcrfk, i,vv PUWAV.�
Depa.rli e Advm�a, vw Cov+.dLH.owv Nwvw( 2 wvPFv reypee,f fo-
8. INDEPENDENT LEC,AL COUNSEL.
Ea4e Party a.el *xow edger Bkv, v- kaY Wevti, rW&st� by
i,Azt' lxHdew( Aga.L aot wyef, of vtY owvv okoi,e,e•fpwc"kou,h aLL of fkLe-
wegoti a(iawY fka,f preceded•fkx, of fk4,.p Agreevwe.w ar kay
Ck vL otivi,wg Ly a.vwl voLu wtari ly dec(.i.v+.ed,-to-covvI� Lega b eou wse L, a wOf
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT " 2
Oenn A n( ] L
-titial- ea.ebv Party kay exezwfed< tk.i�.•Agrez�n.e-wt- w-i,Flti F{� c-mn�.eent-
av,.d ow tk.e-a dvi.re- o f s�.lti i.�a�epe.vtal.e�+�Legal.cotiw�.eL,
9. DRAFTING.
Tki s, Agreevweot f- sk.aU, be, dee wtz d, fa-- kaAv bee.w v egoti d ted av d
drafted' by Ike, Pa.rti,es. aAt& tkeir rehpuAvpe a4torK.e4js.. Mr '.
provv,ZoK..kz.rei.w sk.a.(d: be i,Kherprgt& or co 1pWL4,e,& L*v favor of or
agaiAK. " Party ovv tkz, groiwtd, fk * sai& Party or ai, ai ary e y
drafteOL tka,� 'ffov cove. of tkz, Agrezv"wf: UK.eertzi&,Iy avr
avnb..guvfy Zvva, rwavw,Zo kzre,.vv ska-LL vtat- be, L* terprete& aga4A-L f
4Laif prov�p Aeafter.
10. APPLICABLE LAW AND VENUE.
Tk i s Agveev�e�t ik a Ll be deevwe al, to kavv beew eyce�� a o ob
O deLi ve red v✓vfk i w tk e State• of Cali farvu. v tkz, ri g k� a&,oL
obLigatiovtyof tkv Parties ktr" It skaLL bygol�Ktdl, Wm q VZ.41
a.K.aL e4,F ced i,K, aecorda.vtez. vvvfbv tke- La fV of tke, Stag of
C , forA4..,u Tk , vewuz, for a." ditipw arvA^q frovw or relay e& to-
tk-i v Agree v>^z L;tk perfarw-a+u , a L& Up w*, pi 0afE,&� sl� be,
tk-el Su.pertar Court- of Caul OrKAA-, CIO � Of RLVtr ide-, Ivwli.o-
Bra.vtt
11. NO THIRD PARTY BENEFICIARIES.
It i,Y e wpre� agreed tkat-t k i sm AgreevKzvvF w not-far t-ke, b� of
" rersow or ew" Kaf- a Party k.ercfa Tki,, Agreewt.e 4- w K.ot-
i 4t4%d to-co+tisf*wfv a,tk wd, party bee K.e f i.ci.cu'y colK ac f
12. RELATIONSHIP OF THE PARTIES.
It iy kzre n WVA "g u-�s ho a.vtd ae�dged, tk * tk-4—
OAgrezvweK,f-itimereLy u4eK.ded iv- Wfl,tkz, Li iga{io-wavt& pru,4, de.
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
D.. 0 n{ 17
Ac4tov,,P bo, e cvw -vAt4t& or i,vv pa -P Released, C o-,-ow No-
_ Pasty kzref wits, be, dze*w,& -fo' be, aw, agevDf- of &" otl�.ew for a''uJ
puwpaS wk a soeue r. Tk.e, Part'es, k e reb y reu wu*ee fl oe ewiyfe.v<.e e o f
a'''"J fogy of Joi,wf- W-vq ti e or Parl�*i.p lt� or awtg tk�
a*t& agree 4xzLa- Kofk-i.v cowFa.i,tl ed, k ei ei v, Or i,v x" doc wmtz
ewecw(e.d, L4- co oZCe ow k.e4-"V"9 sk.atL bQ w-PL red, ay wLa.�
av y Party a,joi,+ vevDfu.rer or parfK WL> 14,a"v kzr.
1.3. EFFECTIVE DATE, COUNTERPARTS AND ENFORCEMENT.
Tk4 ,Agre wzvvkska(.L by of fcc we ay of d-k�& d44e i f-w siem eeol by aW
Pa+i es, keweko- ("Effective. Da4e').TkZk Agreev".e-w(- w,.ay be, exzewFed,
i,vv ori.e, yr ware cou4qe+'parf3,, eaek, of Wkk,-k, WaL hie deemzal a.w
ortgq of t, bt, - aiL of w ,i ov, a*L& tke, sa.vwe
i wyfrwwevvf Tkz Partiez, kzreby agree, fk.af-, faUowi di 4aL of
Htie LaLga ft per paragra-pk 9-(c,) a.bov-e, 1k Court- sk.aU. ravAi
jwr4diazovL, over floe, L-wtgati k s. d ecf- m4fer for tv"Yov-4' of
ev>forc Ag fKi4,Ag ree v�e r s I r s vws<
1-4. INDEPENDENT INVESrbriATION.
Ea.ck, Party -fo- fW.k Agreev ,v,4- k.as, wad avv L delvevdew�
L* Ja.f�w of 4,.&fae,6' f& fktl cow�i.w
fk44, AgrezwL,e a4,L4 aU, of tl ,& maffe-rk perf� tkere¢o- ay
aleewleol, v+.eczssary.
1-S. HEADINGS AND FORMATTING.
Tk ee kzaoLwv gk " form444 ,� L*v Agreevwe K* are, Loy Hf for
co wve w i ev,ee at Lig. Tke-y d o- vwt- eov4 fi,Fu r tL#+ of fkiy Ag reem.ev 1-
0-41 ,Sk.aLL vw f-be, WA& LA i,h,a&h/,frtA,i .
16. TIME OF ESSENCE.
0
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
24 Duna 1/1 of 1)
Ti.vwe, iti o f fk.e- else-",-ems i,"„-t{.,.e, perforwta"ue- o f tl�-e, provisi,oy,.y o f tN-i Y
Agru*vtt f-as,fo- wk4z. fi m& Lv au„ auwe"vt:
17. r3REACP AND REMEDIES.
Nofwi fk sta vwLi�g a" pravvAav, of fk%s, Agree"wewf fo fkz covvtrary,
" o Party. k e i e ter sln a Fie- 'd ee.,NLed, iv- be- .i vv dte a� .v4,4d f i y .
Agree"we" t- wvti- resv, e It)- a" aFyLi,gaiwvv owed, f� a~+zr uu,A.es4-
fk& Party propoii.wg fa- fervr Z"zLf& or w y fk-e- rigitity c f a4%4-0,
4%,o-W ka v& furs deUvered, a wviffew "Jut- of a" aitxgeo f"
ftrfloe, all- 9eALy defa.u,Lf{,",.g Party Bw*spedfizvfke- ".-� of suel
4epv-4: If w4v defu.v.Lf- w "wf cured, by fk� a(lzgedGg de�aa�Lfiw9
Pcu-ty witlti fka.rfy (30) da.ys after rtu-,- f of wz4,- nofv-e of
of� or wL,& reMmzi-iv- dz fvAkLh, +4. - c a",."w Fie- cured wiv�
sunk- r,e Lod fk.e aLlegeddy defauLii+^g Party fa-L. fo- ewe to-
mere- +,e- a.it ged defcu.,.lf' wi,ti 4 v *wrly (30) A"p aflee- reeeti:& of
O fk& "- ix of Acfz. , or fke-reafter fcwLy fa" AU4gew{(y p+.,.rsue fk-e-
cure- of suck- Ae f -u , tkt- Party aLLegi.Kg defa.u.Lf- by a."L&*,er "
t-ri,v,.g av„ aeiw7n,fa- ewforet,fk *A,gr"*",4,.f or, aF fk.e, op fi ov„ of fk.e,
party cia.i tiw,v,g d efaoif-, br,."%g a, motL to- evvforc,& fk w Agree ntoe
uwAe-r Seefwv,, 664.E of fk-e- Code- of C4,A i Pror-e.dLW&.. Tk,&
faregau-,,g fk4*b (30) day wore- period t* fkz, ",e*< of a, defa vA, -
AkaLL ".of apply i f W e6,., v a.w Lv,.t� rank1 eru g ovv tk.e-.
Crv,acoAo- Property uvvioW offkwAgreew,.ewf, vvw,.-tc cc+s..e,
Frv,*Ll skadL be, a sect, fa- iw,w,aoGatofy seeks a"„ i."y'u*v4ww fa-
stop said rock,crusk.i,v,g ov "Crwe.v,do-Property.
I w fkt, e v-c t- f k.wl- a Brea r iv of f-k.i v Ag reev zfvf at-u ws,
Lrrepara.b(z. ka.rwv i s Li.kzi y fo- occur fo• fkz- rot breaeki*. j .Party
a.v,d daw,agey wri LL be, a.w i AzLAeq ua,te, revw.eoLy. To- fk& e4vl evvt-
perwwfted by UL,w, &trefore% i>" W expmmtj reeogwia&& li- ,
iwjuwr�i ve re. 4 aft& Wtt-t {.c- e q-orczwt vt• of fk-vs Agru-ww vt- are.
proper a*L&d.esu-a.Wy & rewv,.ed i es, awL. Lf i-Y agrezd+k a" c-LaAAW by
a Party a.0 L," a, d.e fa -U- aga.i.t^ avv a.i.iz9e&-tj de fa,e� Part&
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT Pane „ r 17. //�n5
for a.w ad"ed, kreculti of fW,, Agrezw.ew4- " he, rewv ud, {yy
C� Lvyjt" ve relief or a w a.ppropria,te aW-i.°v''for yp� evL fOrGewne w t
of tit Agruhw,4,,f- i,w addA4iaw to- a.wy afi-er rew+.ed y av-cLU .bl,e- af-
Law or t jv-v(y.
18. WAIVER.
Fay.t,wb by a Pavfy fa- uA-.'-t� �'" y(rLC f-P�WfC' W03-L� Of a'^-f7 Of
fki/ti Agreew+cvvPy provilwo by a.w.of{ Pa*-f&, or B & fail Lre- fzy a,
Party to- &Y crci se Lfk rigM-P «1'0'"' a*v a Uged, defc� of avwf-N .
natty, s{uLW w.of- Stu o, wain r of s 44-, Parfy'y rigkv-fo- i wyi yt
a IL& dewla.vL& ytrl c F eo"pU aw ce by tt afke-r Party w t4fv fk& ferw-s,
of f ki4,Agreewtiew.f-f P-re4 fter.
14. NOTICE.
AW vwfEct4, or oik4r regv.i,re& or pe min fe
ke' e u w der ;4U d by VA, wri tuv av d, 54ti by "'t'r persov�
A t,L-V e& (wt�-�S4ti- L i,w.e(.u.de de wwy by W"e of p+'O v'4L
overw.i.glvh e vw" servi r e wf v k,covgwmk recei o�- i,w w-rbti [suc lti
ay Federal Ewpre1w or UPS], st� by feleeorL or fau6.iw.i,Le,
wa4zki.w e- capable, of co*gww A*tg f raA/-m yi.o+1. a.w.d, reeei pf, or se.v„t-
by u4i fv-& or regiAtcre& wwA.),, refurw re6e4j.1-F requesfe-&, porch g&
pre pa 4, or SR w t- via, a—mv tL pravLAe d fkt, rec i r ie covL f ww 4,
reeeipf; fo.. fkt, foLLoNri wg pa.rfitd, ai- fke, f&UzwivLg addrewe , or
wn�ery.
If fo Ci�tu: C.i�1 y o f Pad w� Spri wgs
3200 Ta4,q4� Ca.w.yovvWay
Pai*w,Spri.wgY, Ca(.i,famia, 92262
Affty ow• Ci4y Ma"er avwL City Aff"Kzq
Tedz y 4--,o- .. (760) 323-829 9
Faqu. (760) 323-8207
e.-mat l.
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
D— w Nv
Woodruff, Spradl i v& Swwwr
Affw Pa" a -0 HaUa�
555 Avvtow Bowl ward.
Suvte,1200
CovtaaMeo,, Cali forh.i.a. 92626
Tel.ep nw . (714) 564-2642
Fa, c/ .(714) 565-2542
e,-vv}a.LI.� DHoUavLd�.�vyy-CcLw:rovw
Ito Wess+N.a�u WestimaaL Peve ap*tzwt-CQmfa"
A#vv Mi.t,� 6rawvv
300 S. f hAza t,Ca.rt.yovv Drove .
Pai*wSpri.vLgy, Ca.(iforvua, 92262
Te(zpk.ovw. (760) 325-3050
0 Fa.w. (760) 325-5848
e.-vrtiai,L. Mart4LaC.W .cowv
wuiv cony Iv- Eaky, HewKfA4i L, &a3d.e.(. & OL4o v, L.LP
777 E. Ta Yuyuvfz C "ovv Way, Sum 328
PaLrwSpri, ep,. CA 92262
Affee4i ow. Emitil Perri. HewVp4,.i LL
Te. CV44 .. (760) 320-5977;
Faw(760) 320-9507
Vrvv�al,(.i EPNe,wy�.i.U.@a.o�covw
1 F fo- FrievLds< FrLev�.d s� o f �� Est S
Mo w�ai�y
�(Z26 V
Fa-Ku
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
Dann 11 M.1) 27
Wb&Copy To-: Ck•a�6roww & Caws,�
Affw Javw C taffe,L.-13raww
2601 OuzLvu Park. 6av- z d,
Swvfv 20s
Sawfw Motx ea, Ca(.i ami.a, 904O5
Tetzp{io . (310) 314-8040
Fagr.(310} 314-SO50
e-wLa.i,t,:
Nofice� s��( LAv ""rAa#v-b wv 1lti Seafi,ow 21 Sd� Gyv dz�
Ae l� wpo*v fltiei. (a-) d afv of AeLwewy o k i vw4t4, e4 ovv&&
wraf rvwfu'wa*4 A, of deLwwy (Lf sit by overy ki— ro%,WL ,r
s.e ry rc ), (N Aa4t,of at-fuak reeei.hd (if perj,. y d div, real by of�
m a n ,), (e) daty of fvvL*t� (i f-ceA - by fed 4apizr or Au q,wLi.1.v
or (d)- Aa tv of de(.i.very asp i.�� ow -fk,& reel wrw
�l
' reeec,ryf (bf sewtif- by ce,vfi� or regiyftxe.ok wa•i)., relus-w .receiry{-
re v-e4t-k). N&htt, of ok.a.Kge, of a ddwehy sk•a.LL Pe,g i va w by wri f t
Koivu, i,w +v WA*Lfzr dx4aat& (Al, fkA/v Seolli 21 a*wb S�k Lk by
of fufi.ve. fkwez (3) d,a.yY offer maai*g by fk e above-dzscri beat
proceAG,we:
20. FURTHER COOPERATION.
Ea ,k, of tH& Part Lek agrezy fc- iake, or eauye, fa- by *Lkt v,, a.U,
a.e�wi , avL& a- do-, or eausv fo, by AovLel, ad.L fk.-"p Ktzt savvy,
p.r p'e*' or a dvi sa.bLe. u.vwker a.ppUc a b L& L Lvw a t-L& regtA a(i ewY fv-
cow,+Lmvv a fv 0-41 d& makv effecifi vv fk.e, ferw-y a K& covLd� of ft i y
AgrezwLev„f:
21. AUTHORITY OF SIGNATORIES.
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT ]
0... ie ,f t7 G q
O
Eat 4,- of -f k,,, i uti,�a ear ecu� (�i s Ag ruhwe 4- wiwra ,-! a*d,
re.p t V,6evtp fka4-they a.r& a u fitio-rirz ed Iv- w &xt cA -e, fk w Agreemt*v-
oov Iye� of *?- pat-ty fke-y p-&wp&rf' to- reprw4e , a4-,& OLv* Fyy yo
sti9" ik i Agre etMx w{ k� are- c t e a f i wg a- kp� oiyt Ja'(w*vfor
; I
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT 29
Dann iS of I9 i
IN WITNESS. WHEREOF, eae{-.- of B{ & Pa-r( 114g.Y ewecwteoL &i v
AgrmwAk(-owfk&d" aAL&yea.,- wi-Gff&v,Wow-
ci4y�o f Pat, srw- nay, a, cH.a+*,r c;by
Stephen P, Pougnet
Mayor, CV y of Pa.l.4,Seri %gs,
A-Hty .
ci�1-y cLerk�
APPROVED AS To FORM.•
WOODRUFF, SPRAPON &
O SMART
I.
Doug G. Ho{.ta.�wl., Esq.�
cvey Atfai-we y, cvfy of Pai4w
Spri,%gy
Wassma.w D� Cai+�a�tiy
Da tEcU (iy:
ify.
APPROVED As 7-0 FORM:
0
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
Oen. 19-nf 17 30
J W WITNESS. WHEREOF, eac , of Pa.rgte , kop eked, jk;-P
Agre o e &o- day a*,d,yeas wrWeov{ av,
CLPy of Pat4wsr»-"-v, ack44-Ter C49
Dafed:
Stv,� Poug�wf'
Mayor, � o f Pa.(.w�5ryri,�..gy
Af W-
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
WOODRUFF, SPRADLIN &
O SMART
DougLayG. Ho1.(a,1Ld, fF$+
CUv Affo oa-q, CUV of Pa4w
Srn-i,�gy
Wesyww.w peve.Lopyw,.ewl-Cowysati�y
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT 1 Gen. 14'n/ 17 3
EALY, HEMPHILL, 6LASPEL &
OLESON,'LLP
E Pe.rr& Hew.yWCUL, Es+
AftoT-PL yp for Reat Parf-i i v IwferepF,
WeyN"aa.v„ De�,I-Cov�ci.�.y
[Sogwafure-ha9e•cowti.w+.�.ex].
[Sigr,.ature.page-cov�i�+.�.�eo4]
Fr(.&A41yaf Pa(.wvSffL4 .gy
Mv4411, y,
n
Da ed S- Cl; 6y:_
rts�
APPROVED AS TO FORM.-
GHATTEN-r3ROWN & GARSTENS
ray:
Ja.w Gn.�Orov vv, Eygi
Attos-�zyy for Pfi Petvti.o-v�xr
FrU*tol t,of Pat*vw SprbAgy Maur y
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT 9 A
0— n ,f 17 J L
EAL-Y, HEMPHILI-, 6L-ASDEL &
-� OLESON,'LLP
E Perri Hew NiL(, E;+
AfforKe-,jy far P, o 1, Pa.tiUp i4+ fwferesF,
weeA h �.e�c� e wr cPW.pa"
[Signci,fu+erpage.W*gi�-j
[Sigwadur�page.co"vf,�'.�'`eal.j
Fri *L4,of Pa /,w SprL*K ;,
i7a t2aUsC � 614:
APPROVED AS TO FORM.,
C44A77•EN-BROWN & CARSTENS
i
By:
Jaw Gti�Bro ww, Es+..
Affar z&k far PWAvfWPOi�i.owe.r
Fri utidy of Palsly Spriv�gy Mou wfa i vvy
SETTLEMENT AND RELEASE AGREEMENT
Csn.17 of 17 33
ATTACHMENT 5
34
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY AN
EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF 79 CUSTOM SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL HOMES ON A 42.2-ACRE PARCEL
LOCATED AT WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA
GRANDE AVENUE (CASE 5.0996-PDD 294)
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs finds:
A. On August 11, 2016, Michael Braun of Wessman Development, LLC, submitted
an extension of time request to the City of Palm Springs for a previously approved
Planned Development District PDD 294 commonly called the "Crescendo".
B. The Crescendo property is located at West Racquet Club and Vista Grande
Avenue and is zoned PDD-294 (Planned Development District 294); the entitlement is
valid for two years and had previously been granted four (4) one-year extensions of
time.
C. The Planning Commission considered the extension of time request at its public
hearing meeting of August 10, 2016, and determined that the appellant has not
demonstrated a good cause for one more extension and denied the request.
D. On August 11 , 2016, Michael Braun, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 and Section
8.05.230 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, filed an appeal of the action of the
Planning Commission to deny the extension of time request.
E. On September 21, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the
Applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the request by Robert
Herscu for a one-year extension of time.
F. At its public hearing conducted on September 21, 2016, the City Council has
carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the
appeal, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony
presented.
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs resolves:
SECTION 1. The above findings are all true and correct.
35
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby denies the appeal submitted by Michael
Braun of Wessman Development, regarding the denial of a one-year extension of time
request by the Planning Commission for a previously approved Planned Development
District 294 for the development of seventy-nine (79) single-family residential homes.
ADOPTED this 215t day of September, 2016.
DAVID H. READY, CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
36
Resolution No.
Page 3
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on February 3, 2016, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
City of Palm Springs, California
37
ATTACHMENT 6
38
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN
EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294; AND
GRANTING A LIMITED EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A
PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS TO ALLOW THE
APPELLANT TIME TO SUBMIT AN AMENDED
CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD
294) FOR THE 42.2-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT WEST
RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE
(CASE 5.0996-PDD 294)
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs finds:
A. On August 11, 2016, Michael Braun of Wessman Development, LLC, submitted
an extension of time request to the City of Palm Springs for a previously approved
Planned Development District PDD 294 commonly called the "Crescendo".
B. The Crescendo property is located at West Racquet Club and Vista Grande
Avenue and is zoned PDD-294 (Planned Development District 294); the entitlement is
valid for two years and had previously been granted four (4) one-year extensions of
time.
C. The Planning Commission considered the extension of time request at its public
hearing meeting of August 10, 2016, and determined that the appellant has not
demonstrated a good cause for one more extension and denied the request.
D. On August 11, 2016, Michael Braun, pursuant to Chapter 2.05 and Section
8.05.230 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, filed an appeal of the action of the
Planning Commission to deny the extension of time request.
E. On September 21, 2016, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the
Applicant's appeal of the Planning Commission's action to deny the request by Robert
Herscu for a one-year extension of time.
F. At its public hearing conducted on September 21, 2016, the City Council has
carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the
appeal, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony
presented.
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs resolves:
39
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 1. The above findings are all true and correct.
SECTION 2. The City Council hereby overturns the Planning Commission's
decision to deny an extension of time for the Crescendo Planned Development District
294 (PDD 294) and hereby grants a limited extension of time of three (3) months to
allow the applicant submit an amended Crescendo Planned Development District 294
for the 42.2-acre parcel previously approved for seventy-nine (79) single-family
residential homes.
ADOPTED this 21 st day of September, 2016.
DAVID H. READY, CITY MANAGER
ATTEST:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
40
Resolution No.
Page 3
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that
Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on February 3, 2016, by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
JAMES THOMPSON, CITY CLERK
City of Palm Springs, California
41
ATTACHMENT 7
42
wessman
HOLDINGS / DEVELOPMENT COMPANY
June 13`h 2016 4 �016
P .;4 l�lli`1t-Flinn Fagg aEP"VICE
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Dear Mr. Fagg:
As you know, an affiliate of Wessman Development currently awns the two projects in the City
of Palm Springs known as Boulders and Crescendo and we intend to start actual construction of these
projects in late 2017. As a first step towards this goal we have submitted plans and are currently in plan
check for the final map for each of these projects, however,we are concerned that the time necessary
to obtain final sign off on the plans, plus scheduling of the necessary meetings, may delay the approval
of the final map to a period shortly after the current expiration of these two maps. Given state
legislative actions,the maps are both currently scheduled to expire in October, 2016, and we are
therefore requesting that the City approve only a six month extension of Tentative Map 31766
(Crescendo) and Tentative Map 31095 ("Boulders"). Such an extension is well within the City's authority
under the Subdivision Map Act, and as we are proceeding as analyzed in the respective EIR's, no further
environmental review is permitted under CEQA.
To give the Council assurance that this will be our only extension request, I want to review with
you the actions which we have taken toward our final map. First, as you may know, we were required
to defend a CEQA suit that was filed on Crescendo. That suit was settled, but resulted in delays and
significant cost to the developer. Further, the settlement modified the project mitigation measures by
prohibiting rock crushing on the Crescendo project site.
Of course the historic downturn in the economy that occurred in recent years meant that
development of either project was simply not possible. As the economy improved,we began our
construction drawings and all related plans including streets, grading, storm drain, sewer and water
plans. These have all been submitted to the city for final review for both projects, with Boulders
currently in its second round of plan check and Crescendo in its first round of comments.
We were recently advised by the Agua Caliente Tribe that they will require an update on the
archeological surveys that were done when the project was originally approved. This request is outside
the CEQA process, and unusual at this point. Regardless we have engaged a consultant to comply with
the request, but are concerned that the time it will take to complete this process for both projects may
take us beyond the expiration date of the Tentative Map. Further, staff has indicated that given summer
schedules, it may be difficult for the City to complete the review of the already submitted plans within
555 S, SUNRISE WAY • SUITE 200 - PALM SPRINGS. CA 92264 • PHONE (760) 325-3050 FAX (760) 325.5848 43
vruw.wessmandeve�opment.com
the allowable time. This is particularly true given the complex set of mitigation measures we must be
sure to abide by. In that context please note that Wessman Development has invested over 4 years'
time and effort and in excess of$1 million in design work, entitlements and multiple studies requested
by the city and the adjacent neighborhoods.
Given the fact that we have made significant progress in the past four months and have spent in
excess of$800,000 on consultants for the submittal process for the final map, we respectfully request to
be heard by Planning Commission at the June 22nd meeting to approve a six month extension of the
TTM 31766 and TTM 31095.
Sincerely,
Michael Braun
Wessman Devel pment
44
ATTACHMENT 8
45
I SiLI Cif; fi sLmI C�)( n
August 11, 2016
Flinn Fagg
Planning Director
City of Palm Springs
RE: PD for Crescendo
Dear Mr. Fagg:
Please accept this letter as part of Wessman Development's appeal of the Planning
Commission's denial of the extension of PDD924 for the Crescendo project. Our appeal is based upon
the fact that we have submitted substantially all documents necessary for filing of the final map. Under
State law,the City may not deny or condition a final map if the developer has complied with all
conditions of approval attached to the tentative map. Therefore,we will be completing the recording of
the map shortly.
The PDD provided the residential designs that fit within the map parameters,and should
therefore run concurrently with the map.
The objections raised at the Planning Commission were based on both factual and legal
misrepresentations.
The objection that the CEQA document is 9 years old and therefore no longer valid runs
in direct opposition to the State laws regarding CEQA. Under state law,the City may not require further
environmental analysis unless there are changed circumstances such that the project will generate
significant impacts that were not previously analyzed or will significantly increase impacts beyond those
analyzed. Those circumstances do not exist in this case. As staff notes in its staff report, there have
been no changes on the property, and there are no changes in circumstances which could justify
requiring additional environmental review.
Project opponents cite the development that has occurred in Desert Palisades to say
that the EIR must be revised, however,this is incorrect. When the EIR for Crescendo was completed, it
included a cumulative impact analysis that considered the City's build out scenario and all foreseeable
projects planned for the area. When the EIR for Desert Palisades was completed, it too included a
cumulative impact analysis that considered all projects in the area. Therefore,there has been complete
environmental review of these projects, and all of those environmental documents are now beyond
challenge.
u', T• �s;46
Crescendo was a hard fought entitlement when it was originally granted. There were
two major EIR revisions to make certain all issues were covered, and the neighbors still filed a CEQA suit
against the project at that time. The neighbors ultimately agreed to and did settle that CEQA suit,
releasing all claims against Crescendo, and in return, the developer made concessions to the
neighborhood including a commitment there would be no mass grading. The neighbors now attempting
to fight this project appears to be a violation of their obligations under the settlement agreement.
The opponents also made claims that this developer had already impacted the area with
work on the site. That is a factual error in that there has been no work on the site. The photographs
that were produced by the project opponents were pictures of work being done in the area by other
developers. The berm which they object to,for example,was originally a requirement of the Desert
Palisades project. There is simply no justification for penalizing this developer because they don't like
what others have done.
As staff is aware, Wessman Development has completed virtually all the plans for the
final map on this site. Having endure the expense of those plans,the entitlement process, two EIR
rounds, and a lawsuit, it is fair and reasonable to allow the developer the time to make use of the map
by extending the PDD.
Sincerely,
/y
i
Michael Braun
Sr. Vice President
Wessman Development Company
47
ATTACHMENT 9
49
wessman
September 15, 2016
City of Palm Springs
Attn: Marcus Fuller
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs. CA 92262
Re: Approval of Final Map and PD Extension Crescendo
Dear Marcus:
In order to facilitate the recording of the Final Map on Crescendo and granting a short extension of the
PD, Wessman Development is proposing to amend the PD approvals by giving up the architectural
approvals, however preserving the already approved lot configuration and set backs of the project. By
relinquishing the already approved Architectural portion of the PD the project would essentially be a
custom home subdivision. In addition we are asking to delete the condition requiring that the final PD be
submitted before the final map can be recorded. This approach would require future owners of the
custom home lots to go through the city approval process for each individual home. This should have
appeal to the neighbors, as one of the comments frequently made during the approval process was that
they did not want similar homes on the site, however they preferred custom home lots. By giving up the
architectural approvals portion of the PD, we would be responding to the neighbor's main concerns, while
maintaining the extensive investment in the Project. In addition we would agree to commit to direct all
construction traffic during on and offsite grading operations and related utility work to Tramway Road
(the already submitted Final Map package has an casement granted by the Tramway Board allowing
construction traffic on Tramway Road). As you are aware the Final Map package has been processed
during the past 6 months and deemed complete and ready for recording by staff. This requested action
should allow you to schedule the recording of the Final Map immediately requiring possibly only a 3
months PD extension at the upcoming council meeting September 21 st.
I would like to add:
First, in terms of the extension of the PD, the project was approved during the depths of the economic
downturn, which was recognized by the state in the map act extensions. In addition,the Desert Palisades
project, which is very near Crescendo, has been under construction for the last few years. When we went
through the FIR process, one of the issues that was raised was the need to do the projects sequentially,
and not concurrently, to avoid excess impacts to the surrounding neighbors. Therefore, while Desert
Palisades was under construction, the delay in the start of Crescendo served the mitigation measure
designed to assure only one project was under construction at any given time.
Thank r your consid io
i
Michael Br It
Senior Vi resident
Wessman Development Company
49_ _
NEIGHBORHOOD SPONSOR REPS �� ��✓���
Case TTM 31766'" MODCOM AND MR PETE MORUZZI
Crescendo'.' HISTORIC REP PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE
PHN,for PC Meeting 08.10.16 P.O" BOX 4738
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-4738
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT
VERIFICATION NOTICE-0a-D ATTN SECRETARY/TTM 31766
PO BOX 2743
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743
MRS PATRICIA GARCIA-PLOTKIN,
MS MARGARET PARK, DIRECTOR DIRECTOR
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA TRIBAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
INDIANS-�D4D-oH1--D-o INDIANS AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
PLANNING& DEVELOPMENT DEPT. INDIANS
5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264
MR FRANK TYSEN MR JOSEPH ONTIVEROS
INTERESTED PARTIES � CASA CODY INN SOBOBA BAND OF LUISENO INDIANS
175 S. CAHUILLA ROAD CULTURAL RESOURCES MANAGER
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 P.O. BOX 487
SAN JACINTO, CA 92581
MR RAYMOND HUAUTE MR MICHAEL MIRELEZ MR DOUG TODD WELMAS
CULTURAL RESOURCE SPECIALIST CULTURAL RESOURCE COORDINATOR CHAIRMAN TRIBAL
MORONGO BAND OF MISSION INDIANS TORRES MARTINEZ DESERT CAHUILLA TRIBAL N BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
12700 BANNING,
CA 9 ROAD INDIANS 84-245 INDIO SPRINGS PARKWAY
BANNING, CA 92220 P.O. BOX , CA INDIO, CA 92203
THERMAL, CA 92274
MS JACQUELYN BARNUM
ENVIRONMENTAL DIRECTOR
CABAZON BAND OF MISSION INDIANS
84-245 INDIO SPRINGS
PARKWAYINDIO, CA 92203
MR MICHAEL BRAUN MR BEN ETEMADI
SPONSORS WESSMAN HOLDINGS HUNSAKER&ASSOCIATES
555 S. SUNRISE WAY, STE. 200 THREE HUGHES
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 IRVINE, CA 92618
oOa -i b
a�
Easy PeelO Labels ♦ Bend along line to �� Q AVERY® 6240TM
/(
Use Avery®Template 51600/8160TM Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM � 1
504-150-002/191-009 504-1S0-004,005,007,009 504-150-008
WESSMAN HOLDINGS DESERT WATER AGENCY WESSMAN HOLDINGS
555 S SUNRISE WAY#200 P 0 BOX 1710 555 S SUNRISE WAY#200
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
504-161-003 504-161-004 504-161-005
DONALD F&THERESA OSMAN DESOUSA A M A LIVING TRUST WISE INV
2223 N MILO DR 2233 N MILO DR 3010 WILSHIRE BLVD#208
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 LOS ANGELES CA 90010
504-161-005 504-161-006 504-161-007
OCCUPANT MICHAEL&CINDY ANN ARCARO DENNIS C& NANCY B PHILLIPS
2255 N MILO DR 2277 N MILO DR 934 INVERNESS DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270
504-161-007 504-161-008 504-161-019-026
OCCUPANT DAVID R ENDRES FAR WEST INDUSTRIES
2303 N MILO DR 747 OAK AVE 2922 DAIMLER ST
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 DAVIS CA 95616 SANTA ANA CA 92705
504-161-019 504-161-026 504-161-027
OCCUPANT OCCUPANT RONALDIHANSON
2345 TUSCANY HEIGHTS DR 2302 TUSCANY HEIGHTS DR 2338 TUSCANY HEIGHTS DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-161-030 504-162-005 504-162-005
TUSCANY HEIGHTS HOMEOWNERS ASSN CARY S BERGLUND OCCUPANT
2922 DAIMLER ST 2520 ABERDEEN AVE 2350 N MILO DR
SANTA ANA CA 92705 LOS ANGELES CA 90027 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
SO4-162-006 504-162-007,008 504-162-009,010
LALITH D&JACQUELINE CHANDRASENA DEBRAH GONZALES PURNEL DEBBIE L HOFFMAN
2304 N MILO DR 3079 MONTE AZUL 24774 MUREAU RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 CALABASAS CA 91302
504-162-010 504-162-011 504-162-011
OCCUPANT JOHN &CINDY MONTERO OCCUPANT
2210 N MILO DR 1303 POWFLL #301 2221 N JANIS DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 EMERYVILLE CA 94603 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-162-012 504-162-013 504-162-014
RAYMOND LUIGI &CAROL MARTHA GARY GUSTAT 5 MONKEYS INC
BERTOIA 2267 N JANIS DR 203 GLENDORA AVE
2233 N JANIS DR PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 LONG BEACH CA 90803
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-162-014 SO4-162-01S 504-162-016
OCCUPANT JIM A FUNDIN JAMES D HAYES
2285 N JANIS DR 2313 N JANIS DR 2323 N JANIS DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
@tiquettes faciles 3 peler A Repliez h la hachure afin de i www.avery.com '
Utilisez le abarit AVERY®5160®/8160Ml ' Sens de , i
9 1 charaemant r6vEler le rebord Pop-up 1-800-GO-AVERY
Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to ` o AVERY® 624OTM �
Use Avery®Template 51600/816OTM � Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge— � `
504-171-005 504-171-005 504-171-006
MADELYN ALFANO OCCUPANT BRYAN G FELD
15964 VALLEY VISTA BLVD 2330 N JANIS DR 208 RODEO CT
ENCINO CA 91436 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 SAN DIMAS CA 91773
504-171-006 504-171-007 504-171-007
OCCUPANT KATHRYN D HANLEY OCCUPANT
2300 N JANIS DR P 0 BOX 18 2280 N JANIS DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 DOUGLAS MI 49406 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-171-008 504-171-009 504-171-009
GEORGE W& CONSTANCE M QUICKLE ROBERT G L VANANCUM OCCUPANT
2260 N JANIS DR 1011 GS 2222 N JANIS DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 AMSTERDAM NETHERLANDS PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-171-010 504-171-010 504-171-011
JEAN JACQUES BOUCHE OCCUPANT WILLIAM D NICHOLSON
P 0 BOX 1599 2200 N JANIS DR 2211 N VISTA DR
LAGUNA BEACH CA 92652 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-171-012,013 504-171-014 504-171-014
ROBERTJ MAINIERO ALAN TRIGER OCCUPANT
P 0 BOX 2410 520 BIRMINGHAM RD 2275 N VISTA DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 BURBANK CA 91504 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-171-015 504-171-016 504-171-016
W BRIAN & MERRI E BROOK THOMAS G & KAREN A FOSTER OCCUPANT
2301 N VISTA DR 15203 GRANADA AVE 2333 N VISTA DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 LA MIRADA CA 90638 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-172-005 504-172-006 504-173-001
MARK T GRACZYK LUCIANO&TONIA BUSTAMANTE RICHARD J FUNARO
2050 W FOSTER AVE RAMIREZ 2300 N VISTA DR
CHICAGO IL 60625 954 W VIA OLIVERA PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-173-002 504-173-003 504-173-004
ALAN MONTGOMERY JOHN B MEYER BRIAN LENTZ
2270 N VISTA DR 998 VIA LIVORNO 1052 EL ESCUDERO OR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-173-005 504-173-006 504-173-006
FRANCIS H LABRANCHE CARLOS BRITO OCCUPANT
25 BAY ST 22879 29B AVE 965 W VIA OLIVERA
TILTON NH 3276 LANGLEY BC V2Z 381 CANADA PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-173-007 504-173-008 504-173-008
EVERT F TIGNER MARTIN &CAROLYN SELTZER OCCUPANT
944 W VIA LIVORNO 229 BRANNAN ST 951 W VIA OLIVERA
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94107 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
Etiquettes faciles h peler ♦ Repliez 6 la hachure of in de www.avery.com
abarit AVERY Utilisez le ®5160®/8160'x ' Sens de (�
9 l charoement r6v6ler le rebord Pop-up"c i 1-800-GO-AVERY
Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to AVERY® 6240TM '
Use Avery®Template 5160®/8160TM Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge*M ® 1
504-174-001 SO4-174-001 504-174-002
ULRICH &OLGA ANTENER OCCUPANT EARL W BURNS
P 0 BOX 1844 2202 N VISTA DR 985 W VIA LIVORNO
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 _ PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-174-003 504-174-004 504-174-004
JOHN MAHONEY LIVING TRUST PAUL M &SHERRILL L PUZISS OCCUPANT
955 W VIA LIVORNO 9930 NW UPTON CT 901 W VIA LIVORNO
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PORTLAND OR 97229 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-181-005 504-181-006 504-181-006
JANE L LUKE THOMAS DIGIAMMATTEO OCCUPANT
2320 N PALERMO DR 73655 EL PASEO 2300 N PALERMO DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM DESERT CA 92260 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-181-011 504-181-011 504-181-014
ROBERT L&JACQUELINE A WOOD OCCUPANT LEO G & MARY ANN EGAN
116 MAIN ST 2359 N LEONARD RD 820 VIA OLIVERA
SEAL BEACH CA 90740 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-182-006,007 504-191-002,011 504-191-003
CARMELA T MCAULIFF LANCE DEAN THOMPSON CLIFTON F GRANTHAM
75 SKYLINE DR 2232 N PALERMO DR 2222 N PALERMO DR
WATCHUNG NJ 7060 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-191-005 504-191-006 504-191-007
TIMOTHY G ALBERT JAMES L MCBRIDE JOHN & LINDA ALOE
2241 N LEONARD RD 1531 PRINCETON AVE 3040 CAPRI LN
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 STOCKTON CA 95204 COSTA MESA CA 92626
504-191-007 504-191-008 504-191-008
OCCUPANT DOMINION OPPORTUNITY FUND I OCCUPANT
2231 N LEONARD RD 1401 DOVE ST 9260 2225 N LEONARD RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-191-010 504-191-012 504-191-012
GENE M&VICKI L NICHOLS LUIS MARTINEZ OCCUPANT
P 0 BOX 2365 1482 CARMELITA ST 861 W VIA OLIVERA
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 LAGUNA BEACH CA 92651 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-192-002 504-192-002 504-192-003
JAMES EDWARD& IRENE WEISS OCCUPANT MICHAEL E LEVITT
13827 3RD DR 711 'W VIA OLIVERA 14322 VALLEY VISTA BLVD
EVERETT WA 98208 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 SHERMAN OAKS CA 91423
504-192-003 504-192-006,012,013 504-192-008
OCCUPANT DONALD FRED KICK ROBERT F DOREN
2225 N TUSCAN RD 611 S PALM CANYON DR#10 2150 N LEONARD RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
Etiquettes faciles it peler A Repliez 6 la hachure afin de i www.avery.com
'
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160®/B160M` charaement rEv€ler le rebord Poo•uoM 1-800-GO-AVERY �?J
Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to i
Use Avery®Template 51600/8160*M Feed Paper expose Pop-up Edge*^ AVERY® 62a0TM ,
1
504-192-014 504-192-019 504-192-019
BEN W& LINDA A DAWSON SCOTT M BASSETT OCCUPANT
600 W VIA ESCUELA 1221 IDAHO AVE 2262 N LEONARD RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 SANTA MONICA CA 90403 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-192-020 504-192-021 504-192-021
DAVID RICHARD WILSON 1112932 ONTARIO LTD OCCUPANT
2250 N LEONARD RD 58 BROCK ST 2220 N LEONARD RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 OAKVILLE ON L6K 3S6 CANADA PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-192-030 504-192-030 504-192-031
WILLIAM G & ELMA U TRACY OCCUPANT DENLAR
687 W CANYON DR 2175 N VIA MONTE VIS 72287 DESERT DR
PRESCOTT AZ 86303 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 RANCHO MIRAGE CA 92270
504-192-031 504 192-032 504-193-002-005
OCCUPANT PAUL ANTHONY DEHERRERA VINCENTI & KAREN M PI ROZZI
2110 N LEONARD RD 16 BRISBANE ST P 0 BOX 328
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 BONDI JUNCTION NSW 2022 AUSTRALIA PALM SPRINGS CA 92263
504-193-002 504-201-001 504-201-002
OCCUPANT JULIA RICCI CAROL A GRANADOS
651 VIA ESCUELA 1099 W CHINO CANYON RD 50 CALIFORNIA ST 41500
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94111
504-2D1-002 504-201-003 504-201-004
OCCUPANT MARK REINECKE JUAN E CUETO
1055 W CHINO CANYON DR 1047 W CHINO CANYON RD P O BOX 92
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263
504-201-004 - 504-201-005 504-201-005
OCCUPANT ATHALIE LAGUERRE OCCUPANT
1033 W CHINO CANYON RD PO BOX 2528 1025 W CHINO CANYON RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-201-006 504-201-007 504-201-007
JOHN CRUMMAY KEVIN L HARDER OCCUPANT
P 0 BOX 4760 200 E CARILLO ST#202 931 W PANORAMA RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 SANTA BARBARA CA 93101 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-201-008 504-201-009 504-201-012
BARRY SOLOF - JON R ROBERTS DIANA&JOSEPH C LYON
925 W PANORAMA RD 1030 W CIELO DR 1080 W CIELO DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-201-013 504-201-016,034,035 504-201-027,032
RICHARD KLUSZCZYNSKI 1075 WEST CIELO DRIVE LLC MADELEINE PALEVSKY MOSKOWITZ
1090 W CIELO DR 1075 W CIELO DR 2444 WILSHIRE BLVD#410
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 SANTA MONICA CA 90403
@tiquettes faciles h peler ARepliez la hachure afin de; www.avery com
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®51600/8160"` i charaement r6v€ler le rebord Pop-upw f ;1-800-GO ry.com
Easy Peel®Labels ♦ Bend along line to Q AVERY® 6240T- ;
Use Avery®Template 51600/81607m Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTe j
1
504-201-027 504-201-037 504-201-037
OCCUPANT ROBERT MERLIS OCCUPANT
1021 W CIELO DR 507 N GOWER ST 1044 W CIELO DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 LOS ANGELES CA 90004 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-201-039 504-202-002,012 504-202-003
JOHN SHERRATT JOE B & PHYLLIS K RAMSEY LUCKY HOUSE LLC
1060 W CIELO DR 965 W CHINO CANYON RD P 0 BOX 302
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
504-202-003 504-202-007 504-202-007
OCCUPANT ROBERT M & MELISSA L A SUTTON OCCUPANT
933 W CHINO CANYON RD 12839 MARLBORO ST 926 W PANORAMA RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 LOS ANGELES CA 90049 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-202-008 504-202-010 504-202-013
KAY SUTTON ONDERDONK MICHAEL FLEMING JACQUELINE KENDIG
12839 MARLBORO ST 1860 N VISTA DR 1889 N VISTA DR
LOS ANGELES CA 90049 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-202-014 504-202-014 504-202-015,018
1868 VISTA DRIVE TRUST OCCUPANT MICHAEL KORT& KATHRYN MARY
P 0 BOX 1830 1868 N VISTA DR SCHNABEL
FERNDALE WA 98248 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 301 31ST ST
HERMOSA BEACH CA 90254
504-202-018 504-211-001 504-211-002
OCCUPANT MARK A PUOPOLO BRANDON CREED
987 E VISTA CHINO RD 875 W CHINO CANYON RD 10960 WILSHIRE BLVD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 LOS ANGELES CA 90024
504-211-002 504-211-003 504-211-003
OCCUPANT TCB PALM SPRINGS OCCUPANT
860 W PANORAMA RD 837 MASON ST 845 W CHINO CANYON RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 SAN FRANCISCO CA 94108 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-211-004 504-211-008 504-211-009
844 PANORAMA ROBERTJ &JUDY K HELBLING PHILIP G LUMPKIN
10960 WILSHIRE BLVD STH FUR 821 W CHINO CANYON RD 60 E MONROE ST #1501
LOS ANGELES CA 90024 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CHICAGO IL 60606
504-211-009 504-211-010,011 504-211-010
OCCUPANT DANIEL C NG OCCUPANT
1843 N LEONARD RD 4170 N MARINA DR#23M 800 W PANORAMA RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CHICAGO IL 60613 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
504-212-001,005 504-212-002 504-212-002
JAY R HART ROBERT& DEBORAH SPERA OCCUPANT
777 W CHINO CANYON RD 8383 WILSHIRE BLVD H400 1840 N LEONARD RD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 BEVERLY HILLS CA 90211 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
Ittiquettes se
facilei it paler
t AVERY®5160®/8160°C i Repliez A la hachure afin de; www.avery.com
Utilisez le aabari ; Sens de�^� rEv€ler le rehord Pon•uoe` ! 1-800-GO-AVERY (5j !
Easy Peel®Labels i ♦ Bend along line to AVERY® 6240—
Use Avery®Template 5160®/8160TM Feed Paper expose Pop-up EdgeTM
1
504-212-003 504-212-003 504-212-004
CHERIE W TEITELBAUM OCCUPANT CHRISTOPHER D LUEKING
5167 PARKWAY CALABASAS 790 W PANORAMA RD 5000 N MARINE DR p9F
CALABASAS CA 91302 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CHICAGO IL 60640
504-212-004 504-212-006 504-212-009
OCCUPANT JERRY D & NANCY M KORTE THOMAS P REEDER
1725 N TUSCAN RD 669 W CHINO CANYON RD P 0 BOX 2411
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263
504-212-009 504-390-061,065/400-009- 504-400-0S9
OCCUPANT 016,0S2,055,058 RICHARD M KLUSZCZYNSKI
1750 N TUSCAN RD PINNACLE VIEW 1090 W CIELO DR
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 2154 NE BROADWAY #200 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
PORTLAND OR 97232
Etiquettes faciles 3 peler ♦ Repliez i la hachure afin de i www.avery.corn /
Utilisez le gabarit AVERY®5160®/8160a` ; FSens de�^� r6v€ler le rebord Poo-uo i-800-GO-AVERY
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held August 10, 2016,
the Planning Commission took the following action:
2C. WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
THE CRESCENDO; A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 31766), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 42.2-ACRE
PARCEL INTO 79 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 TO CONSTRUCT 79 CUSTOM HOMES AT W.
RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE; (CASE 5.09961PDD
2941TTM 31766). (ER)
Chair Calerdine previously noted his abstention and would not be participating in the
discussion and vote on this Item.
City Attorney Daudt provided details on the status of the map; noting that it will not
expire until 2019 and today's hearing consists of reviewing the extension of time for the
Planned Development District only.
Principal Planner Robertson provided an overview of proposed time extension request
for Planned Development District 294.
Director Fagg pointed-out that unlike the Boulders project this is a Planned
Development District that has been approved with relief from certain development
standards.
Commissioner Middleton asked staff for clarification on the appropriateness to continue
this matter until a resolution has been reached by City Council on Item 2B.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk opened the public hearing:
MICHAEL BRAUN, clarified that no changes have been made to the project. Mr. Braun
provided details on the pad elevations, neighborhood outreach, and the in-fill nature of
this project and was available for questions from the Commission.
DAVID DRY, resides across from the development, commented that the Desert
Palisades' environmental impact report should have been re-evaluated because of more
than 15 - 20,000 loads of dirt and boulders that needed to be removed from the project
than projected. They had problems with blow sand and the city was unresponsive.
ROBERT ROTMAN, referred to the letter from Little Tuscany Neighborhood
Organization, reiterated that the 10 year environmental impact report needs be
91�1�
Planning Commission Minutes-Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
August 10,2016
examined again and does not think it addresses mitigation of construction on the
neighborhood.
DENISE HOATKER, resides at Palermo Development, commented about the loud
noises from rock crushing from the Desert Palisades. She thinks a new environmental
impact study needs to be done because the traffic is bad and the site has changed.
TONY HOATKER, said that nine years is enough time and questioned where the line is
drawn. He said the whole area has changed.
MICHAEL BRAUN, clarified that Desert Palisades is a 100-acre project and Crescendo
is 40-acre project. He addressed the topography, traffic count and their intent to provide
neighborhood outreach meetings.
There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed.
Commissioner Hirschbein made a motion to deny stating that he preferred the City
Council direct the policy on this project.
Commissioner Middleton said she will vote to deny because it's important for the public
to have the opportunity to re-visit projects of this magnitude and nine years is just too
long. She pointed-out that in other time extension requests where there has been a
mitigating factor that factor should be taken into consideration as to whether to grant the
extension. However, this developer is stating that economically this project did not
make sense to proceed during the approval time. She does not believe it is responsible
public policy to grant to a developer a lifetime entitlement for a project. At some point in
time the developer must return to the public process and obtain input regarding the
magnitude of the project.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk will second the motion and concurs with the previous two
speakers. She believes nine years is sufficient time and the relief given with the PD is
stale.
ACTION: To deny.
Motion: Commissioner Hirschbein, seconded by Vice-Chair Weremiuk and carried 5-1-1
on a roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioner Hirschbein, Commissioner Hudson, Commissioner Lowe,
Commissioner Middleton, Vice-Chair Weremiuk
NOES: Commissioner Donenfeld
ABSTAIN: Chair Calerdine
2
Planning Commission Minutes-Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
August 10,2016
I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs,
hereby certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Springs on the 10th day of August, 2016, by the following vote:
AYES: Commissioner Hirschbein, Commissioner Hudson, Commissioner
Lowe, Commissioner Middleton, Vice-Chair Weremiuk
NOES: Commissioner Donenfeld
ABSTAIN: Chair Calerdine
Terri Hintz V
Planning Administrative Coordinator
3
Judy Deertrack
1333 South Belardo Road, Apt 510
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
To the City Council
Palm Springs, California
2.13. APPEAL BY WESSMAN HOLDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF
TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 294), A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 31766), AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT 294 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 79 HOMES LOCATED AT W. RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA
GRANDE AVENUE, (CASE 5.0996/PDD 294/TTM 31766):
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open the public hearing and receive public testimony; 2) Adopt Resolution No. _, "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 79 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
HOMES ON A 42.2-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE
(CASE 5.0996-PDD 294);
"Or — Alternatively: 3) Adapt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF
TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294, AND GRANTING A LIMITED
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT TIME TO SUBMIT AN
AMENDED CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 294) FOR THE 42.2-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED
AT WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE (CASE 5.0996-PDD 294)."
To the Honorable City Council:
COMMENTS ON THE PROJECT IN GENERAL:
This extension of time request has great technicality that will lead away from the issue of whether this project would
benefit the community in 2016 as designed. That is unfortunate. It appears to be an issue of whether Mr. Wessman has
submitted the following documents and exhibits to the City in a timely manner, under a one year period granted to him to
do so from the last extension of time, which was September 15, 2015: Final Development Plans, final construction plans,
which include site plans, building elevations, floor plans, roof plans, fence and wall plans, entry plans, landscape plans,
irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, street improvement plans, and other required documents.
It is my understanding Mr. Wessman alleges that if all of these documents comply with the original design approved under
the Preliminary Development Plan, the City has lost discretion to deny his extension of time, or his Final Development
Plan approval as long as all of these are submitted before the one-year deadline. I do not know the law on this point.
FINAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN f EXTENSIONS OF TIME (94.03.00):
It appears that Ordinance 94.03.00 (PD) sets a strict time limit on fling for a Final Map and (once the Final Map is
approved), the owner has six (6) months to begin construction. These limitations are understandable, considering that a
PDD is a unique rezone action that substitutes lot-by-lot development standards particularly designed for the proposed
project in place of standardized underlying zoning that applies to the area at large. Because of the unique nature of a
PDD, extended delays without a demonstration of good cause are grounds for voiding the approval of a preliminary plan.
Of real significance with a PDD is the fact that, once the two (2) year time limit has lapsed for filing of a Final
Plan, the burden of demonstrating "good cause" settles upon the Developer, and without an adequate showing
of good cause, the City has the discretion to deny an extension of time. Extensions of time are not an automatic
entitlement because of the earlier approval. The ordinance makes this clear. The original preliminary
entitlements are subject to expiration unless the Developer has exercised due diligence. This mechanism is how
PDD usage has built-in protection against abuse and delay. The ordinance also does not mention that the
Planning Commission or City Council must establish findings or justification for the denial of an extension of
time. That is precisely because the Developer carries the burden of establishing "good cause" once two (2)
years have expired.
1^ �2 . 13.
g1a��ie
2
The point of departure with PDD 294 is the Developer's allegation that on or before the lapse of his current
extension of time, he is able to meet all requirements for the ministerial release of a Final Development Plan
permit to construct, and that such action is non-discretionary on the part of the city.
Ordinance 94.03.00 Planned Development Districts (PD) indicates under Section F, `Approval of the final development
plan by the planning commission shall be final unless appealed to the city council." Section H. Termination of
Proceedings states that, "If within two (2) years after the date of approval by the city council of the preliminary
development plan, the final development plan, . . . . 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 maybe allowed for good cause."[bold-type emphasis added]
Ordinance 94.03.00 Section I. (Termination Clause) states that where the owner has not commenced substantial
construction, the PDD will expire within six (6) months from the date of the Final Development Plan approval, and the
PDD will be null and void, unless extensions of time are allowed "for good cause."
The City's ordinance would benefit from an explicit definition of grounds for good cause. In the absence, I would assume
that normal contractual definitions and industry practices would supply the answer. A simple internet check supplied
standard criteria: Excusable delay is (1) Unusually severe weather; (2) Change Orders and Extra Work; (3) Unanticipated
site conditions; (4) Delays from unforeseeable causes beyond the control of the developer; (5) Labor Disputes. Non-
excusable delay is classified as: (1) Inadequate scheduling or management; (2) Inadequate financing; (3) Under estimate
of production rates; (4) Inaction without cause; (5) Inattention to the expected time frames for commencement of
construction or permit requirements with no intervening cause.
DEVELOPER'S JUSTIFICATION FOR DELAY:
The Developer, Mr. Wessman, has submitted a letter of justification for delay in applying for a Final Development Plan,
and for the delay in beginning construction —between the year 2007 and 2016; a nine-year period. At page 46 of the Staff
Report Attachment 8, dated August 11, 2016, Michael Braun, Senior Vice-President of Wessman Development Company
states,
"Our appeal is based upon the fact that we have submitted substantially all documents necessary for
filing of the final map. Under State law, the City may not deny or condition a final map if the
developer has complied with all conditions of approval allached to the tentative map."
I do not know the law in this area. Mr. Wessman did not meet the two-year timeline set forth in Condition of Approval#12;
however, the City has given a series of legal extensions of time, the last extension of time apparently was valid until
September 14, 2016; the Planning Commission heard the extension request on August 10, 2016. If the owner is able to
demonstrate full compliance prior to his expiration date, I do not know if the developer's compliance would eliminate the
City's discretion to deny the extension. It seems possible. My follow up question would be, "If the approval does not
conform to General Plan requirements; or if the approval requires a Supplemental EIR, what is the impact of those
conditions?
The owner's justification letter of August 111h states that they were (on that date) in "substantial compliance'with the Final
Map requirements of Condition of Approval #12. 1 assume they also mean they will be in full compliance on or before
September 14, 2016. The Planning Commissions denial of ANOTHER full year extension is completely understandable.
It is up to the City Council, and its legal counsel, to determine the course of action, based upon California law and the
wishes of the City Council.
It is clear as of August 10, 2016, and the Planning Commission hearing, the application did not make the statement that
they had "fully complied with all conditions of approval attached to the tentative map." The issue is whether they have
until September 141h to do so.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:
What seems to be missing is an environmental determination. At some time before approval with a nine-year time gap,
isn't the analysis of"change of conditions' required? If the City assessed the need for a Supplemental EIR or Addendum
to an EIR, I have not seen where or how that occurred, and that seems to be what is missing. I cannot supply an
assessment for lack of information in the staff report on this issue.
NEIGHBORHOOD MEETINGS:
"The City of Palm Springs strongly recommends that project applicants meet with surrounding property owners and
Neighborhood Organizations located in or near the project to solicit input in the beginning stage of the design and
3
development process." This wording comes from the Application for a Planned Development District (PDD) and
addresses the beginning stages of development.
However, I would strongly advise the City to extend this policy to public hearings on any extensions of time where there is
evidence of a significant changes in circumstances from a combination of(1) passage of time; (2) changes in land use or
zoning classifications on the lot or in the surrounding area; (3) changes in the build out patterns of the surrounding land
use; and/or(4)changes in environmental conditions that affect the lot in question.
have talked about factors of delay. I do not know whether a Supplemental EIR is required, because the City has not
provided an assessment of those issues in the staff report. Therefore, I mention the following factors considering the
vacuum of information:
Crescendo PD 294, was approved in October 2007, by the City Council, or nine (9) years ago. This date was roughly at
the beginning of a recession. The City Council has acted on roughly eighty (80) Planned Development Districts
throughout the City of Palm Springs in the interim (PD 309 — PD 381 plus eleven misc.), and enacted a new Housing
Element in the year 2014, with updated policies, data, and Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) calculations.
The City and State of California has experienced drought conditions, which have affected the flora and fauna in the
mountainous regions bordering Palm Springs, and has shifted the habitat for the Big Horn Sheep. Changes have
occurred in the environmentally designated zones under state and federal stewardship, including the Chino Cone Area.
The City Council has created an Ad Hoc PDD Study Committee by Settlement Agreement with People for Proper
Planning (PFPP) stemming from the settlement of the Dakota II litigation (John Wessman, Owner). The subject matter of
that study arises from the allegations in Dakota, including the premise that the City has overused and possibly abused the
use of the PDD Permit by an almost constant use of the mechanism, in place and instead of the use of its normal zoning
code, which implements its general plan. Further, the City will study whether it habitually failed to follow the goals,
objectives, policies, and programs of the General Plan, or failed to track the cumulative impact of constant use of a rezone
mechanism and/or overlay zone in place and instead of application of the underlying zoning classification.
Lastly, changes have occurred in the Desert Palisades Specific Plan Area. Although the Developer's Justification Letter
states that the changes were anticipated in the EIR's for both projects, there is a considerable difference between
programmatic assessment of a range of uses and capacities in a Specific Plan and the actual land entitlements granted.
Given that the Developer holds the burden of proof to show "good cause' for delay In construction, the issues here go
beyond the need to file a Supplemental EIR or Addendum to an EIR; they are the planning considerations of whether the
City must keep extending entitlements far beyond the timelines anticipated by its PDD Ordinance.
All of this combined would call for generous transparency policies with respect to citizen participation in the public
hearings; careful evaluation of the need for supplemental environmental review, and careful exercise of discretion on
whether to allow a Final Development Plan and Extension of Time under Ordinance 94.03.00, which sets a two (2) year
time limit on filing the Final Development Plan after approval of the Preliminary Development Plan, and a six-month time
limit on beginning construction after the approval of a Final Development Plan, with discretionary extensions "for good
cause."
In Crescendo (PDD 294), Item 2B, notification was given in the following method (reference City Council Staff Report
dated September 21, 2016, at page 7. The staff report would suggest that Mr. Wessman did not meet with the public:
"NOTIFICATION: The applicant was notified of the City Council hearing of the appeal; a public
hearing notice was mailed to property owners within a 500-foot radius of the project site.
Additionally, the public hearing was published in the local newspaper and the surrounding
neighborhood organizations were also notified."
CONCLUSION:
I don't have a clear idea of what rights Mr. Wessman has in this situation. My ultimate question is this, however. Once an
extension of time has been granted to a developer, does that developer's right to file a Final Development Plan within the
next year VEST as of the date the City approves the extension of time? That means on September 15, 2015, Mr.
Wessman had exactly one year to meet Condition of Approval #12, and if he did meet all those conditions and submit the
required Final Development Plan and its attendant exhibits, he would be awarded a Final Development Plan as a
ministerial matter, and a matter of right.
I assume that he asked for the extension of time just to cover his bases in case the City refused to issue the Final
Development Plan permit and allow construction. I believe that is what his letter of justification has indicated.
4
1 do think the City needs to enact a policy of extreme caution in granting extensions of time on PDD's. I know the State
of California allowed for automatic extensions of time by right, which exacerbated these considerations for cities
throughout the recession, but perhaps we can start anew.
I did not in this letter review whether the original granted entitlements were consistent with the General Plan, or whether
the departure from underlying ordinance provisions was warranted through some kind of perceived "public benefit" of
abandoning the designed planning standards under the zoning code. Although these considerations might obtain if there
were an extension of time to be granted, I really believe this is a case of Mr. Wessman completing his requirements
before September 15, 2016.
However, given Mr. Wessman's ADAMANT claim that his Final Development Plan will be submitted before the deadline;
given the claim that the California State of Law gives the City no right to deny the permit; given the nine (9) year delay in
finalizing and construction, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES should the City Council extend this Preliminary Plan Permit
another year to 2017. 1 do believe that would be a complete abuse of discretion.
With regard,
Judy Deertrack
LITTLE TUSCANY
NEIGHBORHOOD ORGAN IZATIO[ �,,,
Palm Springs City Council
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
September 20, 2016
Subject: Comments on item 2B on the September 21, 2016 City Council Agenda:
2.13. APPEAL BY WESSMAN HOLDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 294), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT
CONSISTING OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 31766) AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 79 HOMES LOCATED
AT W. RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE, (CASE 5.0996/PDD
294/TTM 31766):
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
We, the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, respectfully request the City Council take
the following action:
1. Uphold the decision of the Planning Commission to deny a request for a one year
extension for PDD 294, the Crescendo Development; and,
2. Deny the proposal by the developer for a 3 month time extension for PDD 294; and,
3. Deny in its entirety the request outlined in the developer's September 15, 2016 letter to
change the architectural style while maintaining the layout and configuration of the
tract map.
This letter augments our August 10, 2016 letter (attached).
According to the staff report and Palm Springs Municipal Code section 94.03.00(H), denying or
approving the extension is completely discretionary and no findings are required. The Planning
Commission is a respected body with expertise in such issues that you have entrusted to make
i 7�M Z e-
011141
Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization—Re:Crescendo
good decisions and we support its decision. Furthermore, even though findings are not
required, evidence supports upholding the Planning Commission's action to deny the extension.
Below are just a few of the many reasons we believe you should uphold the denial of ANY time
extension including the developer requested three (3) month extension as any extension will
not resolve fundamental and underlying problems with the current PDD approval.
The project was approved 10 years ago and it was not until May of 2016 that the developer
submitted necessary information to process the project. The staff report clearly outlines that
the Planning Commission denied the extension based upon the clear fact that little progress
was made in the last ten (10) years to advance the project. We concur with the Planning
Commission and staff report that 10 years is too long without action and that circumstances
and attitudes have changed making this development obsolete and out of compliance with
current laws, practices and standards to even consider an extension.
The City has already granted the developer four (4) one-year time extensions and each time the
developer put into writing when he requested the extension that the project would start within
the year. This was obviously far from reality, as the developer simply altered a form letter year
after year to request the extension, possibly thinking it would be rubber-stamped. This is the
developer's 5th request for a time extension and it was denied. There is no reason to keep this
project and its map in its current configuration alive especially since the mitigation measures
and the analysis completed to approve the project 10 years ago are not satisfactory for today's
standards as we will exemplify below.
We also do not support a three (3) month extension and the elimination of the architectural
styles while maintaining a map approved under the PDD process with its substandard sized lots,
reduced setbacks, etc. It is the layout of the site itself, the identification of the long and short
term impacts, as well as the mitigation measures that need to be updated. Approving the time
extension in any format will not provide an opportunity to comprehensively and accurately
accomplish this.
The use of the PDD standards on such a large parcel of open desert on one of the most
predominant alluvial fans in the world circumvents the zoning code and the extensive and
expensive process that went into creating the zoning code. Using a PDD in this situation and
manner corrupts the confidence of the public in these regulatory documents. Although the
PDD standards have their place and benefit, this is not what we believe was the intent of the
PDD standards. Therefore the Planning Commission's denial of the time extension should be
upheld so the entire project and site can be revisited usingthe zoning code standards for this
district versus the PDD standards.
Page 12
Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization—Re:Crescendo
The grading requirements for this development will require what appear to be five (5) massive
retaining walls, each wall running the entire width of the site. This will lead to a terracing effect
forever changing the natural environment into a grossly artificial environment on one of the
most significant and beautiful alluvial fans in the USA. This alluvial fan is iconic and a gateway to
Palm Springs and the Tram. We believe a better proposal for the site would be something
similar to what Desert Palisades is doing with minimal grading in an effort to retain the natural
look and beauty without having to terrace or grade the lots flat. What is proposed under this
project (PDD 294) is a standardized tract with cookie cutter lots that may be ideal for a flat
location but and in this instance demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the natural
environment in which it is being built. At the time of the PDD approval there may have been
different factors at play as it was shortly before the recession.
Current knowledge and experience gained from the build out of the Desert Palisades project as
well as Tuscany Heights, which are both adjacent to this PDD project, highlights the many
shortcomings in this PDD and its supporting documents. This knowledge and the lessons
learned should be transferred to any approvals on this site thereby not repeating the same
mistakes. Approving an extension, even a 3 month extension, will not allow this new
knowledge and real life experience to be applied to this development, meaning the same
mistakes will be made again to the detriment of the adjacent residents and the City as a whole.
A decision to grant a time extension would lack professional integrity and be could be
construed as negligent.
Below are again just a couple of examples and evidence to assist the City Council in determining
it is in the best interest of the City to uphold the Planning Commission decision to deny ANY
extension, be it for only 3 months:
Page 46 of the FEIR for this PDD project estimated 15 truck hauls a day for 120 days for a total
of 3,600 truck loads over a 7 month period. What we know from the build out of Desert
Palisades, which is in the same environment and has far less grading, is that there were 300
trucks a day as the public record from that hearing indicates. This is a massive difference,
meaning the proposed calculations for just this one aspect of this PDD are inaccurate,
highlighting the need to deny ANY time extension and have any new proposal for the site
prepare accurate studies.
Page 169-178 of the Desert Palisades EIR estimated 18,000 truck trips for only 16.2 acres of
grading. This is broken down into 6.8 acres of paved roads out of the total of 112 acres as much
of the acreage was left in a natural state. We now know that this calculation far
Page 13
Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization—Re:Crescendo
underestimated the truck trips necessary for this rocky alluvial fan. Real world experience from
the Desert Palisades project clearly supports that there was a gross underestimation of the
number of truck trips at 18,000, when in reality it was 40,000. The impact of this is still being
felt by the residents.
In comparison, this project (PDD 294) has 42 acres(compared to 16.2) with more invasive
grading, clearly demonstrating that the impacts of extending the PDD and building it out in its
current configuration will far exceed the projected 3,600 trucks and therefore is not accurate.
The fact that the real world and the true number of truck trips do not match the generalized
calculations means that adequate mitigation measures are not in place, as we witnessed with
the Desert Palisades project. This is another reason to uphold the denial of the time extension
and have a new project come back with accurate information.
W. Racquet Club Rd. has been downgraded and is now classified as a collector street. This
street does not provide any of the elements that State and Federal law requires for complete
streets, meaning at a minimum there are no accommodations for pedestrians, bicyclist, joggers,
skateboarders, the handicapped, etc. This street has a long history of being known for its sky
liner views that are available to the public. It is also know as a recreational street for daily
hikers, bikers, photographers, and others. The minimal complete street accommodations made
by this project (PDD 294) are inadequate for today's standards and need to be revisited, again a
reason to deny the request for ANY time extension. The project, if built out as a PDD, will
degrade this visual benefit and asset in perpetuity.
Allowing a time extension, even if for only 3 months in an effort to maintain the layout of the
tract map, will only draw out the process and not resolve the underlying problems of which just
a couple are identified in this letter. Residents of Palm Springs and the entire Coachella Valley
witnessed first-hand this developer utilize similar tactics of numerous changes and delays on
his downtown Palm Springs project to convolute the real issues. We believe based upon the
environmental setting and the wisdom and knowledge we have secured from other projects in
the area, that this project (PDD 294) should not receive a time extension as it will not resolve
underlying and fundamental problems this development has with outdated information and
practices, and not being a proper fit utilizing today's standards.
As we demonstrated in just a few simple examples, the evaluation of impacts and the
development of the mitigation measures that were completed 10 years ago are out of date, not
accurate, and not in keeping with current laws, practices, and standards, again reinforcing the
support of the Planning Commission's denial of the time extension.
Page 14
Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization—Re:Crescendo
On Page 10-1 of the EIR for this project, it is stated that this project "will result in significant
changes to the aesthetics that may be considered adverse". Page 9-5 of the EIR states that it
was determined that the reduced grading and custom lot alternatives are determined to be the
environmentally superior alternative based upon table 9.2-AQ. We argue that if real world
experience and accurate studies were prepared today, this PDD project would not be
considered the preferred alternative for this unique environmental location. A couple of simple
examples to support this are that this project will have more grading and impacts than the
studies indicate, the mitigation measures are inadequate, there will be a need for massive
retaining walls, the PDD standards applied to this site will change the character of the alluvial
fan negatively as pointed out in the EIR, and it will be walled off with private roads. Our
sensitivity to hillside aesthetics and the value many place on the natural environment and the
view corridor that the alluvial fan provides will be forever compromised with visual blight with
this type of development and therefore a time extension should not be granted. Another form
of development that is more sensitive to the natural environment would more than likely be
the preferred alternative.
In addition, contrary to the statements made by the developer,the project did not take into
consideration all of the cumulative impacts of the many developments approved and/or built in
the last 10 years. It seems it did not anticipate the Desert Palisades Specific Plan, the
downtown development and the many other large scale projects that impact all of the City
services from recreational to police to infrastructure. There have also been significant changes
to this project site itself since approval as the entire length of the south edge was graded and
raised in elevation from W. Racquet Club Rd. north to a depth of 60 to 70 feet into the site. This
is significant and not to be overlooked. Contrary to the developer's comments, this grading
extends well beyond the public R.O.W. and into the project site itself. We address the impacts
of this is our August 10, 2016 letter.
Lastly there are no solid public benefits to this gated project with private streets to offset the
negative impacts. When a project has such negative impacts, City officials usually look for
significant public benefits to help justify approving such a project. The benefits of any
significant scale are simply not provided in the existing PDD approval and approving ANY
extension will make it very difficult to exact such benefits.
In closing, although you do not need findings to uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the
time extension, we have provided just a few reasons why City Council should uphold the
decision of the Planning Commission. This is a discretionary decision by City Council and there
has been minimal movement by the developer in 10 years. We believe the facts indicate that
the entire project needs to be reevaluated. Allowing even a three (3) month extension will not
Page 15
Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization—Re:Crescendo
resolve real and overarching problems with this development. Remanding the extension back
to the Planning Commission to remove the architectural style without addressing the issues
with the map and layout of the site would tie the hands of the Planning Commission to make
real and substantive changes that are necessary. We ask for your support to uphold the denial
of a time extension of any length of time.
Cordially,
Dennis Woods, Co-Chair Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Tim O'Bayley, Co-Chair Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Robert Dorn, Treasurer/Secretary Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Tony Hoetker, Board Member Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Denise Hoetker, Social Chair Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Andy Hirsch, Board Member Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
CC: Neighborhood Improvement Committee
Posted on Next Door Little Tuscany
Page 16
Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization
Palm Springs Planning Commission
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Subject: August 10, 2016 Comments on Planning Commission Agenda Items:
2B. WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT, REQUESTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION OF
TIME FOR THE BOULDERS; A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP 31095; A SUBDIVISION OF A 30.4-ACRE PARCEL OF 45 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT THE WEST END OF VIA ESCUELA, SOUTH
OF RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND NORTH OF CHINO CANYON ROAD (TTM
31095), (ER)
2C. WESSMAN DEVELOPMENT REQUESTING AN EXTENSION OF TIME FOR
THE CRESCENDO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF A
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 31766), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 42.2-ACRE
PARCEL INTO 79 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 TO CONSTRUCT 79 CUSTOM HOMES AT W.
RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE; (CASE 5.0996/PDD
294/TTM 31766) (ER).
Dear City Council Members and Planning Commissioners,
We, The Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, respectfully request the Planning
Commission deny items 213 and 2C. The analyses in the staff report for the projects are
flawed and do not provide verifiable data to support the generalized statements and
therefore do not support approval of a time extension. Most importantly, the
Environmental Impact Reports (EIR) for these projects were approved over 9 years ago
and the supporting research and documents that make up the EIR's are in excess of 10
years old. The staff report indicates that there are no proposed changes to the projects
that would create a significant impact but fails to report that there are significant changes
to the environment as well as laws since the approval of the EIR that would lead to
impacts that are neither addressed nor mitigated in the EIRs. In addition, there are
changes to the site where the Crescendo development is proposed.
Below is our brief and abbreviated review and rebuttal of Items I-5 and the
environmental assessment as outlined in the staff report. This letter is not exhaustive but
intended to demonstrate that the environmental reviews for the projects are inadequate
and outdated. For purposes of this letter, we will focus on the Crescendo project as it is
less of an infill project than is the Boulders project. Both the Crescendo and Boulders
projects have outdated environmental documents and lack clear and proven mitigation for
today's legal and environmental setting and reality. The Crescendo project also has had
substantial changes to the site since its approval over 9 years ago.
We are not opposed to development in general but we want to ensure that development is
properly mitigated and that the neighbors are protected during the development process.
Item#1
Contrary to the staff report, there have been substantial changes to the Crescendo site.
Since the approval of the EIR, the Crescendo project site has had an enormous amount of
fill placed onto it forever changing the grade of the property and associated
environmental impacts. This action alone has large and significant impacts that have not
been addressed. In addition, underground utilities have been installed for both the Little
Tuscany and Desert Palisades projects creating substantial impacts, not only to the grade
of the site but the environment around it. The impacts of the construction have been
highly disruptive to the adjacent residential areas. The new grade, which is now higher
than it was originally, will mean that the elevation of proposed buildings will be higher,
impacting views and the overall relationship to the street. We now know through the
experience of the build-out of the adjacent projects, that the construction impacts of dust,
debris, vibration, traffic, etc., were not fully evaluated, mitigated, or monitored
proactively creating extremely significant impacts that neighbors brought to the City
Council's attention for intervention. This is fully documented in earlier communication
with the City where glassware was shaken off shelves due to construction activity, dust
and exhaust covered homes on a daily basis, trucks blocked traffic and the noise made it
impossible to even talk on the telephone. These are all big changes since the Crescendo
project was approved. Experience and wisdom along with common-sense would say that
the format and manner in which these same impacts are to be mitigated were developed 9
years ago and will be highly inadequate.
Item#2
According to the staff report, some steps have been taken by the developer, but these
steps were taken at the last minute to preserve the developer's approval rather than
address the serious deficits of the report and the EIR. At this point, the developer does
not have vested rights as the tract map has not been recorded and the amount of work to
prepare to record the map has been last minute and woefully inadequate. This action is
too little too late. The developer has essentially done nothing for over 9 years. In the
developer's past requests, he has provided simple form letters without any action or
further review of the situation. The developer has had 9 years to record the Tentative
Tract map and has failed to do so. This developer has several projects in the Coachella
Valley and this project appears to be a very low priority. The developer has moved
forward on the downtown Palm Springs project, the Hacienda project, and other projects
while allowing this project to languish.
Item#3
There have been a number of recent developments and uses in the area that have
changed that will significantly impact the environmental setting of which the EIR for
Crescendo development did not account for and therefore did not mitigate. Subsequent to
approval of Crescendo, other developments have been approved and are under
construction. The cumulative impacts, including those of the Crescendo project,
were not adequately addressed in the 9-year-old EIR and the environmental
conditions have substantially changed since approval of the EIR. Additionally, laws
have changed making the approved EIR obsolete and inadequate. There are new laws
and regulations about complete streets, global warming, water conservation, air quality,
vehicles miles traveled, construction impacts, etc., some of which were not vetted in a
full breathed manner in the EIR.
The mitigation-monitoring program is also inadequate as are the conditions of approval.
The lack of a clear and precise mitigation-monitoring program will lead to significant
construction impacts on adjacent properties, which the neighbors have already
experienced firsthand with the build-out of the Desert Palisades and Tuscany Heights
projects. These impacts are documented in many letters and in electronic communication
to the City. The Crescendo project also does not adequately address short-term
construction impacts and therefore does not provided solid and verifiable mitigation and
subsequent monitoring for effectiveness as is required by State law.
Vehicular access into and out of the site via only W. Racquet Club Road also needs to be
addressed as it is a local road and there are now a number of new projects utilizing the
same roadway. The classification of this roadway has recently been changed and the
impact of that change, based on all the new developments utilizing this roadway needs to
be analyzed in a scientific manner.
Item#4
Contrary to statements in the staff report, there have been changes to the City's
regulations and the manner in which the City may interpret its regulations. This project
utilized a special section of the Zoning Code for planned developments to skirt the
development regulations that would normally be applied to such a large development.
Although this may be legal, it is at the discretion of the City to allow this bastardization
of the process. The City's awareness is now heightened and the use of this loophole in
the Zoning Code can and should be reversed. In addition, there have been changes to
national and state laws, not to mention changes to local laws that would require the
project to be reanalyzed for its impacts. Although there was a settlement agreement on
this project due to a lawsuit, this has no impact on the City's right to deny this time
extension.
Item#5
Again contrary to the staff report, there have been substantial changes to off-site
improvements within 400 feet of the property. Two developments (Tuscany Heights &
Desert Palisades) are being built out and are within 400 feet of the property. New utility
infrastructure and roadways have been installed for these developments. In fact, the work
to install the sewer and utilities for the adjacent projects has caused the grade at the
Crescendo site to be changed. These facts are neither mentioned in the staff report nor
addressed in the existing EIR, making both reports inadequate and too subjective in
nature. A third development at Tram Way Road and N. Palm Canyon Dr., that is owned
by the same developer as the Crescendo development is also not mentioned.
Environmental Assessment
The staff report is clearly misleading in the fact that an Environmental Impact Report and
the supporting documents prepared over 10 years ago is still valid for such a
development. The staff report uses cut and paste language stating that the project has not
changed and therefore there are no significant impacts. This letter highlights a few of the
changes to the project site, the surrounding area, federal, state and local laws, etc. that
would make the EIR inadequate. The staff report generally claims no significant impacts
but any analysis, much less a scientifically based analysis to support such claims, is
woefully absent. The developer has also failed to provide such evidence.
In closing, we ask that you deny approval of these projects. In particular, the Crescendo
project should be denied due to the lack of empirical evidence provided in the record to
support the claims being made and the fact that there have been changes to the site since
its initial approval. In both cases, there have been substantial social, environmental and
regulatory changes that are not documented or analyzed and approving an extension
would be unfounded and without basis or merit of the evidence.
Cordially,
Dennis Woods, Little Tuscany Neighborhood Co-Chair
Tim O'Bayley, Little Tuscany Neighborhood Co-Chair
Robert Doren, Little Tuscany Neighborhood, Treasurer
Tony Hoetker, Little Tuscany Neighborhood Board Member
CC: Little Tuscany Neighborhood Board
Little Tuscany Neighborhood Improvement Committee
Posted in NextDoor for Little Tuscany
Kathie Hart
From: Flinn Fagg
Sent: Tuesday,September 20, 2016 5:48 PM
To: Jay Thompson; Kathie Hart
Subject: FW: Crescendo Project extension PPD294-Item 2B
Additional correspondence for Item 2B
From: Bradley Kain [mailtoainyhooep(wahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 12:38 PM
To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors; JR Roberts; David Ready; Douglas C. Holland; Flinn Fagg; Marcus
Fuller
Cc: Dennis Woods; Robert Rotman; Andy Hirsch; Maurice Wilson; Maureen &James Lenny; David Dry; Tim O'Bayley;
Tony Hoetker; Robert(Bob) Doren; Scott Bridgeman
Subject: Crescendo Project extension PPD294
Palm Springs City Council
I would like to add my support of the Planning Commission's denial of the Crescendo Project
extension PPD294 for an additional 3 months. There are several reasons to deny the 5th extension
for this project. I'd like to highlight my major concern, the final map itself. In the letter from Michael
Braun of the Wessman Development Company to Flinn Fagg re: PD for Crescendo dated August 11,
2016 Mr Braun states in the 6th paragraph, "the developer made concessions to the neighborhood
including a commitment there would be no mass grading."
The final map as designed is the definition of mass grading. The plan calls for 5 large retaining walls
running across the site south to north and then stair-stepping the site into flat building sites. This is
mass grading of the hillside. The Final EIR Boulder Crescendo May 14th, 2007 had alternative site
maps for Crescendo that did not require retaining walls and stair-stepping the site. Please review
Figure 5.2.6 on page 149 and the discussion for this site map regarding reduced grading between
lots.
My concern with the mass grading is what it does to the beautiful natural terrain. Crescendo's final
map will mean excessive excavation and moving of dirt and racks to flatten the building sites resulting
in sand and dust covering our neighborhood. We've lived through a couple of years of Desert
Palisades construction and they are only putting in roads but leaving the natural terrain of our
beautiful alluvial fan.
Thanks,
Bradley Kain
TinVHopeP(n)yahoo.com
305-807-1510
���ov�a� rcekartul�
p�,71. ao�b
Jay Thompson
From: Tim O'Bayley <tim@obayley.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 9:15 AM
To: JR Roberts; Ginny Foat; Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Geoff Kors
Cc: Ginny Foat;J.R. Roberts;Jay Thompson; Flinn Fagg
Subject: Comments on item 2B on the September 21, 2016 City Council Agenda
Regarding:
2.B. APPEAL BY WESSMAN HOLDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY AN
EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT
(PDD 294), A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP
(TTM 31766), AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 79
HOMES LOCATED AT W. RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE, (CASE
5.0996/PDD 294/TTM 31766)
Greetings, Mayor Moon and members of the Council.
I am writing to encourage you to please uphold the Planning Commission's denial of the developers request for an
extension on PDD 294, the Crescendo project.
As Co-Chair of the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, you will receive an official letter from our organization
outlining our objections to the developers request for an extension, but in brief:
The project was approved 10 years ago and it was not until May of 2016 that the developer submitted
necessary information to process the project. The staff report clearly outlines that the Planning
Commission denied the extension based upon the fact that little progress was made in the last
ten years to advance the project. We concur with the Planning Commission and staff report that 10
years is too long without action and that circumstances and attitudes have changed making
this development obsolete and out of compliance with current laws, practices and standards to even
consider an extension.
Apparently the developer's latest request is for an extension of the PDD but removing the architectural styles, etc.,
resulting in an incomplete PDD but allowing the sub-standard lot sizes in the Tentative Tract Map. This is
nonsense. Substantial re-working of the TTM will be necessary in order to achieve a more appropriate project that
would be consistent with the more natural grading of the Desert Palisades project, which I prefer.
Our official letter bearing my signature explains our position in great detail, but aside from that, and as an individual
resident of our beautiful city, I wanted to go on the record with my personal support of the Planning Commission's
denial.
As always, I am happy to assist you, the developer, and city staff in any way I can to help achieve the best possible
project for this site.
Cheers,
Tim O'Bayley
C.E.O. & Creative Director
O'Bayley Communications
obavlev.net
t
Kathie Hart
From: Flinn Fagg
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:49 PM
To: Jay Thompson; Kathie Hart
Subject: FW:Crescendo Project Extension PPD294-2B
Additional correspondence
From: Jpatricklennv@aol.com [mailto:JpatricklennvCcbaol.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:07 PM
To: Robert Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors; JR Roberts; David Ready; Douglas C. Holland; Flinn Fagg; Marcus
Fuller
Cc: den nis.l.woods(&gmail.com; tim(ftbayley.net; tinvhooea@aol.com; robertrotmanCdgmail.com;
and rewcharleshirsch@gmail.com; mor48art@aol.com; devdry(c@roadrunner.com; bdorenCu)dc.rr.com;
swans32&earthlink.net
Subject: Crescendo Project Extension PPD294
To: Palm Springs City Council
I am herewith in support of the Planning Commission's denial of granting the Crescendo Project an extension for an
additional three months.
As detailed in the letters from the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization, the arguments against an extension of
PDD294 are compelling evidence that the denial of the extension by the Planning Commission should be upheld by the
City Council. To do otherwise, would demonstrate a total lack of integrity on the part of the Council.
Respectfully,
James P. Lenny
1
Cindy Berardi
From: Stephen Kula <steve_kula@att.net>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:29 PM
To: Geoff Kors; Robert Moon; ginnyf@mizell.org; Chris Mills;JR Roberts
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: City Council Agenda Item 2B - 21 September 2016
Attachments: 2016 09 21 Ltr on Crescendo to City Council -final.docx
Members of the Palm Springs City Council,
In reference to City Council agenda item 2B on 21 September 2016,we would like to state our concurrence with the
attached letter previously sent to the Council and City Clerk by the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Association in support
of upholding the Planning Commission decision to deny additional time extensions to Wessman Holdings for the
Crescendo Planned Development District (PDD 294).
Cordially,
Stephen Kula
Brian Sharpe
2390 Janis Dr. Palm Springs, CA 92262
T 4em 0 6
Cindy Berardi
From: Barb and Jeff Kaplan <barb_kaplan@hotmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:30 PM
To: Robert Moon; Geoff Kors; ginnyf@mizell.org; Chris Mills;JR Roberts
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Little Tuscany Letter
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
We've read the letters sent by the board of the Little Tuscany Association addressing the numerous issues potentially
impacting our neighborhood by the proposed Cresendo development and since we're unable to attend the meeting
tomorrow we'd just like to voice our agreement that the Cresendo project must be denied and that the use of 9-10 year
old EIR's is absurd.
Please help protect our environment and our fragile infrastructure.
Thanks for all that you do!
Best,
Barb and Jeff Kaplan
2490 N. Cardillo Ave.
Palm Springs,CA 92262
Sent from my iPad
Cindy Berardi
From: Dennis Woods <dennis.l.woods@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 5:30 PM
To: Robert Moon; Ginny FOat;1.R. Roberts; Chris Mills; Geoff Kors; CityClerk
Subject: Fwd: Crescendo comments
Dear Mayor, Council Members and City Clerk,
A resident asked me to forward the following to this to you.
Dear Mr. Mayor and City Council Members,
We've read the letters sent by the board of the Little Tuscany Association addressing the numerous issues
potentially impacting our neighborhood by the proposed Cresendo development and since we're unable to
attend the meeting tomorrow we'd just like to voice our agreement that the Cresendo project must be denied and
that the use of 9-10 year old EIR's is absurd.
Please help protect our environment and our fragile infrastructure.
Thanks for all that you do!
Best,
Barb and Jeff Kaplan
2490 N. Cardillo Ave.
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Sent from Outlook
r L-kN^
gl>1/1 L
Cindy Berardi
From: James Krohn <jfkrohn@mac.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 4:30 PM
To: Geoff Kors; Robert Moon, ginnyf@mizell.org, Chris Mills,JR Roberts
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: City Council agenda item 2B (Crescendo Development), September 21, 2016
City Council Members,
I'm writing this letter in full support of the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization's comment letter on
items 2B (Crescendo Development) that is on Wednesday night's meeting agenda. Please take the time to read
it and consider carefully the implications of overtuming this Planning Committee decision.
Sincerely,
James Krohn
2798 N. Girasol Ave.
Palm Springs, CA 92262
312-841-8272
Jay Thompson
From: Ginny Foat
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 11:25 AM
To: 'ginnyf@mizell.org';Jay Thompson
Subject: FW: Crescendo
From: Kathleen Weremiuk (mailto:kathy.weremiuk(o)icloud.com]
Sent: Tuesday, September 20, 2016 3:23 PM
To: Geoff Kors; Ginny.Foat@palmsprings-ca.gov; 3 R Roberts; Rob Moon; Chris Mills; Ginny Foat; Robert Moon; 3R
Roberts
Cc: Flinn Fagg
Subject: Crescendo
Dear Members of the Palm Springs City Council,
I want to share with you a picture that I personally took of big horn sheep (at least 30 of them) on the South side
of the Tram Road just above Desert Palisades at about 9:58 AM on September 2, 2016. I posted this picture on
Palm Springs Neighborhood Group the same day and also recorded the sighting with the Big Horn Sheep
Institute.
Since then, there have been several other reported sightings of Big Horn Sheep in the area near Crescendo on
Facebook. On September 18, Mike Scebbi posted a video of a similar herd seen in the Chino Cone area(you
can find this by going to Palm Springs Neighborhood Group and clicking on pictures, and then videos). Today
Jim Long posted a similar video of a sighting in Little Tuscany Estates dated September 17 also on Palm
Springs Neighborhood Group.
This is new information. The planning commission received no testimony about big horn sheep sightings when
we deliberated on August 10, 2016.
Our denial was based solely on 1) a determination that the project was approved almost 10 years ago, and that
the developer had made little progress in the intervening years to advance the project, and 2) the fact that the
Planned Development District itself was stale, and that we would not approve a similar project today (i.e. tract
housing in a gated and walled community with five levels of retaining walls).
Respectfully,
Kathy Weremiuk
t
•'p�� art• �z ��� �`' 7 � "�,�� (' •1! .� !. f
.ram - �ir� � -~ / -��f f '� •
d / 1
��.. 4�• �� Y :�,s] r T/ _•• %�j! J'''•1 N � .:.��4 f/,1�/�ti ' � i.0�."���i :' .
'iti 7A �� f-.'.- .l+2rk /';`.?✓,1 f. �. r ♦ I 4 +> .ir ',.
Cindy Berardi
From: Larry Bramoweth <cjbram@dc.rr.com>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 10:20 AM
To: Geoff Kors; Robert Moon; ginnyf@mizell.org; Chris Mills; 1R Roberts; CityClerk
Subject: Crescendo Development letter from Little Tuscany Sept. 20, 2016
Dear members of the Palm Springs City Council, My wife and I support the letter sent to you on Sept. 20, 2016 about the
Crescendo development. I believe it is item 2B on the agenda for tonight's council meeting (9/21/16). This
development needs to be re-visited and seriously reviewed instead of just given a rubber-stamp approval and extension.
I'm not saying development shouldn't happen, it just needs to be vetted with current eyes. Our house is located on
Racquet Club Rd., we will be directly affected by dust, noise, and the general disruption caused by this kind of
development. Again, I'm not against it per se, but it really does need to be reviewed carefully.
Thank you,
Larry and Connie Bramoweth
911 W. Racquet Club Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262
760-416-2644
1
Cindy Berardi
From: Lance Thompson <Idthompson@sanctuarypalmsprings.org>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 10:21 AM
To: geoffkorscitycouncil@gmail.com; Robert Moon; Ginny Foat; Chris Mills;JR Roberts
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Crescendo Development
I am writing in support of the Little Tuscany Neighborhood Organization as it pertains to the Crescendo
Development. I live in the neighborhood.
In my opinion, if it were possible, all further development in the alluvial fan should cease altogether. It is a
geological wonder and a fragile ecosystem.
Sincerely,
LD Thompson
David Rothmiller
t
n
PAL..,M SPRINGS
where different is normal
t
Kathie Hart
From: Flinn Fagg
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 1:19 PM
To: Jay Thompson; Kathie Hart
Subject: FW: Crescendo Project Extension For PPD 294/Agenda Item 26
For yellow folders tonight
From: MOR48art(a)aol.com [mailto:MOR48art(nlaol.com]
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 1:10 PM
To: Flinn Fagg
Cc: safetvmotives(alaol.com
Subject: Fwd: Crescendo Project Extension For PPD 294/ Agenda Item 213
Flinn,
FYI.
Maurice Wilson
.......... . ...,.. ,
From: MOR48art(a)aol.com
To: robert.moonCcDpalmsprings-ca.gov, chris.mills(@palmsprings-ca.goy, ginny.foat(o)palmsprings-ca.gov,
geoff.kors(o)palmsprings-ca.gov, lcroberts(d.)palmsprings-ca.gov, davd.ready(cD pal msprings-ca.gov,
douglas.holland(cDpalmsprings-ca.gov, flin.fagg(@palmsprings-ca.gov, marcus.fullerC6palmsprings-ca.gov
CC: Dennis.L.Woods(a)gmail.com, timCo)obayley.net, TinyHopeP(o).aol.com, robertrotmanogmail.com,
andrewcharleshirsch(c).gmail.com, dedry(a)roadrunner.com, bdoren(6dc.rccom, swans32(cDeartlink.net,
dannsmith(d_)mail2SanFrancisco.com
Sent: 9/21/2016 1:02:56 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time
Subj: Crescendo Project Extension For PPD 294/Agenda Item 26
To: Palm Springs City Council
I am writing to support the Planning Commission's denial for the requested
Crescendo Project Extension of PDD 294 for a one year period.
Also, I do not support the approval of a limited extension for a period of three
months for PDD 294.
The Crescendo Project has been in the developmental pipe line for far too long. It
is time to open up a new community dialogue with a focus on meeting current day
environmental standards. In determining the impact on the existing community,
Wessman Development's documentation only included the cumulative impact of
both the Boulders and Crescendo Developments. There has been no expressed
concern or consideration offered to the existing community supporting current day
impact reality. The Tuscany Heights and Desert Palisades Developments must be
included to honestly assess the future impact of heavily increased traffic volume on
West Racquet Club Road. A glaring concern is the potential hazard of pulling onto
WRCR from a side street that offers no view of the roadway until pulling out into the
downhill lane of travel. Janis Drive and Palermo Drive will provide direct connection
t
to the Boulders Development from WRCR. While it is not anticipated that these
roadways will be challenged to handle the increased capacity, there is a concern
where blind intersections pose serious risk for potential collisions.
The future evolvement of our community is important. The inclusion of our input
and expressed concerns can assist in very productive ways. Please help us to turn
the present non-inclusive impasse into one where all parties benefit.
Cordially,
Maurice Wilson
MOR48art(o)aol.com
z
Cindy Berardi
From: David <d.dunnarch@snet.net>
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 3:08 PM
To: CityClerk
Subject: Crescendo Housing Complex
Please pass this letter on to the members of the city council . Thank you!
Dear Members of the City Council,
I would like to address the council and urge them to deny the request by Wessman to overturn the planning
commissions'denial of PDD 294 and tract map for Crescendo housing complex.
1.Crescendo is on Tram Way and recently herds of big horn sheep have been seen and documented in that area (photos
and video have been posted on the palm springs facebook page.
2. The EIR for the project is 10 years old and the herds of sheep have changed since that time. In addition,when the EIR
was done we were not in a drought.
3.The settlement is over 8 years old and authorized nothing that can't be denied today. The settlement expires in 2012.
4.The tract is a suburban housing tract...this would never be approved today. We don't want tract housing in Palm
Springs...this is what we all left!
Thank you,
David Dunn
1980 S Camino Real#6
Palm Springs, Ca. 92264
Sent from my iPhone
t � �c►vt a` 6'
Cindy Berardi
From: Joanne Bruggemans
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 4:27 PM
To: Cindy Berardi
Subject: FW: "THE DAILY SERF REPORT'
From: david
Sent: Wednesday, September 21, 2016 3:42:40 PM (UTC-08:00) Pacific Time (US &Canada)
To: Robert Moon; Ginny Foat; Geoff Kors; David Ready; Chris Mills; JR Roberts; Marcus Fuller; Jay Thompson; Cindy
Cairns; Dale Cook; Michele Mician; Terri Hintz; skip.descant(aldesertsun.com; Jasmine Waits; karen.devine(ftesq.com;
rich.tarpeninq@kesq.com; Los Compadres Info; Tabitha Richards; David Fraunfelder; Lisa Middleton;
canyoncorridor@dc.a.com; Psmodcom Info; pswarmsands(&vahoo.com; Kathleen Weremiuk; contact*inglesideinn.com;
Library Info; twinpalmsps(&icloud.com; nwatson(olpschamber.org; Yes Include Me; rclaoo75(d ahooxom;
frankitysen(algmail.com; Geno Sexton; Michael Hirschbein; nick0)nickhalerealtv.com; Desert Stonewall Info;
imcsweeney@)dc.rr.com; rckbrq@me.com; shemaitis@me.com; talktous(oakimptonaroup.com; Tim Erkins;
twin pa lms(&icloud.com; Barrett Newkirk; billfeingoldshow(dthegartlandgroup.com; cewing(adwa.ora;
angelasawyer(&palmsptinos-ca.gov; David Newell; davidvogelCa i)almspringsca.com; dhollandOwss-law.com;
fiinn.fagg@palmsonngsca.gov; kdahl@visitpalms.com; les@rrbroadcasting.com; Mary Jensen; Nick Tancredi; Palmsprings
Info; rceorgOgail.com; tammv@canyoncommercialservices.com; Treno -Alfred Gull; iackbroadv@rrbroadcasting.com;
iwhite(&kesq.com; Jim King; Mizell Info; Kia Farhang; twinpalmsps(aocloud.com; kwalker@visitpalms.com; Robert Imber;
Jesse Marx; Ken Lyon; Anna Nevenic; Desertaidsproject Info; Pschamber Info; pshistoricalsociety(agmail.com;
casacodyOaol.com; dprell(agmailxom; Psfilmfest Info; psmesa gmail.com; Pspreservationfoundation Info; Pspflag Info;
terrymur)hy@windermere.com; desertdemocrats(amindspring.cwm; Amy Blaisdell; chicagoinfo@virainhotels.com;
Douglas C. Holland; harold.matmer(apsfilmfest.org; Cathy Van Horn; Diana Shay; Jennifer Nelson; bsmith(a)kesq.com;
bill(olknewsradio.com; arenhovanessianO) ahoo.com; Erbil Gunasti; rosalie.urphy(ddesertsun.com; Vicki L. Oltean; David
Newell; Geoffrey Kiehl; George Farago; Savat Khamphou; Mike Kovaleff; Thomas Nolan; ervenops@gmail.com; Lcno Info
Subject: 'THE DAILY SERF REPORT
What right and expertise do planing commissioners have to determine where is safe and
where isn't in Palm Springs! !!
And who can have gates and who can't! I would think that is more a police issue than
something middleton should be deciding! Just go and sit at the Jack in the Box for an
hour and them tell me they don't need gates! Every planning commissioner who lives in
a gated community please raise you hand!
Also, wessman stole that development up at Tram Way!
People in City Hall have very short memories!
Go back and read the City Attorney's opinion! He said it was illegal! Which was
disregarded by the "COUNCIL OF SHAME!"
But upheld by a higher court!
Anyone who votes for anything wessman is an enemy of the "real residents" of Palm
Springs. What few "real residents" are left after "vacation rentals" made their once
peaceful neighborhoods unlivable!
Get off your bar stool at "happy hour" on Arenas and go and voice your opinion at city
council!
You will be "snickerd" at and demeaned" by the council members. especially foat and
mills, BUT you won't have a hang over tomorrow morning! AND JUST MAYBE YOU WILL
MAKE A DIFFERENCE!!
i
Judy Deertrack RECEIVED
1333 South Belardo Road, Apt 510 CITY OF PALM SPRING`.,
Palm Springs, CA 92264 2119 SEP 21 PM 5: 44
Wednesday, September 21, 2016
JAMES THUMIt1S1'
CITY CLERK
ADDENDUM TO PREVIOUS COMMENT LETTER
To the City Council
Palm Springs, California
2.B. APPEAL BY WESSMAN HOLDINGS OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF
TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 294), A PREVIOUSLY
APPROVED PROJECT CONSISTING OF A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 31766), AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT 294 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 79 HOMES LOCATED AT W. RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA
GRANDE AVENUE, (CASE 5.0996/PDD 294/TTM 31766):
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Open the public hearing and receive public testimony; 2) Adopt Resolution No. , "A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, UPHOLDING THE
PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 79 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
HOMES ON A 42.2-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED AT WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE
(CASE 5.0996-PDD 294);
"Or— Alternatively: 3) Adopt Resolution No. _, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, OVERTURNING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S ACTION TO DENY AN EXTENSION OF
TIME REQUEST FOR THE CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 294, AND GRANTING A LIMITED
EXTENSION OF TIME FOR A PERIOD OF THREE MONTHS TO ALLOW THE APPELLANT TIME TO SUBMIT AN
AMENDED CRESCENDO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD 294) FOR THE 42.2-ACRE PARCEL LOCATED
AT WEST RACQUET CLUB ROAD AND VISTA GRANDE AVENUE (CASE 5.0996-PDD 294)."
To the Honorable City Council:
would like to add an Addendum to my letter of September 20, 2016, on this issue. Since then, I have been advised that
Mr. Wessman may not have completed his requirements under Conditions of Approval #11 and #12. If that is the case,
then he must rely upon a further extension of time. I refer to the express intent of Ordinance 94.03.00 that sets strict time
limits of two years for a Final Development Plan to follow the approval of a Preliminary Plan. The Ordinance indicates that
the approval is null and void UNLESS the Developer has established GOOD CAUSE for an extension. This has been ten
years, if Mr. Wessman has to extend one more time, and his justification letters do not establish grounds for good cause,
which would be akin to an Act of God, Labor Dispute, major economic downturn affecting the entire market adversely,
unforeseen or non-preventable circumstances.
Along with this, the City has not established proper grounds for the use of the Planned Development District. There is
nothing on the record to indicate that by following all applicable Development Standards, the Developer is in anyway
prevented or prohibited from building a good project in compliance. In this case, the Development Area is surrounded by
lands classified as environmentally-sensitive, one residential unit per fort 40 acres. The finding CANNOT be made that
Y p Y ( ) 9
using a PDD to lower the lot size and setbacks is a planning act that "furthers the policies and objectives of the general
plan and does not obstruct them,"the planning standard for general plan consistency.
To the contrary, this project would frustrate those goals, because it directly abuts ES-SPA zones, and should act as a
transition zone with lower density development. Densifying the lots by waiving lot setbacks, increasing height, and
lowering the lot size standards has the opposite effect.
The City Council should not consider any extension of time after ten years with a project that will obstruct the intent of the
General Plan. Planning Actions, including extensions of time, that frustrate those ends, are void actions.
With regard, Judy Deertrack