HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/15/2015 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.C. EVALM$A
c
V N
** �OIIOYiifO ip� i
C4�IFOR�`P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 15, 2015 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: 0 & M HR, LLC (NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORP.) APPEALING THE
MARCH 25, 2015, DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO
DENY DEMOLITION OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING
AREA TO CONSTRUCT "ABERDEEN"; A MIXED-USE PROJECT
CONSISTING OF (74) ATTACHED AND DETACHED RESIDENTIAL
DWELLINGS, (17) LIVE-WORK UNITS AND APPROXIMATELY 1,568-
SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ON 8.05-ACRES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CALLE EL
SEGUNDO, ZONE REO AND CU (CASE NOS. 5.1361 PD-375, CUP,
3.3820 MAJ AND TTM 36876) AND CONSIDER A CEQA
DETERMINATION.
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY
The appellant, Nexus Development Corp., is requesting the City Council overturn the
Planning Commission's decision of March 25, 2015, denying a mixed—use project
identified as Aberdeen.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Option A: Uphold the Appeal and
Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING AN APPEAL BY
NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND OVERTURNING THE DENIAL
DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION REGARDING THREE
APPLICATIONS (CASE NOS. 5.1361 PD-375, CUP 3.3820 MAJ AND TTM
36876) AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ABERDEEN; A
MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF THE DEVLEOPMENT OF (73)
ATTACHED AND DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, (13)
LIVE/WORK UNITS, AND RE-USE OF AN EXISTING 7,811-SQUARE FOOT
City Council Staff Report
April 15, 2015—Page 2
5A 361 -PD375,CUP, 3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH PRIVATE STREETS AND OPEN SPACE
ON ROUGHLY 8.05-ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CALLE EL SEGUNDO."
Waive reading and introduce by title only for first reading Ordinance No. ,
"AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 375 IN
LIEU OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FOR A ROUGHLY 8.05-ACRE PARCEL AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND
CALLE EL SEGUNDO.
3. Option B: Deny the Appeal and Instruct the City Attorney to prepare a
resolution of denial for submission to the City Council for consideration and
adoption on May 6, 2015.
BACKGROUND AND SETTING:
The project is an application by Nexus Development Corp on behalf of O & M HR, LLC,
for the development of a mixed-use project consisting of attached and detached
residential, live/work units and commercial space on an 8.05-acre site located at the
northwest corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Calle El Segundo. The project initially
included razing all existing buildings along Tahquitz Canyon Way; however, based on
direction from the Planning Commission at the February 25, 2015 meeting, the applicant
revised the project to retain one of the four existing buildings, thereby reducing the
scope of the proposed development. The revised applications include the following:
• A Planned Development District to establish the project site plan, permitted uses
and development standards. The PD proposes razing the existing parking lot
and three existing office buildings and construct:
0 7,811-square feet of existing commercial space at the southwest corner of
the site (initial submittal included 1,568-square feet of new commercial
space);
0 13 detached dwellings with associated commercial space (live/work lofts)
fronting Tahquitz Canyon Way (initial submittal included 17 live/work lofts);
0 73 attached and detached residential units within a controlled access /
gated area with private open space (initial application included 74
dwellings);
o A common open space / recreation area with pool, fitness center and
barbecue area.
• A Conditional Use permit to construct high-rise development within Section 14
and allow multi-family residential within the RA and REO land designations of the
Section 14 Specific Plan.
• Major Architectural Application to review the proposed architectural designs.
Plans including Preliminary and Final Development Plans.
• A Tentative Tract Map (TTM) seeking to subdivide the roughly 8.05-acres into 93
numbered lots and 8 lettered lot streets, and common open space.
002
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015—Page 3
5.1361 -PD375,CUP, 3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
TABLE 1: Related Relevant City Actions by Planning, Fire, Building, etc...
Jan 12, 2015 The Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC) tabled the project with
direction to the applicant to modify the following:
1. Architecture along Tahquitz is too monotonous, lacks interest
and out of scale and context;
2. Parking needs further evaluation for commercial and live-work;
3. Circulation — Increase pedestrian amenities (i.e. landscaping,
wider sidewalk, etc.) along extension of Calle Alvarado;
4. Connectivity — Eliminate gates and improve connectivity of
project within existing community;
5. Adaptive re-use of existing commercial buildings should be
considered in redesign.
Jan 26, 2015 The AAC recommended denial as proposed. The Committee found
that the project does not conform to adopted standards, and
recommended the following modifications:
1. Study alternatives along Tahquitz Canyon Way;
2. Provide streetscape along El Segundo;
3. Address Calle Alvarado traffic, parking and circulation issues;
4. Resubmit planting diagrams.
Feb 25, 2015 The Planning Commission reviewed the project and directed the
applicant to work with staff on addressing the following:
1. Justify the proposed density and height.
2. Increase distance between buildings by at least 10 feet.
3. Create a two-way street with the new segment of Alvarado.
4. Concern with viability of live/work units in current configuration.
5. Public benefit not proportional — consider preserving existing
structures
6. Pre-wire or install solar panels as a part of project.
7. Consider live/work units on side streets
Mar 25, 2015 The Planning Commission reviewed the revised project and voted
4-3 to deny the proposal. (Further information on this action is
provided later in this report.)
Mar 31, 2015 The applicant filed an appeal of the March 25, 2015 Planning
Commission decision.
TABLE 2: General Plan, Zoning and Land Uses of Site & Surrounding Areas
Existing General Plan Existing Zoning Existing Land Use
Desi nations Designation
Site TRC (Tourist Resort RA (Resort Attraction) Office Buildings and
Commercial) and REO (Retail / "Prairie Schooner"
Entertainment/ Office) Parking Lot
North HDR Hi h Density HR Residential High) Multi-family Residential
003
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 4
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
Residential Condominiums
Plaza Villas
South TRC REO Commercial Complex
(Courtyard at PS
East TRC RA Resort Hotel
Renaissance
West TRC RA Resort Hotel Hilton
K i
y
i -
•
_ 4r
• 2jvjLG=
SUBJECT SITE
PROJECT ANALYSIS:
TABLE 3: General Plan
Genwall Ptan T F��,.1". terns
qua t
{
Land Use: Tourist 0.35 FAR / 43 hotel rooms 11.3 du/ac Yes
Resort Commercial per acre / 86 hotel rooms 0.35 FAR for
per acre on Indian Land / commercial
30 d.u. per acre building
004
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 5
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3,3820 MIN&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
Gated Communities CD14.6: Prohibited Gated requested No
Pedestrian-oriented CD19.7 Sidewalks, shade No sidewalks Partially
Design trees, sitting areas along residential
street
Minimum 28 foot Page 4-5 Circulation 26 feet No
street width in private Element
developments
TABLE 4: Zoning
Permitted Uses:
Single-family residential units are not permitted in REO (Retail/Entertainment/Office) and RA (Resort
Attraction) Section 14 Land Use designations. MFR is permitted by Conditional Use Permit (CUP) in both
designations. The proposed small-lot residential use is similar to multi-family residential (MFR) due to a majority
of units being attached and density.
Retail including coffee shops, deli, etc. is permitted within the RA Land Use of the Section 14 Specific Plan.
Live/work units are permitted by Land Use Permit and CUP in the REO and RA zones, respectively.
The PDD has been submitted in lieu of a change of zone to seek City approval of all uses as a consolidated
project per the Section 14 Specific Plan.
Development Standards:
The project includes three land uses within the PD. When multi-family residential is proposed within the REO or
RA zones, the Specific Plan requires development consistent with the HR land designation. The live-work and
commercial space are located within the REO land designation. Thus, staff analyzed the HR designation
development standards for the multi-family residential portion, and the REO designation development standards
for the live-work and commercial components.
Since this proposal exceeds five acres in size, the development is a Consolidated Project and can utilize
incentives including zoning flexibilities. Where applicable, staff has included in the analysis below.
Multi-family Residential
HR Requirements I R-4 Pro sea Project Conform
Lot Standards
Min. Area Overall of MFR project: 2 gross acres/ Overall project: 8.05 gross acres/ Yes
130' wide/ 155' deep 675' wide/561' deep
Min. Width Individual Lots:
Min. Depth Area ranges from 2,563-4,813sf No, per
Width ranges from 21ft to 30ft PD
Depth ranges from 107ft to 111ft
Building 35ft, except when developed as high- Range from 33 feet to 45 feet No, per
005
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015—Page 6
5.1361 -PD375,CUP, 3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
Height rise allowing up to 100ft in the RA and - Habitable spaces are 2-3 stories PD
REO zones, upon approval of CUP or and roughly 25-34 feet in height.
PD, pursuant to Section 94.03.00 of - Roof deck appurtenances are
Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance above the habitable space and
(PSZO). about 45 feet in height.
Density 1,500 s . ft. of lot area per unit 11 du/ac or 3,985 s . ft. per unit Yes
Yard Setbacks
Overall Site
- Front 30 ft. front yard - 24ft from north (front) property line No, per
- Side 20 ft. side yard - 15ft from west (side) property line PD
- Side 20 ft. side yard -43ft from east side property line Yes
- Rear 20 ft. rear yard - 311 from south (rear) property line No, per
PD
Individual Setback requirements may be reduced Front/Driveways: 18 feet from Yes
Lots for residential development if it can be private street to face of garage
demonstrated through the CUP Side: 6ft between residences (Avg.
process that the reductions are 3ft to common side P/L)
necessary or desirable, and are not Oft at one side of homes.
detrimental to neighboring uses Rear: 27 to 40ft
(existing andpermitted)
Lot Coverage 45% usable landscaped open space Usable open space: 48% Yes
Off-street Per PSZC 93.06: In PDDs: 3 bdrm 2 covered spaces are provided with Yes
Parking units require 2.25 spaces or 167 each of the 74 units (148 spaces) +
spaces for the units, plus guest 2 spaces in front of garage on
parking 1 space for every 4 units, or driveways (148 spaces); total 296
19 spaces; total 186 spaces required spaces
Trash Required per PSZC 93.07.02 Individual trash receptacles provided Yes
Enclosure for each dwelling
Live/Work and Commercial
REO Requirements Proposed Project Conform
FAR 3.0 Maximum Floor Area Ratio 1.26 FAR Yes
Building 35ft, except high-rise up to 100ft upon 46ft and tin Yes
Height approval of PD
Open Space 40% minimum landscape area for high- -48% Yes
rise buildings
Compatibility The rear and side walls of buildings Buildings include four-sided Yes
w/Surrounding which are visible from adjacent lots or architecture
Development streets shall be treated with an
equivalent design quality as the front
wall.
Building Buildings should be as close as Live/work units have workspace 1 Yes
Location possible to the required front setback retail adjacent to front setback
006
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 7
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
Pedestrian Direct pedestrian access shall be Pedestrian access to workspace/ Yes
Access provided from buildings to the retail is provided to each work unit
sidewalks on Tah uitz Canyon Way
Front Setback 20 feet 6.75 feet No, per
PDD
Side Yard 20 feet 12 feet on Calle Alvarado No, per
Setback Existing on Calle El Segundo PDD
Rear Yard 20 feet 18 feet from property line to garage No, per
Setback PDD
Setbacks for High-rise buildings within Section 14 Buildings are setback over 100 feet Yes
High-Rise are exempt from the setback from residential property to the
Buildings requirements identified in 93.04.00 of north
the PSZO; however, high-rise buildings
shall have a minimum setback of one
(1)foot of horizontal setback distance
from any residential district for each
one (1)foot of vertical rise of the
building. Additional site-specific
setbacks may be imposed through the
CUP process based on the relationship
of the high-rise building to its
surroundings,
Minimum Lot 2 gross acres 8 gross acres for overall project Yes
Area
Off-street Commercial: 1 space per 250 gross 35 parallel parking spaces on Yes
Parking floor area or 31 spaces for existing private driveway, including two
7,811-sq. ft. of commercial building and handicap spaces
23 spaces for 5,733-sq.ft. of workspace
for all live/work units. 2 covered spaces are provided with
Total Commercial = 54 spaces each of the 13 units (26 spaces) +
2 spaces in front of garage on
Live-work: No standard specified; driveways (26 spaces)
however, in PDDs 3 bdrm units require
2.25 spaces or 29 spaces for the units,
plus guest parking of 1 space for every Total provided: 87 spaces
4 units, or 3 spaces.
Total required: 86 spaces
Off-street 1 loading space required for size of None provided. (Planning No
Loading commercial building. Commission may approve
otherwise)
Flexible Zoning Standards: Since the project meets the definition of a Consolidated
Project, the Section 14 Specific Plan allows flexible zoning standards as a development
incentive. Consolidated project sites designated RA or REO may be developed under
either RA or REO land use designations. As noted in the table above, the proposed
007
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 8
5,1361 -PD375, CUP,3.3820 MIN&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
structures are two- and three-stories in habitable space with covered roof deck as
amenities, reaching heights of up to 45 feet and triggering the "high-rise buildings"
ordinance, Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Code. The project proponent is seeking
approval to allow the flexibility of the proposed height for the entire project site, which is
consistent with the REO / RA "Building Height' requirements.
Building Height I High-Rise Ordinance
93.04.00 High Rise Ordinance Proposed Project: PD 375 Comply
A. Coverage Per Section 14 Specific Plan: 40% 48% open space Yes
of site shall be developed as
usable landscape open space
outdoor living.
B. Height 100 feet. Additional 15 feet may be 45 feet Yes
allowed for stairways, elevators
and mechanical equipment if not
adding to building bulk
C. Height Setback Per Section 14 Specific Plan: 1 Only residential property is Yes
foot of horizontal setback distance located north of the site across
from any residential district for Andreas Road:
each 1 foot of vertical rise of the - Required: 45 feet
building. Additional site-specific - Proposed: 84 feet
setbacks may be imposed through
the CUP process based on the
relationship of the high-rise
building to its surroundings.
D. Proximity to Low 6 feet of horizontal setback for No R-1 within vicinity. Yes
Density Residential each 1 foot of vertical rise as
measured above.
F. Structure Design High-rise buildings shall be Structures are designed with four- Yes
designed to insure that each sided architecture.
structure fits into the resort
character of the community and
blends in with the natural
surroundings.
G. City Council Council may alter these provisions -
upon finding that the intent of this
section is met.
These structures are located along a corridor that contains hotels ranging from three- to
five-stories in height. The existing residential project to the north of the site contains
two-story condominiums. Therefore, the transition from two-story residential to the
north to the proposed three- and four-story development along Tahquitz Canyon Way is
consistent with nearby and surrounding developments.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on February 25 and March 25,
2015. After providing direction and comments on the project in February, the Planning
008
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 9
5.1361 -PD375,CUP, 3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
Commission voted 4-3 to deny the revised project in March. A summary of actions at
both meetings is provided below, as well as the applicant's response from the first
meeting. For further details on Commission discussion, see attached meeting minutes.
February 25, 2015 Meeting
1. Justify the proposed density and height.
2. Increase distance between buildings by at least 10 feet.
3. Create a two-way street with the new segment of Alvarado.
4. Concern with viability of live/work units in current configuration.
5. Public benefit not proportional — consider preserving existing structures
6. Pre-wire or install solar panels as a part of project.
7. Consider live/work units on side streets
March 25, 2015 Meeting
The applicant presented a revised site plan in response with the following:
1. Retained an existing building located at the southwesterly corner of the site.
2. Reduced the number of units from 74 to 73 residential units and from 17 to 13
live/work units.
3. Changed the parking configuration from parallel to perpendicular stalls along the
north side of the internal street behind the live/work units, thereby increasing off-
street parking from 17 to 35 spaces along this private street.
4. Increased building setback along Tahquitz Canyon Way. Buildings previously
alternated from 5 to 8 feet in setback and now alternate from 6.75 to 9.83 feet in
setback.
5. Eliminated meandering sidewalk and landscape areas along northerly boundary
of project site and proposed straight sidewalk with less landscaping. This was
done to accommodate additional internal space needed for parking area.
6. Created a two-way vehicular access on Calle Alvarado.
The Planning Commission made the following findings based on the project
revisions:
1. The project does not conform to the development standards of the Section 14
Specific Plan, including setbacks, building separation and height;
2. The project does not conform to the development standards of the City's High-
Rise Building regulations, and general concerns about building heights in excess
of 35 feet;
3. Scale of residential buildings with respect to separation and height;
4. Concerns regarding the design, parking, setbacks, and viability of the live/work
spaces on Tahquitz Canyon Way;
5. Inadequacy of the perimeter landscaping;
6. Failure to address concerns noted by the Planning Commission at the February
25, 2015 meeting, including but not limited to increased building separation,
increased street widths, and unencumbered pedestrian access; and
009
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015—Page 10
5.1361 -PD375,CUP, 3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
7. Further analysis needed on the historical value of existing Kaptur buildings, and
preference to retain two of the four existing buildings.
Applicant / Appellant. The applicant submitted an appeal requesting the City Council
overturn the Planning Commission's decision to deny the project (see attached letter).
The appellant contends the following points in response to the Commission's review of
the project:
1. Mixed comments regarding architecture and uses within the Project.
2. Comments provided by Commissioners on the February 25, 2015 meeting were
contradicted by themselves on March 25, 2015.
3. Commission comments lead to project changes that were not satisfactory and it
is difficult to determine what would further satisfy Commissioners.
REQUIRED FINDINGS:
The project was evaluated against the findings for the Resort Combining Zone pursuant
to PSZC 92.25.00, the Planned Development District in lieu of Change of Zone pursuant
to PSZC 94.03, 94.07 (Zone Change) and 94.02 (Conditional Use Permit) and the
Tentative Tract Map pursuant to Municipal Code Section 9.62 (Maps) as follows:
Resort Combining Zone Findings:
The "R" resort overlay zone is intended primarily to provide for accommodations and
services for tourists and visitors while guarding against the intrusion of competing land
uses.
The Resort Combining Zone runs along Palm Canyon Drive for nearly its entire length
through the City, as well as through the heart Section 14 along Tahquitz Canyon Way
from Amado Road to Arenas Road. The subject site lies within this overlay zone.
The zoning code notes that:
Uses shall be as provided in the underlying zone with which the `R" zone
is combined, except that:...All multiple-family dwellings (including, but not
limited to, apartments, group housing projects, boarding and lodging
houses, and condominiums) shall be permitted only by conditional use
permit (CUP).
The proposed development will have a Homeowners Association (HOA) that will
function much like a condominium association to maintain the common areas of the
development. As such the project is evaluated against the findings for a CUP herein'
and the resort combining finding as follows:
' Pursuant to PSZC 94.02.00.A.4 (CUP); the CUP may be incorporated into the PDD without the need for
a separate application. Thus the CUP findings of PSZC 94.02 and the Zone Change findings of PSZC
93.07 are both evaluated as integral parts of the PDD application.
010
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 11
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
Such permit is subject to the planning commission making findings that
the proposed use is compatible with its surroundings and that the site in
question is not appropriate for other uses allowed by right within the
underlying zone.
The mixed-use development proposes commercial and live/work units along a highly-
traveled commercial corridor (Tahquitz Canyon Way). Development along this corridor
primarily includes commercial-retail and hotel uses. The proposed use continues the
commercial theme with residential located behind the commercial / live/work units,
which is compatible with surrounding development. The mix of uses provides an
appropriate balance for the site. Staff believes the proposed project is consistent with
this finding.
Planned Development in lieu of Change of Zone:
The commission in recommending and the council in reviewing a proposed change of
zone, shall consider whether the following conditions exist in reference to the proposed
zoning of the subject property:
1. The proposed change of zone is in conformity with the general plan
map and report.
The proposed project is located in the Tourist Resort Commercial (TRC) (FAR of 0.35
and density of up to 30 units per acre) land use designation of the General Plan. The
mixed-use project proposes 11.8 residential dwelling units per acre and a FAR of 0.35,
which is consistent with the land use designation.
2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related
uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the commission and
council.
The proposed project is located in the REO and RA land designations of Section 14,
which describes these designations as follows:
Specialty Retail-Entertainment-Office (REO) - This designation allows for the
integration and concentration of large-scale specialty retail, restaurant,
entertainment and office development along portions of Tahquitz Canyon Way and
Indian Canyon Drive and emphasizes a pedestrian-transit focus.
Resort-Attraction (RA) - This designation allows for large-scale resort hotel
complexes, hotels, and major commercial recreation attractions integrated with
retail and entertainment facilities.
The PDD is proposed to change the split zoning to a single PD zone designation with its
own development standards. Specific Uses requested for approval for the PDD include
011
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015—Page 12
5.1361 -PD375,CUP, 3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
attached and detached residential townhomes, live/work units and freestanding retail-
commercial with outdoor dining. Additional uses consistent with the REO land
designation may be considered within the commercial space and workspace of the
live/work units, except residential dwelling is prohibited in structures along the street
front. The project conforms to this finding.
Vehicular access to the residential portion of project is provided from Andreas Road.
The live/work and commercial space is accessed from Calle El Segundo and the
extension of Calle Alvarado. The project proposes a mix residential, commercial and
live/work that is harmonious with adjacent uses in the vicinity. Thus, the project
conforms to this finding.
3. The proposed change of zone is necessary and proper at this time, and
is not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents.
The proposed PDD in lieu of zone change has been evaluated against the development
standards for the Section 14 land designations, the Resort Combining Zone and
architectural review. While the applicant is seeking setback deviations, the project is
harmonious with the existing surrounding development. It continues the pedestrian
experience along Tahquitz Canyon Way and introduces commercial uses along the
street frontage which is desirable. The project height is consistent with development
along the Tahquitz Canyon Way boulevard and is therefore not detrimental to adjacent
properties. The project conforms to this finding.
Conditional Use Permit/Planned Development District Findings:
In addition to the findings for the PDD in lieu of a change of zone (from PSZC Section
93.07), the PDD incorporates the findings of the CUP (PSZC 94.02.00) for residential
uses in the Resort Combining Zone as follows:
The commission shall not approve or recommend approval of a
conditional use permit unless it finds as follows:
a. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the application is
properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this
Zoning Code;
The mixed use project incorporates residential, live/work units and commercial space
with the proposed zoning, PD-375. The current Section 14 land designations, RA and
REO, allow for multi-family residential, live/work units and commercial developments.
The project proposes a PDD in lieu of a change or zone for the proposed uses and
seeking relief from certain setback development standards. With approval of the PDD,
the project is consistent with this finding.
b. That the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the
community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the
general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses
012
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 13
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be
located;
Development of the subject site with single family uses is desirable as a means of
bringing a variety of housing choices to the community. The project is consistent with
the General Plan Tourist Resort Commercial land use designation providing a mix of
uses, including tourist-related commercial space, live/work units and residential uses on
an 8.05-acre site. The proposed use continues the commercial theme with residential
located behind the commercial / live/work units, which is compatible with surrounding
development and not detrimental to existing or future uses in the zone. The project
therefore conforms to this finding.
c. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate such use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences,
landscaping and other features required in order to adjust such use to
those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood;
The project consists of a grouping of parcels to form the overall 8.05-acre site with
internal private streets, privately owned units and both private and common open
spaces. With the approval of the PDD, buildings will be setback from perimeter property
lines to accommodate the proposed uses for adjusting to those existing and future uses
of land in the neighborhood. Therefore, the project would be deemed in conformance
with this finding.
d. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways
properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to
be generated by the proposed use;
The project proposes to take vehicular access from surrounding streets, excluding
Tahquitz Canyon Way, which is consistent with the Section 14 Specific Plan. As
determined by the environmental assessment, Tahquitz Canyon Way, Calle El Segundo
and Andreas Road are improved with adequate road width to accommodate the type
and quantity of traffic expected by the proposed uses. Thus, the project conforms with
this finding.
e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site
plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare and may include minor modification of the zone's property
development standards.
A set of draft conditions of approval are proposed and attached to this staff report as
Exhibit "A".
Tentative Tract Map Findings:
Findings are required for the proposed subdivision pursuant to Section 66474 of the
Subdivision Map Act. These findings and a discussion of the project as it relates to
013
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 14
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3,3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
these findings follow:
a. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable
general and specific plans.
The TTM proposes individual privately owned lots with open space, common area and
private streets. The proposed density is within the range specified by the Tourist Resort
Commercial General Plan land use designation. Therefore, the project is consistent
with this finding.
b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map
are consistent with the zone in which the property is located.
The proposed project design and improvements are generally consistent with the RA /
REO land designations in which the property is located. The PDD in lieu of a zone
change proposes mixed uses with residential, live/work units and commercial space
with a set of development standards unique to this development with smaller lot area,
lot dimensions and setbacks. With the approval of the PDD in lieu of a change of zone,
the project will be consistent with this finding.
c. The site is physically suited for this type of development.
The relatively flat project site will be mostly razed and graded to accommodate the
proposed development. Site modifications include new private driveways to privately-
owned lots. Each lot is proposed to accommodate a residential, live/work unit or
commercial building as defined by the PDD. A total of 73 residences, 13 live/work units
and one commercial building are proposed on the 8.05-acre site. The site has
adequate vehicular access with primary access taken from Andreas Road and Calle El
Segundo and additional access way through an extension of Calle Alvarado. Thus, the
site is physically suited for this type of development.
d. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development.
The proposed density and FAR is less than that permitted by both the General Plan
Tourist Resort Commercial (TRC) and Section 14 REO and RA land use designations.
Therefore, the site is physically suited for the proposed density of development.
e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats.
The Tentative Tract Map and associated Planned Development District have been
reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, and a Mitigated Negative
Declaration is proposed. Mitigation measures have been included which will reduce
potential impacts to less than significant levels. The project will therefore not damage or
injure fish, wildlife or their habitats.
014
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 15
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to
cause serious public health problems.
The design of the proposed subdivision includes connections to all public utilities including
water and sewer systems. The layout of internal private streets provides access to each
lot. No serious public health problems are anticipated.
g. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the
property within the proposed subdivision.
There are no known public easements across the subject property; therefore the design of
the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through or use of the property.
Any utility easements can be accommodated within the project design.
CEQA ANALYSIS:
The proposed development is a project as defined by the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). An initial study was conducted which considered all required
CEQA issues, including but not limited to air quality, cultural resources, land use,
hydrology and traffic. Potential significant adverse impacts were identified along with
Mitigation Measure that would reduce the potential adverse impacts to less than
significant levels.
The City received a letter from architect and historian Alan Hess on February 19, 2015,
which was included with a letter dated March 30, 2015, directly commenting on the
Initial Study from the Office of Historic Preservation (OHP), Department of Parks and
Recreation. The Planning Commission also received a number of emails and letters
providing opinions and comments on the issue of whether the Tahquitz Plaza buildings
are historic resources. Comments relating to other sections of the Initial Study were also
received. The following summarizes the comments, and provides responses to these
comments for the City Council's information.
Historic Resource Comments
The OHP commented that the Tahquitz Plaza was "evaluated and identified as a
historical resource" in the City's currently ongoing City-wide historic resource survey.
The OHP further commented that on the basis of the survey's recommendation, the
Initial Study should consider the provisions of CEQA Guidelines 15064.5 as it relates to
the Tahquitz Plaza buildings. The content of the emails and letters received by the
Planning Commission also stated that the buildings are historic resources and should
be preserved.
The OHP comment that the Tahquitz Plaza was "evaluated and identified as a historical
resource, however, is incorrect. The historic resource survey (Draft Survey) is still in
draft form and is less that 50% complete at this time. The Draft Survey does not identify
Tahquitz Plaza as a historic resource or as being eligible for historic designation.
015
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 16
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
Tahquitz Plaza (erroneously referred to in the Draft Survey as Heritage Plaza) is
mentioned in the Context Statement component of the Draft Survey, in a description of
office building development by a number of different architects in the post-World War II
era 2. The Draft Survey, when final, will ultimately consist of a context statement, maps,
and evaluation and criteria assessments on sites found to be of potential historic
significance. Site specific findings and evaluation for possible historic significance
against the criteria have not been provided to the City in the Draft Survey. The Draft
Survey provides criteria for assessing the eligibility of sites as historic resources for
each building type (residential, retail, office, bank, hotel, etc.), but the consultant has not
provided site-specific evaluations or conclusions of historic eligibility in the current
document for any building in the City. The draft historic resource survey may, as it is
completed, identify such pre-1969 buildings, but that information is not currently
available. The 50% Draft Survey mentions Tahquitz Plaza; however it does not contain
conclusive data that would support a determination of significance under CEQA and as
a post 1969 building, it will not be addressed in the final draft of the survey.
The Initial Study considered the provisions of CEQA contained in Section 15064.5, as
well as the provisions of Palm Springs Municipal Code Chapter 8.05 (Historic
Preservation). On the basis of both CEQA and the Municipal Code, the Initial Study
determined that Tahquitz Plaza had not been identified as eligible for listing or
historically significant by the City, nor is it recognized as a Class I historic site; was not a
pre-1969 structure, nor qualify as a Class III historic site; had not been identified as a
resource in a local register of historical resources, or identified as significant in an
historical resource survey.
Land Use and Planning Comments
Comments were received indicating that the project was inconsistent with the General
Plan and Section 14 Specific Plan, insofar as the project proposed single family
residential development in an area where such development is not allowed. First, the
Section 14 Specific Plan, as identified in that document, provides a 'focused General
Plan and Zoning Ordinance' for land within the Plan's boundary.
The Specific Plan designates the proposed project REO and RA. Table 6-1 (Allowable
Land Uses) identifies Live/Work units as permitted with the approval of a Land Use
Permit in the REO designation; and permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit
in the RA designation. The project is processing a Conditional Use Permit, and a Land
Use Permit (in the form of a Planned Development District and Major Architectural
Permit), as required for Live/ Work Units. The Specific Plan further identifies multi-family
residences as permitted with approval of a Conditional Use Permit in both the REO and
RA designations, if the units are part of a mixed use project, and subject to the
development standards in the HR designation. The project is a mix of residential,
livelwork and commercial development, and therefore is considered a mixed use
project. The units are multi-family units because they comply with the definition of multi-
family units in the City's Zoning Ordinance: "means a building containing two (2) or
2 "50% Draft—Working Draft for Review& Comment, City of Palm Springs Citywide Historic Context
Statement," prepared by Historic Resources Group, January 30, 2015. Page 250.
016
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 17
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
more dwelling units or containing a combination of two (2) or more dwelling units in one
(1) lot or parcel."
Finally, a comment was made that development of the proposed project would
negatively impact the provision of affordable housing in the City. However, the project
site is not designated in the City's Housing Element for affordable housing, and
development of the project site will not have any impact on the City's ability to provide
affordable housing consistent with State law.
CONCLUSION:
The project proposes a unique mix of land uses and the revised project preserves a
portion of existing development as sought by the Planning Commission. The project is
a Consolidated Project, as defined by the Section 14 Specific Plan, and allows for
flexible development standards which the developer is exercising. After receiving public
testimony, the City Council may adopt the attached resolution and ordinance, which
would uphold the appeal and overturn the Planning Commission's decision.
Should the Council determine that sufficient evidence exists to uphold the Planning
Commission's decision, a new resolution would be presented at the next regular City
Council meeting.
FISCAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact.
F mn Fagg, AICP Marcus Fuller, P.E., M.P.A., P.L.S.
Director of fanning Services Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
Dougl s C. Holland David H. Ready, Esq., Ph.
City Attorney City Manager
Attachments:
1. Vicinity map
2. Draft Resolution
3. Draft Ordinance
4. Letter of appeal to City Council
5. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2015
6. Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of February 25, 2015
7. AAC Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015
8. AAC Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2015
9. Public Correspondence
10. Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
11. Plan Exhibits
017
City Council Staff Report
April 15,2015--Page 18
5.1361 -PD375,CUP,3.3820 MAJ&TTM 36876—Aberdeen Appeal
7. AAC Meeting Minutes of January 26, 2015
8. AAC Meeting Minutes of January 12, 2015
9. Public Correspondence
10. Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative Declaration
11. Plan Exhibits
018
Department of Planning Services "
c Vicinity Map W e
•Cab F00.N�'•
_.. __. HR
-........ REO RA HR CU HR
cu
a
F
Cu
RA HR Cu
w
-- RA - AHOREASRo —
Q 0
Q e rc
o Cu
o w PQ m
w RA W RED _ REO
o
U w
REO a i,
E TA H OH UZ CAH YOH WAY
O'
RA
m
Q
a
_.REO w REO REO
RA
a
U
Legend ...._ ARENAS RO --.
®srte RD_. _..
7.r, HR ! HR
H7R
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
019
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA UPHOLDING AN APPEAL BY
NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORP. AND OVERTURNING THE
DENIAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
REGARDING THREE APPLICATIONS (CASE NOS. 5.1361
PD-375, 3.3820 MAJ AND TTM 36876) AND A MITIGATED
NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR ABERDEEN; A MIXED-USE
PROJECT CONSISTING OF THE DEVLEOPMENT OF (73)
ATTACHED AND DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS,
(13) LIVE/WORK UNITS, AND RE-USE OF AN EXISTING
7,811-SQUARE FOOT COMMERCIAL BUILDING WITH
PRIVATE STREETS AND OPEN SPACE ON ROUGHLY 8.05-
ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CALLE EL SEGUNDO.
WHEREAS, Nexus Development Corp. ("Applicant") on behalf of 0 & M HR, LLC
("Owner") submitted applications pursuant to Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.03
& 93.07 (Planned Development, Zone Change) Section 94.04 (Architectural Review),
Section 94.02 & 92.25.00 (Conditional Use Permit / Resort Combining Zone) and
Municipal Code Section 9.62 (Maps) seeking approval of a Planned Development
District in lieu of a Change of Zone, a Tentative Tract Map, and a Major Architectural
Application for the development of a partially gated community comprised of (73) three-
and four-story residential attached and detached units, 13 live/work units and adaptive
re-use of an existing approximately 7,811-square foot building with private streets,
common open space and landscaping on a roughly 8.05-acre site located at the
northeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Calle El Segundo (Case 5.1361 PD 375
ZC / CUP / 3.3820 MAJ, TTM 36876); and
WHEREAS, on January 26, 2015, the subject project was reviewed by the City's
Architectural Advisory Committee (AAC), which voted to recommend denial of the
project by the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, on February 25, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public
hearing on the item and tabled the project for further study with direction to the
applicant to work with staff on revisions to the project; and
WHEREAS, on March 25, 2015, the Planning Commission reviewed the project
in accordance with applicable law and voted 4-3 to deny the revised project; and
WHEREAS, on March 31, 2015, the applicant filed an appeal of the Planning
Commission decision to deny the project, in accordance with Section 2.05 of the Palm
Springs Municipal Code; and
020
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm
Springs, California to consider Case Nos. 5.1361 PD 375 ZC / CUP / 3.3820 MAJ / TTM
36876 was given in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on April 15, 2015, a public hearing of the City Council of the City of
Palm Springs, California was held in accordance with applicable law, and
WHEREAS, at said hearing the City Council carefully reviewed and considered
all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including,
but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented, and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the
proposed development has been determined to be a project subject to environmental
analysis under guidelines of CEQA.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY
RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. CEQA: The project has been reviewed under the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). An initial study was conducted and the
City concluded that the project as proposed had the potential to cause significant
negative impacts on the environment. The analysis included all required CEQA issues,
including but not limited to air quality, cultural resources, land use, hydrology and traffic.
Mitigation Measures have been proposed to reduce the project's significant impacts to a
less than significant level.
Under Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 and CEQA Guidelines (California
Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3) Section 15064.5, a resource is considered to
be a historic resource if it is listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the
California Register of Historical Resources. A resource is presumed to be significant if
it is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1. Additionally, as the lead agency, the City has the
discretion to determine that a resource is a historic resource even if it is not otherwise
listed in, or deemed to be eligible for listing in, the State or local register.
The existing structures on the Aberdeen project site are not listed in, and have
not been determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical
Resources. Moreover, those existing structures are not included in any local register of
historical resources, and have never been deemed significant pursuant to criteria set
forth in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. The City, as lead agency for the
Aberdeen project, hereby exercises its discretionary authority to find and determine,
based on all of the evidence in the record, that the existing structures on the project site
do not meet any of the criteria identified in the Public Resources Code or the CEQA
Guidelines and, therefore, are not historic resources for purposes of CEQA.
021
Resolution No.
Page 3
The City has considered the information contained in the Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration prepared for the Aberdeen project (Case No. 5.1361) and all
additional evidence submitted to the City in connection with that project. Having
carefully reviewed all evidence in the record, the City hereby finds there exists no fair
argument, or any evidence supporting a fair argument, that the Aberdeen project, with
the incorporation of mitigation measures identified in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, will have any significant effects on the environment. The preparation of an
Environmental Impact Report is therefore not warranted under CEQA.
The City Council independently reviewed and considered the information
contained in the draft MND and the draft MND reflects the City's independent judgment
and analysis. The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it,
including the initial study and comments received, that the project as proposed,
including all required permits, has the potential to cause significant impacts on the
environment but the proposed Mitigation Measures would reduce those impacts to a
less than significant level. Therefore the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative
Declaration as a complete and adequate evaluation of the project pursuant to CEQA.
SECTION 2. Findings for a Planned Development District in lieu of a Change of
Zone: The council in reviewing a proposed change of zone, shall consider whether the
following conditions exist in reference to the proposed zoning of the subject property:
1. The proposed change of zone is in conformity with the general
plan map and report.
The proposed project is located in the Tourist Resort Commercial (TRC)
(FAR of 0.35 and density of up to 30 units per acre) land use designation of the
General Plan. The mixed-use project proposes 11.2 residential dwelling units
per acre and a FAR of 0.35, which is consistent with the land use designation.
2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the
proposed zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or
related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the
commission and council.
The proposed project is located in the REO and RA land designations of
Section 14, which describes these designations as follows:
Specialty Retail-Entertainment-Office (REO) - This designation allows for
the integration and concentration of large-scale specialty retail, restaurant,
entertainment and office development along portions of Tahquitz Canyon
Way and Indian Canyon Drive and emphasizes a pedestrian-transit focus.
Resort-Attraction (RA) - This designation allows for large-scale resort
hotel complexes, hotels, and major commercial recreation attractions
integrated with retail and entertainment facilities.
022
Resolution No.
Page 4
The PDD is proposed to change the split zoning to a single PD zone
designation with its own development standards. Specific Uses requested for
approval for the PDD include attached and detached residential townhomes,
live/work units and freestanding retail-commercial with outdoor dining. Additional
uses consistent with the REO land designation may be considered within the
commercial space and workspace of the live/work units, except residential
dwelling is prohibited in structures along the street front. The project conforms to
this finding.
Vehicular access to the residential portion of project is provided from
Andreas Road. The live/work and commercial space is accessed from Calle El
Segundo and the extension of Calle Alvarado. The project proposes a mix
residential, commercial and live/work that is harmonious with adjacent uses in
the vicinity. Thus, the project conforms to this finding.
3. The proposed change of zone is necessary and proper at this
time, and is not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property or
residents.
The proposed PDD in lieu of zone change has been evaluated against the
development standards for the Section 14 land designations, the Resort
Combining Zone and architectural review. While the applicant is seeking
setback deviations, the project is harmonious with the existing surrounding
development. It continues the pedestrian experience along Tahquitz Canyon
Way and introduces commercial uses along the street frontage which is
desirable. The project height is consistent with development along the Tahquitz
Canyon Way boulevard and is therefore not detrimental to adjacent properties.
The project conforms to this finding.
SECTION 3. Resort Combining Zone Finding. In addition to the above, required
findings outlined in Section 92.25.00 requires that the Planning Commission evaluate
the project against the findings of the Resort Combining Zone. The zoning code notes
that:
Uses shall be as provided in the underlying zone with which the "R"
zone is combined, except that:...All multiple-family dwellings (including,
but not limited to, apartments, group housing projects, boarding and
lodging houses, and condominiums) shall be permitted only by conditional
use permit (CUP).
The proposed development will have a Homeowners Association (HOA)
that will function much like a condominium association to maintain the common
areas of the development. As such the project is evaluated against the resort
combining finding and the findings for a Conditional Use Permit as follows:
023
Resolution No.
Page 5
The Resort Combining Zone Finding: Such permit is subject to the
planning commission making findings that the proposed use is compatible
with its surroundings and that the site in question is not appropriate for
other uses allowed by right within the underlying zone.
The mixed-use development proposes commercial and live/work units
along a highly-traveled commercial corridor (Tahquitz Canyon Way).
Development along this corridor primarily includes commercial-retail and hotel
uses. The proposed use continues the commercial theme with residential
located behind the commercial / live/work units, which is compatible with
surrounding development. The mix of uses provides an appropriate balance for
the site. Staff believes the proposed project is consistent with this finding.
SECTION 4. Conditional Use Permit Findings: In addition to the findings for the
PDD in lieu of a change of zone (from PSZC Section 93.07), the PDD incorporates the
findings of the CUP (PSZC 94.02.00) for residential uses in the Resort Combining Zone
as follows:
The Council shall not approve a conditional use permit unless it
finds as follows:
a. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the application
is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this
Zoning Code;
The mixed use project incorporates residential, live/work units and
commercial space with the proposed zoning, PD-375. The current Section 14
land designations, RA and REO, allow for multi-family residential, live/work units
and commercial developments. The project proposes a PDD in lieu of a change
or zone for the proposed uses and seeking relief from certain setback
development standards. With approval of the PDD, the project is consistent with
this finding.
b. That the use is necessary or desirable for the development of
the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of
the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses
specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be
located;
Development of the subject site with densely located single-family uses is
desirable as a means of bringing a variety of housing choices to the community.
The project is consistent with the General Plan Tourist Resort Commercial land
use designation providing a mix of uses, including tourist-related commercial
space, live/work units and residential uses on an 8.05-acre site. The proposed
use continues the commercial theme with residential located behind the
024
Resolution No.
Page 6
commercial / live/work units, which is compatible with surrounding development
and not detrimental to existing or future uses in the zone. The project therefore
conforms to this finding.
c. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape
to accommodate such use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences,
landscaping and other features required in order to adjust such use to
those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood;
The project consists of a grouping of parcels to form the overall 8.05-acre
site with internal private streets, privately owned units and both private and
common open spaces. With the approval of the PDD, buildings will be setback
from perimeter property lines to accommodate the proposed uses for adjusting to
those existing and future uses of land in the neighborhood. Therefore, the
project would be deemed in conformance with this finding.
d. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and
highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity
of traffic to be generated by the proposed use;
The project proposes to take vehicular access from surrounding streets,
excluding Tahquitz Canyon Way, which is consistent with the Section 14 Specific
Plan. As determined by the environmental assessment, Tahquitz Canyon Way,
Calle El Segundo and Andreas Road are improved with adequate road width to
accommodate the type and quantity of traffic expected by the proposed uses.
Thus, the project conforms with this finding.
e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved
site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare and may include minor modification of the zone's property
development standards.
A set of draft conditions of approval are proposed and attached to this
staff report as Exhibit "A".
SECTION 5. Findings for the Tentative Tract Map. The findings required for the
proposed Tentative Map are pursuant to Section 66474 of the California Subdivision
Map Act. The project is evaluated against these findings as follows:
a. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all
applicable general and specific plans.
The TTM proposes individual privately owned lots with open space,
common area and private streets. The proposed density is within the range
specified by the Tourist Resort Commercial General Plan land use designation.
Therefore, the project is consistent with this finding.
025
Resolution No.
Page 7
b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract
Map are consistent with the zone in which the property is located.
The proposed project design and improvements are generally consistent
with the RA / REO land designations in which the property is located. The PDD
in lieu of a zone change proposes mixed uses with residential, live/work units and
commercial space with a set of development standards unique to this
development with smaller lot area, lot dimensions and setbacks. With the
approval of the PDD in lieu of a change of zone, the project will be consistent
with this finding.
c. The site is physically suited for this type of development.
The relatively flat project site will be mostly razed and graded to
accommodate the proposed development. Site modifications include new private
driveways to privately-owned lots. Each lot is proposed to accommodate a
residential, live/work unit or commercial building as defined by the PDD. A total
of 73 residences, 13 live/work units and one commercial building are proposed
on the 8.05-acre site. The site has adequate vehicular access with primary
access taken from Andreas Road and Calle El Segundo and additional access
way through an extension of Calle Alvarado. Thus, the site is physically suited
for this type of development.
d. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development.
The proposed density and FAR is less than that permitted by both the
General Plan Tourist Resort Commercial (TRC) and Section 14 REO and RA land
use designations. Therefore, the site is physically suited for the proposed density
of development.
e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental
damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats.
The Tentative Tract Map and associated Planned Development District
have been reviewed under the California Environmental Quality Act, and a
Mitigated Negative Declaration is proposed. Mitigation measures have been
included which will reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. The
project will therefore not damage or injure fish, wildlife or their habitats.
f. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely
to cause serious public health problems.
The design of the proposed subdivision includes connections to all public
utilities including water and sewer systems. The layout of internal private streets
provides access to each lot. No serious public health problems are anticipated.
026
Resolution No.
Page 8
g. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not
conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of the property within the proposed subdivision.
There are no known public easements across the subject property;
therefore the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access
through or use of the property. Any utility easements can be accommodated
within the project design.
SECTION 6. Appeal: The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission on
February 25 and March 25, 2015. After providing direction and comments on the
project in February, the Planning Commission voted 4-3 to deny the revised project in
March. The applicant submitted an appeal requesting the City Council overturn the
Planning Commission's decision to deny the project and contends the following points
in response to the Commission's review of the project:
1. Mixed comments regarding architecture and uses within the Project.
2. Comments provided by Commissioners on the February 25, 2015 meeting were
contradicted by themselves on March 25, 2015.
3. Commission comments lead to project changes that were not satisfactory and it
is difficult to determine what would further satisfy Commissioners.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City
Council hereby adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration under CEQA and approves
Case Nos. 5.1361 PDD 375 ZC, CUP, 3.3820 MAJ and TTM 36876; a Planned
Development District in lieu of a Change of Zone, a Conditional Use Permit, a Major
Architectural Application and a Tentative Tract Map for the development of a partially
gated community of 73 attached and detached residential dwellings, 13 live/work units
and the re-use of an approximately 7,811-square foot commercial space on 8.05-acres
with private streets, guest parking, common areas, landscaping and open space located
at the northeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Calle El Segundo, subject to the
conditions set forth in Exhibit A.
ADOPTED this 15th day of April, 2015.
David H. Ready, City Manager
ATTEST:
James Thompson, City Clerk
027
Resolution No.
Page 9
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
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
James Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California
028
Resolution No.
Page 10
EXHIBIT A
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Case 5.1361 PDD 375 ZC / CUP / 3.3820 MAJ / TTM 36876 - "Aberdeen"
(Northeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Calle El Segundo)
April 15, 2015
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Director of
Building and Safety, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on
which department recommended the condition.
Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form
approved by the City Attorney.
PROJECT SPECIFIC
PSP 1. Revise the internal street widths to conform to the Section 14 Specific Plan
and General Plan minimum required widths for private streets [28 feet (rolled
curb to curb) with 5 foot landscape buffer and 5 foot sidewalks].
PSP 2. Modify the extension of Calle Alvarado to satisfactorily meet width
requirements of City Engineer and Fire Department.
PSP 3. Provide unlocked pedestrian access through center of site and at all vehicular
access gates.
PSP 4. Prohibit residential uses in structures fronting Tahquitz Canyon Way.
PSP 5. Include bicycle parking as required by the Section 14 Specific Plan.
PSP 6. Provide trash enclosure for commercial building.
PSP 7. Consider providing Plug-in Electric Vehicle (PEV) parking spaces as required
by the Section 14 Specific Plan.
PSP 8. Redesign streetscape along Tahquitz Canyon to be consistent with the
Section 14 Specific Plan with the inclusion of street furniture and identification
of Indian public art locations.
029
Resolution No.
Page 11
ADMINISTRATIVE CONDITIONS
ADM 1. Project Description. This approval is for the project described per Case
(5.1361 PDD 375 ZC / CUP / 3.3820 MAJ / TTM 36876); except as modified
with the approved Mitigation Monitoring Program and the conditions below.
ADM 2. Reference Documents. The site shall be developed and maintained in
accordance with the approved plans, date stamped February 17, 2015,
including site plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors,
landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning Division except as modified
by the approved Mitigation Measures and conditions below.
ADM 3. Conform to all Codes and Regulations. The project shall conform to the
conditions contained herein, all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs
Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, and any other City County, State and
Federal Codes, ordinances, resolutions and laws that may apply.
ADM 4. Minor Deviations. The Director of Planning or designee may approve minor
deviations to the project description and approved plans in accordance with
the provisions of the Palm Springs Zoning Code.
ADM 5. Tentative Map. This approval is for Tentative Tract Map 36876 located at the
Northeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Calle El Segundo, date
stamped February 17, 2015. This approval is subject to all applicable
regulations of the Subdivision Map Act, the Palm Springs Municipal Code,
and any other applicable City Codes, ordinances and resolutions.
ADM 6. Indemnification. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the
City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers
or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of
Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative
officers concerning Case 5.1365 PDD 375 ZC / CUP / 3.3820 MAJ / TTM
36876, including without limitation the environmental assessments prepared
in conjunction with such applications. The City of Palm Springs will promptly
notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City
of Palm Springs and the applicant will undertake full defense of the matter
and pay all City's costs incurred in the defense of such matters, including any
attorneys' fees and or costs that may be assessed against the City as a result
of such defense. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the
applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in
the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the
applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the
indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a
030
Resolution No.
Page 12
matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a
waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
ADM 7. Maintenance and Repair. The property owner(s) and successors and
assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including
and without limitation all structures, sidewalks, bikeways, parking areas,
landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the curb and
property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend onto
private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in
accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all
federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the
property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the
recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City.
ADM 8. Time Limit on Approval. Approval of the (Planned Development District
(PDD) Tentative Tract Map (TTM) and Major Architectural Applications (MAJ)
shall be valid for a period of two (2) years from the effective date of the
approval. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission
upon demonstration of good cause.
Approval of this Conditional Use Permit shall be valid for a period of two (2)
years from the effective date of the approval. Once constructed, the
Conditional Use Permit, provided the project has remained in compliance with
all conditions of approval, does not have a time limit.
Extensions of time may be approved pursuant to Code Section 9.63.110.
Such extension shall be required in writing and received prior to the expiration
of the approval (Tentative Tract Map).
ADM 9. Right to Appeal. Decisions of an administrative officer or agency of the City
of Palm Springs may be appealed in accordance with Municipal Code
Chapter 2.05.00. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has
concluded.
ADM 10. Public Art Fees. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of
the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide
public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee
shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant
to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the fee being 1/2% for
commercial projects or 1/4% for residential projects with first $100,000 of total
building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the
public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and
approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning and the Public Arts
Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to
maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing.
031
Resolution No.
Page 13
ADM 11. Park Development Fees. The developer shall dedicate land or pay a fee in
lieu of a dedication, at the option of the City. The in-lieu fee shall be
computed pursuant to Ordinance No. 1632, Section IV, by multiplying the
area of park to be dedicated by the fair market value of the land being
developed plus the cost to acquire and improve the property plus the fair
share contribution, less any credit given by the City, as may be reasonably
determined by the City based upon the formula contained in Ordinance No.
1632. In accordance with the Ordinance, the following areas or features shall
not be eligible for private park credit: golf courses, yards, court areas,
setbacks, development edges, slopes in hillside areas (unless the area
includes a public trail) landscaped development entries, meandering
streams, land held as open space for wildlife habitat, flood retention facilities
and circulation improvements such as bicycle, hiking and equestrian trails
(unless such systems are directly linked to the City's community-wide system
and shown on the City's master plan).
ADM 12. Maintenance of Outdoor Seating and structures at the "Art Walk". Periodic
cleaning of the "Art Walk" located south of the common pool area in the
center of the live/work units shall be the responsibility of the project's
homeowners' association (HOA).
ADM 13. CC&R's The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a
draft declaration of covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the
Director of Planning for approval in a format to be approved by the City
Attorney. These CC&R's may be enforceable by the City, shall not be
amended without City approval, and shall require maintenance of all property
in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances
ADM 14. CC&R's. Prior to recordation of a final Tentative Tract Map or issuance of
building permits, the applicant shall submit a draft declaration of covenants,
conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning for approval
in a format to be approved by the City Attorney. The draft CC&R package
shall include:
a. The document to convey title
b. Deed restrictions, easements, of Covenant Conditions and Restrictions to
be recorded.
c. Provisions for joint access to the proposed parcels, and any open space
restrictions.
d. A provision, which provides that the CC&R's may not be terminated or
substantially amended without the consent of the City and the developer's
successor-in-interest.
Approved CC&R's are to be recorded following approval of the final map.
The CC&R's may be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without
032
Resolution No.
Page 14
City approval, and shall require maintenance of all property in a good
condition and in accordance with all ordinances,
ADM 15. CC&R's Deposits & Fees. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm
Springs, a deposit in the amount of $3,500, for the review of the CC&R's by
the City Attorney. A $675 filing fee shall also be paid to the City Planning
Department for administrative review purposes.
ADM 16. CC&R's Noise Disclosure. The CC&R's shall have a disclosure statement
regarding the location of the project relative to roadway noise, City special
events, roadway closures for special events and other planned activities
which may occur in the public right-of-way.
ADM 17, Notice to Tenants. The applicant shall provide all tenants with a copy of the
Conditions of Approval for this project.
ADM 18. Community Facilities District. The project will bring additional residents,
visitors and activities to the community that will potentially impact the needs
for public safety services beyond the City's ability to provide such services;
and because such services, including police protection, criminal justice, fire
protection and suppression, ambulance, paramedic and other safety services,
and recreation, library, cultural services are near capacity, the City has
established a Community Facilities District to which this project shall be
annexed, subject to conditions of approval; and
Prior to recordation of the final map or, at the City's option, prior to issuance
of certificate of occupancy, the developer shall agree to support formation of
or annexation into a Community Facilities District (CFD) to include the project
site. Developer further agrees to waive any right of protest or contest such
formation or annexation, provided that the amount of any assessment for any
single family dwelling unit (or the equivalency thereof when applied to multiple
family, commercial or industrial) as established through appropriate study
shall not exceed $500 annually per dwelling unit or dwelling unit equivalency
unit, subject to an annual consumer price index escalator. Prior to sale of
any lots, or prior to the issuance of any certificate of occupancy, or prior to
any approval of the Building Official that will allow the premises to be
occupied, the CFD shall be formed, the annexation thereto shall occur, or at
the option of the City Manager and Building Official, a covenant agreement
may be recorded against any affected parcel(s) with the project, evidencing
the Owner's binding consent, approval, and waiver of rights as provided in
this condition of approval.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT CONDITIONS
ENV 1. Coachella Valley Multiple-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (CVMSHCP)
Local Development Mitigation Fee (LDMF) required. All projects within the
City of Palm Springs, not within the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
033
Resolution No.
Page 15
reservation are subject to payment of the CVMSHCP LDMF prior to the
issuance of certificate of occupancy.
ENV 2. California Fish & Game Fees Required. The project is required to pay a fish
and game impact fee as defined in Section 711.4 of the California Fish and
Game Code. This CFG impact fee plus an administrative fee for filing the
action with the County Recorder shall be submitted by the applicant to the
City in the form of a money order or a cashier's check payable to the
Riverside County Clerk prior to the final City action on the project (after City
Council determination). This fee shall be submitted by the City to the County
Clerk with the Notice of Determination. Action on this application shall not be
final until such fee is paid. The project may be eligible for exemption or
refund of this fee by the California Department of Fish & Game. Applicants
may apply for a refund by the CFG at www.dfg.ca.gov for more information.
ENV 3. Mitigation Monitoring. The mitigation measures of the environmental
assessment shall apply. The applicant shall submit a signed agreement that
the mitigation measures outlined as part of the negative declaration or EIR
will be included in the plans prior to Planning Commission consideration of
the environmental assessment. Mitigation measures are defined in the
CEQA Evaluation and summarized here as follows:
AESTHETICS:
MMI— 1 Project site plans, architectural renderings, and landscape plans
shall be revised to address inconsistencies with the
development standards and other design requirements of the
Section 14 Specific Plan, as determined by the City Council.
CULTURAL RESOURCES:
MM V-1 As there is always a possibility of buried cultural and
paleontological resources in a project area, a Native American
Monitor(s) shall be present during all ground disturbing activities
including clearing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities,
planting of rooted plants, etc., The Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indian Cultural Office shall be contacted for additional
information on the use and availability of Cultural Resource
Monitors. Should buried cultural deposits be encountered, the
Monitor shall contact the Director of Planning Services.
Following consultation, the Director shall have the authority to
halt destructive construction and shall notify a qualified
archaeologist to investigate the find. If necessary, the qualified
archaeologist shall prepare a treatment plan for submission to
the State Historic Preservation Officer and Agua Caliente
Cultural Resource Coordinator for approval. Human remains
034
Resolution No.
Page 16
discovered shall be handled consistent with state law
provisions.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS:
MM V11-1:Prior to the issuance of demolition permits, an asbestos and
lead survey shall be conducted by a certified asbestos and lead
consultant, and a report shall be provided to the City Building
Official. Should asbestos- and/or lead-containing materials be
found, the project proponent shall submit to the Building Official
a remediation and disposal plan to be conducted by a qualified,
licensed specialist in the disposal of hazardous materials. The
plan shall include specifics regarding the method of removal,
transport, and disposal for all such materials.
NOISE:
MMXI-1. Demolition and construction activities on-site shall occur only
between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., Monday-Friday, and 8:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on Saturdays, and shall be prohibited on
Sundays and holidays, as specified by the Palm Springs
Municipal Code.
MM Xl-2. All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped
with properly operating and maintained mufflers and the
engines shall be equipped with shrouds.
MM XI-3. Stationary equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is
directed away from Andreas Road and Cage El Segundo.
MMXI-4. Stockpiling and vehicle staging areas shall be located as far as
practical from Andreas Road and Cage El Segundo.
MM XI-5. Delivery hours should be limited to 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. daily to
minimize the potential for adverse impacts on the adjacent
Plaza Villas.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
PLN 1 . Outdoor Lighting Conformance. Exterior lighting plans, including a
photometric site plan showing the project's conformance with Section
93.21.00 Outdoor Lighting Standards of the Palm Springs Zoning ordinance,
shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning prior to
035
Resolution No.
Page 17
issuance of a building permit. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting
on the building and in the landscaping shall be included. If lights are
proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized. No
lighting of hillsides is permitted.
PLN 2. Water Efficient Landscaping Conformance. The project is subject to the
Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (Chapter 8.60.00 and Chapter 11 .06)
of the Palm Springs Municipal Code and all other relevant water efficient
landscape ordinances. The applicant shall submit a landscape and irrigation
plan to the Director of Planning for review and approval prior to the issuance
of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be wet stamped and approved by
the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal.
Prior to submittal to the City, landscape plans shall also be certified by the
local water agency that they are in conformance with the water agency's and
the City's Water Efficient Landscape Ordinances.
PLN 3. Palm Tree Requirement. In accordance with Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1503, dated November 18, 1970, the developer is required to
plant Washingtonia Fillifera (California Fan) palm trees (14 feet from ground
to fronds in height) 60 feet apart along the entire frontage of Palm Canyon
Drive and/or Tahquitz Canyon Way median. The existing Robusta / Mexican
Fan Palms at the Tahquitz Canyon Way frontage shall be replaced with
California Fan Palms.
PLN 4. Sign Applications Required. No signs are approved by this action. Separate
approval and permits shall be required for all signs in accordance with Zoning
Ordinance Section 93.20.00. The applicant shall submit a sign
permit/program to the Department of Planning Services prior to the issuance
of building permits.
PLN 5. Flat Roof Requirements. Roof materials on flat roofs (less than 2:12) must
conform to California Title 24 thermal standards for "Cool Roofs". Such roofs
must have a minimum initial thermal emittance of 0.75 or a minimum SRI of
64 and a three-year aged solar reflectance of 0.55 or greater. Only matte
(non-specular) roofing is allowed in colors such as beige or tan.
PLN 6. Maintenance of Awnings & Projections. All awnings shall be maintained and
periodically cleaned.
PLN 7. Screen Roof-mounted Equipment. All roof mounted mechanical equipment
shall be screened per the requirements of Section 93.03.00 of the Zoning
Ordinance.
PLN 8. Surface Mounted Downspouts Prohibited. No exterior downspouts shall be
permitted on any facade on the proposed building(s) that are visible from
adjacent streets or residential and commercial areas.
036
Resolution No.
Page 18
PLN 9. Pool Enclosure Approval Required. Details of fencing or walls around pools
(material and color) and pool equipment areas shall be submitted for approval
by the Planning Department prior to issuance of Building Permits.
PLN 10. Exterior Alarms & Audio Systems. No sirens, outside paging or any type of
signalization will be permitted, except approved alarm systems.
PLN 11 . Outside Storage Prohibited. No outside storage of any kind shall be
permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan.
PLN 12. No off-site Parking. Vehicles associated with the operation of the proposed
development including company vehicles or employees vehicles shall not be
permitted to park off the proposed building site unless a parking management
plan has been approved.
PLN 13. Bicycle Parking. The project shall be required to provide secure bicycle
parking facilities on site for use by residents and visitors. Location and
design shall be approved by the Director of Planning.
PLN 14. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the developer shall submit
for review and approval the following documents to the Planning Department
which shall demonstrate that the project will be developed and maintained in
accordance with the intent and purpose of the approved tentative map:
a. The document to convey title.
b. Deed restrictions, easements, covenant conditions and restrictions that
are to be recorded.
c. The approved documents shall be recorded at the same time that the
subdivision map is recorded. The documents shall contain provisions for
joint access to the proposed parcels and open space restrictions. The
approved documents shall contain a provision which provides that they
may not be terminated or substantially amended without the consent of
the City and the developer's successor-in-interest.
PLN 15, Update of City's Zoning Map. Upon approval of the proposed Change of
Zone, Tract Map and/or Planned Development District, the applicant shall be
responsible for costs associated with update of the City's GIS based zoning
maps.
PLN 16. Shade Structure Option for Buyers. Develop a design for shade structures in
the back yards that integrates with the architecture of the complex those
buyers could include as a purchase option; review design with Director of
Planning for design approval.
PLN 17. Provide 'smart controllers' for all irrigation systems.
037
Resolution No.
Page 19
POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
POL 1. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 "Building Security
Codes" of the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
BLD 1 . Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
The Engineering Division recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is
subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and
ordinances.
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
STREETS
ENG 1 . Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm
Springs Encroachment Permit.
ANDREAS ROAD
ENG 2. Dedicate an additional 3 feet to provide a right-of-way width of 33 feet along
the entire frontage, together with a property line - corner cut-back at the
southeast corner of the intersection of Andreas Road and Calle El Segundo,
in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 105.
ENG 3. Dedicate abutters rights of access to Andreas Road along the entire frontage
of the project, excluding the 36 feet wide access point; vehicular access to
Andreas Road shall be prohibited.
ENG 4. Dedicate an easement for sidewalk purposes as needed for those portions of
meandering sidewalk located outside of the public right-of-way.
ENG 5. Remove the existing driveway approach and replace with a 6 inch curb and
gutter to match existing, construct meandering sidewalk to match existing in
accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawings No. 200, 210.
038
Resolution No.
Page 20
ENG 6. Construct a 36 feet wide driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 205. The centerline of the driveway approach
shall be located approximately 430 feet from the centerline of Calle El
Segundo, as shown on the approved site plan.
ENG 7. Construct a Type A curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility
standards on each side of the driveway approach in accordance with City of
Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 212. The applicant shall ensure that an
appropriate path of travel, meeting ADA guidelines, is provided across the
driveway, and shall adjust the location of the access ramps, if necessary, to
meet ADA guidelines, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. If
necessary, additional pedestrian and sidewalk easements shall be provided
on-site to construct a path of travel meeting ADA guidelines.
ENG 8. In accordance with the Final Section 14 Specific Plan (dated July 16, 2014),
the applicant shall plant shade trees in a formal pattern along the Andreas
Road frontage, as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall be
responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the new trees and other
parkway landscaping along the Andreas Road frontage. The specific
landscaping improvements described in this condition may be modified by the
applicant, in consultation with the City, provided that the intent of the Section
14 Specific Plan guideline is maintained.
ENG 9. Install decorative light fixtures (12 feet to 15 feet tall) consistent with the
existing decorative lighting system along Tahquitz Canyon Way, including
banner supports and overhead pedestrian-level lighting on the sidewalk. The
applicant shall furnish and install the decorative light fixtures, luminaries and
electrical system. The system shall be operated by a separate electric meter,
unless an existing meter is available for use by the new lighting system, as
approved by the City Engineer. The lighting system shall be installed and
operational, and accepted for operation and maintenance by the City, prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, unless otherwise allowed by the City
Engineer.
ENG 10. All broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall
be repaired or replaced.
CALLE EL SEGUNDO
ENG 11. Dedicate an additional 15 feet to provide a right of wayg width of 40 feet
where required by the City Engineer.
039
Resolution No.
Page 21
ENG 12. Dedicate abutters rights of access to Calle El Segundo along the entire
frontage of the project, excluding the 28 feet wide access point; vehicular
access to Calle El Segundo shall be prohibited.
ENG 13. Remove the existing driveway approaches and replace with a 6 inch curb and
gutter to match existing, construct sidewalk to match existing in accordance
with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawings No. 200, 210.
ENG 14. Construct a 28 feet wide driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 205. The centerline of the driveway approach
shall be located approximately 180 feet from the centerline of Tahquitz
Canyon Way.
ENG 15. Construct a Type A curb ramp meeting current California State Accessibility
standards on each side of the driveway approach in accordance with City of
Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 212. The applicant shall ensure that an
appropriate path of travel, meeting ADA guidelines, is provided across the
driveway, and shall adjust the location of the access ramps, if necessary, to
meet ADA guidelines, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. If
necessary, additional pedestrian and sidewalk easements shall be provided
on-site to construct a path of travel meeting ADA guidelines.
ENG 16. In accordance with the Final Section 14 Specific Plan (dated July 16, 2014),
the applicant shall plant shade trees in a formal pattern along the Calle El
Segundo frontage, as approved by the City Engineer. The applicant shall be
responsible for the perpetual maintenance of the new trees and other
parkway landscaping along the Calle El Segundo frontage. The specific
landscaping improvements described in this condition may be modified by the
applicant, in consultation with the City, provided that the intent of the Section
14 Specific Plan guideline is maintained.
ENG 17. Install decorative light fixtures (12 feet to 15 feet tall) consistent with the
existing decorative lighting system along Tahquitz Canyon Way, including
banner supports and overhead pedestrian-level lighting on the sidewalk. The
applicant shall furnish and install the decorative light fixtures, luminaries and
electrical system. The system shall be operated by a separate electric meter,
unless an existing meter is available for use by the new lighting system, as
approved by the City Engineer. The lighting system shall be installed and
operational, and accepted for operation and maintenance by the City, prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, unless otherwise allowed by the City
Engineer.
ENG 18. All broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall
be repaired or replaced.
040
Resolution No.
Page 22
TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
ENG 19. Dedicate abutters rights of access to Tahquitz Canyon Way along the entire
frontage of the project, vehicular access to Tahquitz Canyon Way shall be
prohibited.
ENG 20. The existing sidewalk along the entire frontage shall be modified consistent
with the "Grand Boulevard of Indian Culture" described in the Section 14
Specific Plan (dated July 16, 2014). The applicant shall furnish and install
artwork relating to Indian culture along the frontage, unless otherwise
deferred by the Director of Planning Services. The "Grand Boulevard of
Indian Culture" shall be constructed along the entire Tahquitz Canyon Way
frontage. The specific street improvements are described in chapter 5 of said
Section 14 Specific Plan.
ENG 21 . Install Tahquitz Canyon Way decorative light fixtures (12 feet to 15 feet tall)
consistent with the existing portion of existing decorative lighting system
along Tahquitz Canyon Way, including banner supports and overhead
pedestrian-level lighting on the sidewalk. The applicant shall furnish and
install the decorative light fixtures, luminaries. The electrical system was
installed by others and shall be operated by a separate electric meter, unless
an existing meter is available for use by the new lighting system, as approved
by the City Engineer. The new portions of the lighting system shall be
installed and operational, and accepted for operation and maintenance by the
City, prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, unless otherwise
allowed by the City Engineer.
ENG 22. At the time that a comprehensive shuttle/bus route system for the Section 14
Master Development Plan area is planned, it is recommended that the
applicant coordinate with the City on the design and layout of, and
accommodate an on-site shuttle/bus stop at the Main Entrance of Tahquitz
Canyon Way in accordance with the Final Section 14 Master Development
Plan/Specific Plan, in consultation with the City, provided that the intent of the
Section 14 Specific Plan guideline is maintained.
ENG 23. All broken or off grade street improvements along the project frontage shall
be repaired or replaced.
CALLE ALVARADO (PRIVATE STREET)
04I
Resolution No.
Page 23
ENG 24. Construct a Pedestrian Plaza from Andreas Road south to southerly property
line of lot 74, the Plaza shall be intended to be a pedestrian connection from
the Convention Center to Tahquitz Canyon Way with the landscaping,
decorative pavers and enhancements to be consistent with the Section 14
Specific Plan. Together with a one way access from Tahquitz Canyon Way to
access the proposed live work units identified as lots 75 through 93, as
required by the City Engineer.
ENG 25. Dedicate a sidewalk and emergency ingress and egress easement from
Andreas Road south to Tahquitz Canyon Way. Decorative pavers and
pedestrian enhancements shall be designed to accommodate emergency
vehicles.
ENG 26. Final design and layout of proposed pedestrian plaza and one way access
shall be subject to review by City Engineer and Fire Marshall.
ENG 27. Vacation of existing public right-of-way for Calle Alvarado shall be identified
on the final map.
ON-SITE
ENG 28. Construct a minimum pavement section of 2-1/2 inches asphalt over 4 inches
crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95%
relative compaction, or equal, within all on-site private streets in accordance
with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110 and 302. If an
alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section
shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R"
values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval.
ENG 29. All on-site private streets (or drive aisles) shall be two-way with a minimum 26
feet wide travelway (as measured from face of curb) where no on-street
parking is proposed.
ENG 30. All on-site private streets (or drive aisles) shall be two-way with a minimum 32
feet wide travelway (as measured from face of curb) where on-street parallel
parking is proposed on one-side of the street.
ENG 31. On-site drive aisles (or parking lot) shall be constructed with curbs, gutters,
and cross-gutters, as necessary to accept and convey street surface
drainage of the on-site streets to the on-site drainage system, in accordance
with applicable City standards.
SANITARY SEWER
042
Resolution No.
Page 24
ENG 32. All sanitary facilities shall be connected to the public (or private) sewer
system (via the proposed on-site private sewer system). New laterals
shall not be connected at manholes.
ENG 33. All on-site sewer systems shall be privately maintained by a Home
Owners Association (HOA). Provisions for maintenance of the on-site
sewer system acceptable to the City Engineer shall be included in the
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for this
project.
ENG 34. Submit sewer improvement plans prepared by a California registered
civil engineer to the Engineering Division. The plan(s) shall be
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building
permits.
GRADING
ENG 35. Submit a Precise Grading Plan prepared by a California registered Civil
engineer to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The Precise
Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of
grading permit.
a. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its
grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Division for review
and approval. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required
to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code,
and shall be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best
Available Control Measures" as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive
Dust Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the
applicable performance standards are met. The applicant's or its
contractor's Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has
completed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD)
Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class. The applicant and/or its
grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division with current and
valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have
completed the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive
Dust Control Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust
Control Handbook and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact
AQMD at (909) 396-3752, or at http://www.AQMD.gov. A Fugitive Dust
Control Plan, in conformance with the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust
Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering
Division prior to approval of the Grading plan.
b. The first submittal of the Grading Plan shall include the following
information: a copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of
043
Resolution No.
Page 25
Approval; a copy of a final approved conformed copy of the Site Plan; a
copy of current Title Report; a copy of Soils Report; and a copy of the
associated Hydrology Study/Report.
ENG 36. Prior to approval of a Grading Plan (or issuance of a Grading Permit), the
applicant shall obtain written approval to proceed with construction from the
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or
Tribal Archaeologist. The applicant shall contact the Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer or the Tribal Archaeologist at (760) 699-6800, to
determine their requirements, if any, associated with grading or other
construction. The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal Historic
Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If required, it
is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate scheduling of Tribal
monitors during grading or other construction, and to arrange payment of any
required fees associated with Tribal monitoring.
ENG 37. In accordance with an approved PM-10 Dust Control Plan, temporary dust
control perimeter fencing shall be installed. Fencing shall have screening that
is tan in color; green screening will not be allowed. Temporary dust control
perimeter fencing shall be installed after issuance of Grading Permit, and
immediately prior to commencement of grading operations.
ENG 38. (Temporary dust control) perimeter fence screening shall be appropriately
maintained, as required by the City Engineer. Cuts (vents) made into the
perimeter fence screening shall not be allowed. Perimeter fencing shall be
adequately anchored into the ground to resist wind loading.
ENG 39. Within 10 days of ceasing all construction activity and when construction
activities are not scheduled to occur for at least 30 days, the disturbed areas
on-site shall be permanently stabilized, in accordance with Palm Springs
Municipal Code Section 8.50.022. Following stabilization of all disturbed
areas, perimeter fencing shall be removed, as required by the City Engineer.
ENG 40. A Notice of Intent (NOI) to comply with the California General Construction
Stormwater Permit (Water Quality Order 2009-0009-DWQ as modified
September 2, 2009) is required for the proposed development via the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board online SMARTS system4. A
copy of the executed letter issuing a Waste Discharge Identification (WDID)
number shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading
or building permit.
ENG 41. This project requires preparation and implementation of a stormwater
pollution prevention plan (SWPPP). As of September 4, 2012, all SWPPPs
shall include a post-construction management plan (including Best
Management Practices) in accordance with the current Construction General
Permit. Where applicable, the approved final project-specific Water Quality
044
Resolution No.
Page 26
Management Plan shall be incorporated by reference or attached to the
SWPPP as the Post-Construction Management Plan. A copy of the up-to-
date SWPPP shall be kept at the project site and be available for review upon
request.
ENG 42. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.022
(h), the applicant shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars
($2,000.00) per disturbed acre (if there is disturbance of 5,000 square feet or
more) at the time of issuance of grading permit for mitigation measures for
erosion/blowsand relating to this property and development.
ENG 43. A Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared by a California registered Geotechnical
Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the
grading plan for the proposed development. A copy of the Geotechnical/Soils
Report shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal
of a grading plan.
ENG 44. The applicant shall provide all necessary geotechnical/soils inspections and
testing in accordance with the Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared for the
project. All backfill, compaction, and other earthwork shown on the approved
grading plan shall be certified by a California registered geotechnical or civil
engineer, certifying that all grading was performed in accordance with the
Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared for the project. Documentation of all
compaction and other soils testing shall be provided. No certificate of
occupancy will be issued until the required certification is provided to the City
Engineer.
ENG 45. The applicant shall provide pad (or finish floor) elevation certifications for all
building (or structure) pads in conformance with the approved grading plan (if
required), to the Engineering Division prior to construction of any building (or
structure) foundation.
ENG 46. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the
California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project,
applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the
export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a
Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an
approved "Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined
Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1)
prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if required). The California Department
of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm
Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208).
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN
045
Resolution No.
Page 27
ENG 47. A Final Project-Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading
or building permit. The WQMP shall address the implementation of
operational Best Management Practices (BMP's) necessary to accommodate
nuisance water and storm water runoff from the site. Direct release of
nuisance water to the adjacent property (or public streets) is prohibited.
Construction of operational BMP's shall be incorporated into the Precise
Grading and Paving Plan.
a. Prior to issuance of any grading or building permits, the property owner
shall record a "Covenant and Agreement" with the County-Clerk Recorder
or other instrument on a standardized form to inform future property
owners of the requirement to implement the approved Final Project-
Specific Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP). Other alternative
instruments for requiring implementation of the approved Final Project-
Specific WQMP include: requiring the implementation of the Final Project-
Specific WQMP in Home Owners Association or Property Owner
Association Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs); formation
of Landscape, Lighting and Maintenance Districts, Assessment Districts or
Community Service Areas responsible for implementing the Final Project-
Specific WQMP; or equivalent. Alternative instruments must be approved
by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
b. Prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy or final City approvals (OR of
"final" approval by City), the applicant shall: (a) demonstrate that all
structural BMP's have been constructed and installed in conformance with
approved plans and specifications; (b) demonstrate that applicant is
prepared to implement all non-structural BMP's included in the approved
Final Project-Specific WQMP, conditions of approval, or grading/building
permit conditions; and (c) demonstrate that an adequate number of copies
of the approved Final Project-Specific WQMP are available for the future
owners (where applicable).
DRAINAGE
ENG 48. Direct release of on-site nuisance water or stormwater runoff shall not be
permitted to adjacent streets. Provisions for the interception of nuisance
water from entering adjacent public streets from the project site shall be
provided through the use of a minor storm drain system that collects and
conveys nuisance water to landscape or parkway areas, and in only a
stormwater runoff condition, pass runoff directly to the streets through
parkway or under sidewalk drains.
ENG 49. This project shall be required to install measures in accordance with
applicable National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Best
046
Resolution No.
Page 28
Management Practices (BMP's) included as part of the NPDES Permit issued
for the Whitewater River Region from the Colorado River Basin Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The applicant is advised that
installation of BMP's, including mechanical or other means for pre-treating
contaminated stormwater and non-stormwater runoff, shall be required by
regulations imposed by the RWQCB. It shall be the applicant's responsibility
to design and install appropriate BMP's, in accordance with the NPDES
Permit, that effectively intercept and pre-treat contaminated stormwater and
non-stormwater runoff from the project site, prior to release to the City's
municipal separate storm sewer system ("MS4"), to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and the RWQCB. Such measures shall be designed and installed
on-site; and provisions for perpetual maintenance of the measures shall be
provided to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, including provisions in
Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for the
development.
ENG 50. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The
acreage drainage fee at the present time is $ 9212.00 per acre in accordance
with Resolution No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building
permit.
ENG 51. All on-site storm drain systems shall be privately maintained by a
Homeowners Association (HOA). Provisions for maintenance of the on-site
storm drain systems acceptable to the City Engineer shall be included in
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) required for this project.
GENERAL
ENG 52. Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete
pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be
backfilled and repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard
Drawing No. 115. The developer shall be responsible for removing, grinding,
paving and/or overlaying existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site
streets as required by and at the discretion of the City Engineer, including
additional pavement repairs to pavement repairs made by utility companies
for utilities installed for the benefit of the proposed development (i.e. Desert
Water Agency, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas
Company, Time Warner, Verizon, Mission Springs Water District, etc.).
Multiple excavations, trenches, and other street cuts within existing asphalt
concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development
may require complete grinding and asphalt concrete overlay of the affected
off-site streets, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The pavement
condition of the existing off-site streets shall be returned to a condition equal
to or better than existed prior to construction of the proposed development.
047
Resolution No.
Page 29
ENG 53. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground.
ENG 54. All existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement plans if required for
the project. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from
the main line to the property line.
ENG 55. Upon approval of any improvement plan (if required) by the City Engineer, the
improvement plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of
a DWG (AutoCAD 2004 drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing
exchange file), and PDF (Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variation of
the type and format of the digital data to be submitted to the City may be
authorized, upon prior approval by the City Engineer.
ENG 56. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and
approved by the City Engineer (if required) shall be documented with record
drawing "as-built' information and returned to the Engineering Division prior
to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes
to approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for
approval prior to construction.
ENG 57. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any
(intersection or) driveway which does or will exceed the height required to
maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code
Section 93.02.00, D.
ENG 58. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the
public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers
installed in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 904.
ENG 59. This property is subject to the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan Local Development Mitigation Fee (CVMSHCP-LDMF).
The LDMF shall be paid prior to issuance of Building Permit.
MAP
ENG 60. The developer shall apply for an annexation to the City of Palm Springs
Community Facilities District established for public safety services and
submit required applications, waivers, and consent forms to the
annexation prior to approval of a final map. Payment of an annexation fee
of $2,500 shall be made at the time of the application.
ENG 61. A Final Map shall be prepared by a California registered Land Surveyor or
qualified Civil Engineer and submitted to the Engineering Division for
review and approval. A Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for
the subject property, the traverse closures for the existing parcel and all
048
Resolution No.
Page 30
lots created therefrom, and copies of record documents shall be
submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering Division as part of the
review of the Map. The Final Map shall be approved by the City Council
prior to issuance of building permits.
ENG 62. A copy of draft Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) shall be
submitted to the City Attorney for review and approval for any restrictions
related to the Engineering Division's recommendations. The CC&R's shall
be approved by the City Attorney prior to approval of the Final Map by the
City Council, or in the absence of a Final Map, shall be submitted and
approved by the City Attorney prior to issuance of Certificate of
Occupancy.
ENG 63. Upon approval of a Final Map, the Final Map shall be provided to the City
in G.I.S. digital format, consistent with the "Guidelines for G.I.S. Digital
Submission" from the Riverside County Transportation and Land
Management Agency." G.I.S. digital information shall consist of the
following data: California Coordinate System, CCS83 Zone 6 (in U.S.
feet); monuments (ASCII drawing exchange file); lot lines, rights-of-way,
and centerlines shown as continuous lines; full map annotation consistent
with annotation shown on the map; map number; and map file name.
G.I.S. data format shall be provided on a CDROM/DVD containing the
following: ArcGIS Geodatabase, ArcView Shapefile, Arclnfo Coverage or
Exchange file, DWG (Auto CAD 2004 drawing file), DGN (Microstation
drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file), and PDF
(Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variations of the type and format
of G.I.S. digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon
prior approval of the City Engineer.
TRAFFIC
ENG 64. A minimum of 48 inches of clearance for accessibility shall be provided on
public sidewalks or pedestrian paths of travel within the development.
ENG 65. All damaged, destroyed, or modified pavement legends, traffic control
devices, signing, striping, and street lights, associated with the proposed
development shall be replaced as required by the City Engineer prior to
issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy.
ENG 66. Pay the fair share of the estimated cost to install angled parking and
bikeway (with enhanced signage and sharrows) on Calle El Segundo as
required by the Section 14 Specific Plan.
ENG 67. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided during all
phases of construction as required by City Standards or as directed by the
049
Resolution No.
Page 31
City Engineer. As a minimum, all construction signing, lighting and
barricading shall be in accordance with Part 6 'Temporary Traffic Control'
of the California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD),
dated November 7, 2014, or subsequent editions in force at the time of
construction.
ENG 68. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee
which shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit.
FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS
These Fire Department conditions may not provide all requirements. Detailed plans are
still required for review.
FID 1 These conditions are subject to final plan check and review. Initial Fire
Department conditions have been determined from the plans received and
dated December 11, 2014. Additional requirements may be required at that
time based on revisions to site plans.
FID 2 Fire Department Conditions were based on the 2013 California Fire Code as
adopted by City of Palm Springs, Palm Springs Municipal Code and latest
adopted NFPA Standards. Four (4) complete sets of plans for private fire
service mains, fire alarm, or fire sprinkler systems must be submitted at time
of the building plan submittal.
FID 3 PLANS AND PERMITS
Complete plans for private fire service mains or fire sprinkler systems should
be submitted for approval well in advance of installation. Plan reviews can
take up to 20 working days. Submit a minimum of four (4) sets of drawings for
review. Upon approval, the Fire Prevention Bureau will retain one set.
Plans shall be submitted to:
City of Palm Springs
Building and Safety Department
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Counter Hours: 8:00 AM — 6:00 PM, Monday —Thursday
A deposit for Plan Check and Inspection Fees is required at the time of Plan
Submittal. Inspection fees are charged at the fully burdened hourly rate of the
fire inspector. These fees are established by Resolution of the Palm Springs
City Council.
050
Resolution No.
Page 32
Complete listings and manufacturer's technical data sheets for all system
materials shall be included with plan submittals. All system materials shall be
UL listed or FM approved for fire protection service and approved by the Fire
Prevention Bureau prior to installation.
Plans shall indicate all necessary engineering features, including all hydraulic
reference nodes, pipe lengths and pipe diameters as required by the
appropriate codes and standards. Plans and supportive data (calculations
and manufacturer's technical data sheets) shall be submitted with each plan
submittal. Complete and accurate legends for all symbols and abbreviations
shall be provided on the plans.
FID 4 Street Widths (CFC Appendix L; PSMC § 8.04.500; Palm Springs 2007
General Plan): Private streets in any residential or mixed use land use
designation may be reduced to a minimum of 28 feet (curb face to curb face)
provided that (1) additional off street parking is provided as determined by the
City Engineer, the Fire Chief and Director of Planning, (2) rolled or wedge
curb is provided such that vehicles may park partially out of the traveled way,
and (3) pedestrian pathways or sidewalks, if located along the street,
separated from the curb by a minimum five-foot parkway are provided.
• Any street not designated by the fire department as a "fire lane" shall
comply with the above requirements
• Road width shown is not compliant with General Plan
FID 5 Fire Apparatus Access Roads (CFC 503.1.1): Approved fire apparatus
access roads shall be provided for every facility, building or portion of a
building hereafter constructed or moved into or within the jurisdiction. The fire
apparatus access road shall comply with the requirements of this section and
shall extend to within 150 feet of all portions of the facility and all portions of
the exterior walls of the first story of the building as measured by an approved
route around the exterior of the building or facility.
• Fire Apparatus Access Road (CFC 202 Definitions) — A road that
provides fire apparatus access from a fire station to a facility, building
or portion thereof. This is a general term inclusive of all other terms
such as fire lane, public street, private street, parking lot lane and
access roadway.
• Dimensions (CFC 503.2.1): Fire apparatus access roads shall have
an unobstructed width of not less than 26 feet (for designated fire
lanes) except for approved security gates in accordance with Section
503.6 and an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6
inches.
051
Resolution No.
Page 33
FID 6 Aerial Fire Access Roads (CFC Appendix D105.1): Buildings or portions of
buildings or facilities exceeding 30 feet in height above the lowest level of fire
department vehicle access shall be provided with approved fire apparatus
access roads capable of accommodating fire department aerial apparatus.
Overhead utility and power lines shall not be located within the aerial fire
apparatus access roadway.
FID 7 Aerial Fire Access Road Width (CFC Appendix D105.2): Fire apparatus
access roads shall have a minimum unobstructed width of 26 feet, exclusive
of shoulders, in the immediate vicinity of any building or portion of building
more than 30 feet in height.
FID 8 Aerial Access Proximity to Building (CFC Appendix D105.3): At least one
of the required access routes for buildings or facility exceeding 30 feet in
height above the lowest level of fire department vehicle access shall be
located within a minimum of 15 feet and a maximum of 30 feet from the
building and shall be positioned parallel to one entire side of the building.
FID 9 Fire Lanes (CFC 202 Definitions): A road or other passageway developed to
allow the passage of fire apparatus. A fire lane is not necessarily intended for
vehicular traffic other than fire apparatus. A "tire lane" is a component of a
"fire apparatus access road".
• Designation of Fire Lanes (CVC 22500.1): Only the fire department
with jurisdiction over the area in which the place is located can
designate a fire lane.
• Fire Lane Marking (CFC 503.3): Where required by the fire code
official, approved signs or other approved notices or markings that
include the words NO PARKING—FIRE LANE shall be provided for fire
apparatus access roads to identify such roads or prohibit the
obstruction thereof. The means by which fire lanes are designated
shall be maintained in a clean and legible condition at all times and be
replaced or repaired when necessary to provide adequate visibility.
FID 10 Surface (CFC 503.2.3): Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and
maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus (73,000 lbs. GVW)
and shall be surfaced so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities.
FID 11 Traffic Calming Devices (CFC 503.4.1): Traffic calming devices shall be
prohibited unless approved by the fire code official.
FID 12 Security Gates (CFC 503.6): The installation of security gates across a fire
apparatus access road shall be approved by the fire code official. Where
security gates are installed, they shall have an approved means of emergency
052
Resolution No.
Page 34
operation. Secured automated vehicle gates or entries shall utilize a
combination of a Tomar StrobeswitchT"", or approved equal, and an approved
Knox key electric switch. Electric gate operators, where provided, shall be
listed in accordance with UL 325. Gates intended for automatic operation
shall be designed, constructed and installed to comply with the requirements
of ASTM F 2200 and an approved Knox key electric switch. Secured non-
automated vehicle gates or entries shall utilize an approved padlock or chain
(maximum link or lock shackle size of inch). Approved security gates shall
be a minimum of 14 feet in unobstructed drive width on each side with gate in
open position.
In the event of a power failure, the gates shall be defaulted or automatically
transferred to a fail safe mode allowing the gate to be pushed open without
the use of special knowledge or any equipment. If a two-gate system is used,
the override switch must open both gates.
If there is no sensing device that will automatically open the gates for exiting,
a fire department approved Knox electrical override switch shall be placed on
each side of the gate in an approved location.
A final field inspection by the fire code official or an authorized representative
is required before electronically controlled pates may become operative. Prior
to final inspection, electronic pates shall remain in a locked-open position.
FID 13 Operational Fire Hydrant(s) (CFC 508.1, 508.5.1 & 1412.1): Operational
fire hydrant(s) shall be installed within 250 feet of all combustible
construction. They shall be installed and made serviceable prior to and
during construction. No landscape planting, walls, or fencing is permitted
within 3 feet of fire hydrants, except ground cover plantings
FID 14 NFPA 13D Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic fire sprinkler system is
required. Only a C-16 licensed fire sprinkler contractor shall perform system
design and installation. System to be designed and installed in accordance
with NFPA standard 13D, 2013 Edition, as modified by local ordinance.
FID 15 Single- and Multiple-Station Smoke Alarms (CFC 907.2.11): Listed single-
and multiple-station smoke alarms complying with UL 217 shall be installed in
accordance with Sections 907.2.11.1 through 907.2.11.4 and NFPA 72.
• Exception: For Group R occupancies. A fire alarm system with smoke
detectors located in accordance with this section may be installed in lieu of
smoke alarms. Upon actuation of the detector, only those notification
appliances in the dwelling unit or guest room where the detector is
actuated shall activate.
FID 16 Key Box Required (CFC 506.1): Where access to or within a structure or an
053
Resolution No.
Page 35
area is restricted because of secured openings or where immediate access is
necessary for life-saving or fire-fighting purposes, the fire code official is
authorized to require a key box to be installed in an approved location. The
key box shall be flush mount type and shall contain keys to gain necessary
access as required by the fire code official.
FID 17 Hazardous Materials (CFC 5004.1): Storage of hazardous materials in
amounts exceeding the maximum allowable quantity per control area as set
forth in Section 5003.1 shall be in accordance with Sections 5001, 5003 and
5004. Storage of hazardous materials in amounts not exceeding the
maximum allowable quantity per control area as set forth in Section 5003.1
shall be in accordance with Sections 5001 and 5003. Retail and wholesale
storage and display of nonflammable solid and nonflammable and
noncombustible liquid hazardous materials in Group M occupancies and
Group S storage shall be in accordance with Section 5003.11.
• Pool Chemicals — dedicated, compliant storage cabinets, rooms, or
areas required
• Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) — dedicated, compliant storage cabinets,
rooms, or areas required
END OF CONDITIONS
054
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD-375) IN LIEU OF A CHANGE OF
ZONE FOR A ROUGHLY 8.05-ACRE SITE LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
AND CALLE EL SEGUNDO.
City Attorney's Summary
This Ordinance approves a planned development district in lieu of a
zone change to accommodate the development of 73 attached and
detached residential units, 13 live/work units and roughly 7,811-
square feet of commercial space on a 8.05+/- acres of land
generally located at the northeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way
and Calle El Segundo.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FINDS:
A. Nexus Development Corp. ("Applicant') filed an application on behalf of O & M,
LLC, ("Owner") pursuant to Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.07.00 (Zone Map
Change / Change of Zone) and Section 94.03.00 (Planned Development District)
seeking approval of a Planned Development District in lieu of a Change of Zone (Case
5.1361 PD-375) to demolish existing development and construct 73 attached and
detached residential dwellings, 13 live/work units and retain approximately 7,811-square
feet of commercial space on approximately 8.05-acres at the northeast corner of
Tahquitz Canyon Way and Calle El Segundo, identified as APNs 508-055-003, 508-
055-006, 508-055-007, 508-055-008 & 508-055-009.
B. The applicant submitted related applications, including a Tentative Tract Map
application (Case TTM 36876) to subdivide the project land into 93 lots with private
streets and common area pursuant to Title 9 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code; a
Conditional Use Permit (Case 5.1361 CUP) to allow multi-family residential within the
REO and RA Zones of the Section 14 Specific Plan; and a Major Architectural
application (Case 3.3820 MAJ) to review proposed architecture pursuant to Section
94.04.00 of the Zoning Code.
C. A notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs, California to consider the above-mentioned applications was given in
accordance with applicable law and on February 25, 2015, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing in accordance with applicable law and continued the project to a
date uncertain for further study.
055
Ordinance No.
Page 2
D. A notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm
Springs, California to consider the above-mentioned applications was given in
accordance with applicable law and on March 25, 2015, the Planning Commission
carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the
hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and
oral testimony presented and voted 4-3 to deny the revised project.
E. On March 31 , 2015, the applicant filed an appeal of the March 25, 2015, denial
decision by the Planning Commission in accordance with Chapter 2.05 of the Palm
Springs Municipal Code.
F. A notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs,
California to consider the above-mentioned applications was given in accordance with
applicable law and on April 15, 2015, the City Council held a public hearing in
accordance with applicable law.
G. A Planned Development District in lieu of a Change of Zone is required to be
adopted by ordinance as provided in the City's Municipal Code and the proposed
project is proposed to be adopted by Ordinance.
H. The City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the meetings on the project, including but not limited to the
staff report, the Mitigated Negative Declaration, and all written and oral testimony
presented and finds that the Project complies with the requirements of Section 94.07.00
of the City's Zoning Code. The City Council makes the following specific findings based
on specific evidence as described after each finding:
1. The proposed change of zone is in conformity with the general plan
map and report. Any amendment of the general plan necessitated by the
proposed change of zone should be made according to the procedure set
forth in the State Planning Law either prior to the zone change, or notice
may be given and hearings held on such general plan amendment
concurrently with notice and hearings on the proposed change of zone.
The proposed project is located in the Tourist Resort Commercial (TRC) (FAR of 0.35
and density of up to 30 units per acre) land use designation of the General Plan. The
mixed-use project proposes 11.2 residential dwelling units per acre and a FAR of 0.35,
which is consistent with the land use designation.
2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed
zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related
uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the commission and
council.
The proposed project is located in the REO and RA land designations of Section 14,
which describes these designations as follows:
056
Ordinance No.
Page 3
Specialty Retail-Entertainment-Office (REO) - This designation allows for the
integration and concentration of large-scale specialty retail, restaurant,
entertainment and office development along portions of Tahquitz Canyon Way
and Indian Canyon Drive and emphasizes a pedestrian-transit focus.
Resort-Attraction (RA) - This designation allows for large-scale resort hotel
complexes, hotels, and major commercial recreation attractions integrated with
retail and entertainment facilities.
The PDD is proposed to change the split zoning to a single PD zone designation with its
own development standards. Specific Uses requested for approval for the PDD include
attached and detached residential townhomes, live/work units and freestanding retail-
commercial with outdoor dining. Additional uses consistent with the REO land
designation may be considered within the commercial space and workspace of the
live/work units, except residential dwelling is prohibited in structures along the street
front. The project conforms to this finding.
Vehicular access to the residential portion of project is provided from Andreas Road.
The livelwork and commercial space is accessed from Calle El Segundo and the
extension of Calle Alvarado. The project proposes a mix residential, commercial and
live/work that is harmonious with adjacent uses in the vicinity. Thus, the project
conforms to this finding.
3. The proposed change of zone is necessary and proper at this time, and
is not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents.
The proposed PDD in lieu of zone change has been evaluated against the development
standards for the Section 14 land designations, the Resort Combining Zone and
architectural review. While the applicant is seeking setback deviations, the project is
harmonious with the existing surrounding development. It continues the pedestrian
experience along Tahquitz Canyon Way and introduces commercial uses along the
street frontage which is desirable. The project height is consistent with development
along the Tahquitz Canyon Way boulevard and is therefore not detrimental to adjacent
properties. The project conforms to this finding.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ORDAINS:
SECTION 1: CEQA.
The project has been reviewed under the provisions of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA). An initial study was conducted and the City concluded that the
project as proposed had the potential to cause significant negative impacts on the
environment. The analysis included all required CEQA issues, including but not limited
057
Ordinance No.
Page 4
to air quality, cultural resources, land use, hydrology and traffic. Mitigation Measures
have been proposed to reduce the project's significant impacts to a less than significant
level.
The City Council independently reviewed and considered the information contained in
the draft MND and the draft MND reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis.
The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record before it, including the initial
study and comments received, that the project as proposed, including all required
permits, has the potential to cause significant impacts on the environment but the
proposed Mitigation Measures would reduce those impacts to a less than significant
level. Therefore the City Council adopts the Mitigated Negative Declaration as a
complete and adequate evaluation of the project pursuant to CEQA.
SECTION 2: Preliminary PD in lieu of a Zone Change.
The City Council approves PD 375 in lieu of a Change of Zone (Case 5.1361) as
conditioned by City Council Resolution No. for Case 5.1361 PD 375 / CUP /
3.3820 MAJ /TTM 36876.
SECTION 3. Zoning Map change.
The City Council approves the zone map change from CU / REO to PD 375 for a
roughly 8.05-acre parcel located at the northeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and
Calle El Segundo, in conjunction with Case Nos. 5.1361 PD 375 / CUP / TTM 36876 /
3.3820 MAJ.
SECTION 4. Effective Date.
This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after passage.
SECTION 5. Publication.
The City Clerk is hereby ordered to and directed to certify to the passage of this
Ordinance, and to cause the same or summary thereof or a display advertisement, duly
prepared according to law, to be published in accordance with law.
ADOPTED this 18th day of March, 2015.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
City Clerk
058
Ordinance No.
Page 5
CERTIFICATION:
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby
certify that Ordinance No. is a full, true, and correct copy, and was introduced at a
regular meeting of the Palm Springs City Council on and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council held on by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
James Thompson, City Clerk
City of Palm Springs, California 1
ass
„' �
March 31,2015
Mr. Flynn Fagg
Director of Planning Services
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re. Formal Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on March 25th,2015 for
Case No.53361 —PD-375,3.3820 MAJ& TTM 36876—"Aberdeen” Mixed-Use
Project(the"Project")
Dear Flynn:
We are aware of the Planning Commission's action taken on March 25, 2015 to dery
approval of the Aberdeen Palm Springs Mixed-Use project (as identified above, the
"Project") located at the northeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Calle El Segundo.
We would like this letter to act as our formal appeal of that decision and ask that the Project
be considered by the City Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting on April 15,
2015.
The Planning Commission had many mixed comments regarding the architecture and uses
within the Project. In some cases, comments provided by commissioners on the February
25, 2015 meeting were contradicted by themselves on March 25, 2015. As the applicant,
it was very difficult to clearly understand what would satisfy the Planning Commission
given the amount of modifications that were made to the Project as a direct result of =
comments provided on February 25, 2015, Regardless of the inconsistent comments
received between the two (2) planning commission meetings and two (2) architectural
advisory committee meetings that we participated in, we believe that the Project has the
potential to be a catalyst for employment,community outreach,and economic development
within the City.
We feel that this location is ideally suited for a mixed-use project consisting of live/work
lofts, restaurant/retail. office, and high-density residential as proposed in the plans
presented to the Planning Commission on March 25, 2015. The proposed project ties
together the surrounding uses of commercial/movie theater, hospitality (including high-
rise),residential,and casino that already exist and are similarly identified as REO/RA areas
of the Section 14 Specific Plan. We also believe that the Proieet provides substantial public
benefit given how much developable land is being sacrificed in order to provide a new
street, Calle Alvarado, which will allow for new pedestrian and vehicular access to the
NEXUS Companies
1 Mack(hur Place,Suite 300.Santa Ana,CA 97767 ph 714-546.5600 fx 714.546.566E www,nexJsd.cOM 060
convention.center from ,rahquitz Canyon Way. Additional public benefit is provided by a
large art plaza in the center of the southern portion of the project. Finally, the plans
presented on March 25,2015 Planning Commission meeting incorporated one (1) existing
building and converted it into o(lice and retail/restaurant space for the Project.
We are excited to present the Project in further detail to the City Council and greatly
appreciate your assistance with this request to appeal the Planning Commission's decision.
Please do not hesitate to contact myself or Rich Meaney if you should have any questions.
Sincerely.
Rob W. Eres
Nexus Development Corporation/Central Division
Vice President of Development
Cc: James Thompson—City Clerk, City of Palm Springs
David Newell --- Associate Planner. City of Palm Springs
061
A L A4
Ci y of Palm 'Spr '
t Ings
Deparu/ntllt of 111allaing Services
P
tIFOR
March 26, 2015
Mr. Rob Eras
Nexus Development Corporation for 0 & M HR, LLC
I MacArthur Place, Suite 300
Santa Ana, CA 92707
RE: Case Nos. 5.1361 PD-375, 3.3820 MAJ & TTM 36876 —"Aberdeen" Mixed Use Project
Mr. Eres,
On March 25, 2015, the Planning Commission considered the subject applications for a mixed-use
project consisting of (73) attached and detached residential dwellings, (13) live-work units and
approximately 7,811-square feet of existing commercial space on approx. 8.05-acres located at the
northeast corner of Calle El Segundo and Tahquitz Canyon Way- At this meeting the Planning
Commission voted 4-3 to deny the project based on the following-,
• The project does not conform to the development standards of the Section 14 Specific Plan;
• The project does not conform to the development standards of the City's High-Rise Building
regulations, and general concerns about building heights in excess of 35 feet;
• Scale of residential buildings with respect to separation and height;
• Concerns regarding the design, parking, setbacks, and viability of the live/work spaces on
Tahquitz Canyon Way;
• Inadequacy of the perimeter landscaping;
• Failure to address concerns noted by the Planning Commission at the February 25, 2015
meeting, including but not limited to increased building separation, increased street widths,
and unencumbered pedestrian access; and
• Further analysis needed on the historical value of existing Kaptur buildings, and preference
to retain two of the four existing buildings.
In accordance with section 2.05,040 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, you may appeal the
decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council within ten days of the date of this letter.
The appeal request must be in writing and presented to the City Clerk with a fee of $546.00
(excludes notification fee, which was previously paid)by 6:00 p.m. on Monday, April 6, 2015.
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at(760) 323-8245,
Sincerely,
4-
David Newell
Associate Planner
cc: Case File
City Clerk
Poi , Office Box 2 Pt;I Spring i 2 63-?7213 062
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25,2015
roved, as submitted. (Vice-Chair Klatchko abstained on the study session and
re ar minutes.)
1B. M SPRINGS PROMENADE, LLC FOR A PARCEL MAP WAIVER TO
SUBDIVI ONE LOT INTO TWO PARCELS FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
THE NORT EST CORNER OF NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE AND ANDREAS
ROAD, ZONE D (CASE NO. TPM 36909). (DN)
Approved, as submi d.
1C. BARBARA FO R HENDERSON, O REQUESTING A MAJOR
ARCHITECTURE APPLIC ON FOR THE C ION OF A 4,879-SQUARE
FOOT HOUSE ON A HI SIDE LOT AN INISTRATIVE MINOR
MODIFICATION REQUESTING INCR IN BUILDI EIGHT LOCATED AT
888 LA MIRADA CIRCLE. (CASE 83 J; 7.1455 AMM).
Assistant Mlaker described the screen I s ure oted that bjections were
received.
JAMES CIOFFI, Cioffi Architect, en s ncern with the Cypress trees
and requested a condition to return to o I em.
ACTION: Approve s as a de
• Allow the app t to co back wl a change in tr at staff level.
Motion: er L issioner Were . k and unanimously
carrie o
AYES: missioner rdin ommissioner Lowe, Commissio Middleton,
Commissi Roberts, miss r Weremiuk, Vice-Chair Klatchko nd Chair
Hudson
2A. O & M HR, LLC. S DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR THE DEMOLITION OF
AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING AREA TO CONSTRUCT
"ABERDEEN"; A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF (74) ATTACHED AND
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, (17) LIVE-WORK UNITS AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,568-SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ON 8.05-ACRES LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CALLE EL
SEGUNDO, ZONE REO AND CU (CASE NOS. 5.1361 PD-375, 3.3820 MAJ AND TTM
36876). (DN)
063
City of Palm Springs 14
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25,2015
Associate Planner Newell noted that the description of the project in the agenda has
changed and provided an overview of the modifications made to the proposed
development.
Technical Questions:
The Commission questioned and/or commented on the following items:
1. Public testimony regarding consideration of the build' as a historic resource.
2. Parking in the front of the live/work units.
3. Does ordinance allow for Historic designation of qs? What is the process?
4. Points of access on the east/west street to th nits on Palm Canyon?
5. Distance between the buildings.
6. Internal street width requirements.
7. Modification of Calle Alvarado extensi
8. Installation of a traffic signal for two-wa ess.
9. Setbacks and building height for the town s a e/work un
Commissioner Calerdine comm t it woul be fair to the developer to put in
all the traffic signals. He suggest ibly of ting the access to right turn in
/ right turn out.
ROB ERES, Nexu nt, ap nt, th tried to accomodated as
many of the Com on co nts as Mr. described the modifications
made to the devel nt incl ng inco ting the entire western building into the
project. He provided s r to the acks, parking count, pre-wired for solar,
Calle Al et ubli nefit for the community. Mr. Eres
reque on SP. ere n eference to the internal streets and
requ an action en
Commissi Calerdine d th first issue that needs to be addressed is the
historic pres on of the ing an his first inclination is to deny the project to get a
decision from t 'ty Coun He has questions regarding the parking for the live/work
units; however, he the ect and thinks the density is a good idea.
Commissioner Roberts osed that he met with the applicant on several occasions.
He applauds the applicant's willingness to keep one of the Kaptur buildings given their
financial viability.
Commissioner Weremiuk a motion for denial.
Commission comments were made:
Vice-Chair Hudson stated that this project is very problematic and not just because of
the Kaptur buildings (retention versus demotion). He continues to have problems with
064
City of Palm springs 5
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25,2015
gated communities for high-end townhomes that are private courts. This is a very
central location in the city and these projects need to be more porous and welcoming.
The parking has been handled better because of the driveways and is a more realistic
scenario. The streetscape has one unit type around three sides of the project because
of the change that has been made to retain one of the Kaptur buildings and the
meandering sidewalk along Andreas was lost. Chair Hudson said the live/work spaces
are so close to the sidewalk and noted the specific standards for Section 14. He said
they may work on North Palm Canyon but does not think this will be a vibrant artist
colony. There are a lot of missed opportunities to treat the Tahquitz frontage in a much
more realistic manner. He said these the two building a pair with a breezeway in
the middle and recommended to Council to retain a 50% - one of the buildings.
He encouraged Council to demand more diver ' terms of housing types and
affordability.
Commissioner Lowe said he agreed with comments ppreciates that 1/4 of
the Kaptur building is being preserved. d preserving 50 he historic buildings
is essential in retaining the original arch re of the project. commented that
Tahquitz is a not a walking street but rather a ng s P for the liv rk units.
Vice-Chair Klatchko said he ha ther con such as losing the landscaping
on Andreas and perspective dra 'ust rec today. He noted on the west
elevation next to the residential th is wall a 'rtually no landscaping. He
said Alvarado Street o-way ess lusio the Kaptur buildings are
significant public b indica th can as tried to address the
issues.
Commissioner Middle id s been ifficult project and thanked the applicant
for being nsiv ke them. She still has concerns with the
viabilit e u n Tah a on. She said she appreciates more
side pace on tz n and s the integration of the remaining Kaptur
building ry esthetic leas She spoke in support of the project.
Commission oberts ex sed c ncern about sending mixed messages to the
applicant. He the Com Sion did not specify which building was to be retained.
And in regards to Alv o, a big area of parking space behind the live/work was
created. He can't s e/work will be a success - and many conditions could be
placed so that it will no sed as storage space. He feels strongly that the applicant
has come a long way and made significant changes and sacrifices for this project.
Commissioner Calerdine said there is no real analysis on the historic significance of the
buildings. He does not have a concern with the density and the separation of the
buildings. He likes the urban style. However, he does not think the parking layout will
function for the live/work units.
ACTION: Deny the project based on the following:
065
City of Palm Springs 16
Planning Commission Minutes
March 25,2015
• The project does not conform to the development standards of the Section 14
Specific Plan;
• The project does not conform to the development standards of the City's High-
Rise Building regulations, and general concerns about building heights in excess
of 35 feet;
• Scale of residential buildings with respect to separation and height;
• Concerns regarding the design, parking, setbacks and viability of the live/work
space on Tahquitz Canyon Way;
• Inadequacy of the perimeter landscaping;
• Failure to address concerns noted by the PI Commission at the February
25, 2015 meeting, including but not limi creased building separation,
increased street widths, and unencumber de access; and
• Further analysis needed on the histo ' alue of e g Kaptur buildings, and
preference to retain two of the four g buildings.
Motion: Commissioner Weremiuk, seconde Comm' loner Ca a and carried 4-
3-0 on a roll call vote.
AYES: Commissioner Calerdine, sioner L Commissioner Weremiuk, Chair
Hudson
NOES: Commissioner Middleton, C iss obe a-Chair Klatchko
(PSZC) SECTIONS 0.07 ND 93. 8 REGARDING REAL ESTATE
OTHER TE RARY 5.133 A). (FF)
Direct
gg pro n o ew on posed zone text am ent relative to
real a signs.
The Comm discusse d/or c ented on the f ing items:
1. The original a Val wa real estate Sig nly.
2. Prior discussion ig allowed in ublic right-a-way.
3. Realtor's concerns covera
4. Staff to review Plannl omm' n video on previous action.
Chair Hudson opened t ublic hearing and with no speakers coming forward the
public hearing was cl d.
Vice-Chair ko said that if signs will be allowed in the public right-a-way (not only if
it does ' ock the traffic) much more consideration should be given. This has been a
pro atic issue in the CBD district and suggested further review of the language by
City Attorney.
066
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25,2015
i
P IC COMMENTS:
Chair Huds ened public comments and with no appearances coming forward public
comments was c d.
1. CONSENT CALENDA
1A. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: VARY 11, 2016
i
ACTION; Approve, as presented_
Motion Vice-Chair Klatchko, seconded by Commissio iddleton and carried 6-0-1 �
on a roll call vote.
l
s
AYES: Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Lowe, Commis er Middleton,
Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Weremiuk, Vice-Chair Klatchko
ABSTAIN: Chair Hudson. x
�I
d
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS: j
2A. O & M HR, LLC (NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR THE DEMOLITION OF
AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING AREA TO CONSTRUCT
"ABERDEEN"; A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF (74) ATTACHED AND
DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, (17) LIVE WORK UNITS AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,568-SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ON 8.06-ACRES LOCATED AT
THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CALLE EL
SEGUNDO,ZONE REO AND CU (CASE NOS. 6.1361 PD-375, 3.3820 MAJ AND TTM
36876). (DIN)
Associate Planner Newell presented the proposed mixed-use project as outlined in the
staff report.
The Commission asked technical questions pertaining to the project in reference to:
• Potential to preserve buildings under historical ordinance;
• Calls Alvarado street improvements;
• Location of the access points and gates;
• Setbacks on Tahquitz Canyon in front of work/live units;
• Pre-wire for solar;
• Setback requirements for Section 14;
Parking for the cafe and livelwork units.
r
E
2 067
I
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, 2015
Chair Hudson opened the public hearing:
ROB ERES, applicant, Nexus Dev. Corp., said they are not pushing density and height
to the maximum. He commented that condition PSP I. would increase the overall street
12 feet more than what is currently proposed instead they are trying to create an urban
development. He requested an action be taken today_
CHRIS PARDO, project architect, spoke about Calle Alvarado, setbacks, height, gates
and the pedestrian walkway between townhomes.
The following persons spoke in favor of the proposed project:
TOM ADAMO, property owner, said this project is well below the density requirements
and will create jobs; this property can be a trend-setter.
AFTAB DADA, read a letter into the record by Harold Matzner, stating that this project is
located in the right location where more foot traffic is needed on Tahquitz. Mr. Dada a
said, as an owner and partner of the Hilton Hotel, they are in full support of the project.
i
JAMES CIOFFI, said this is an exciting new development and implored the design team
to try to find a way to integrate the existing buildings into the project.
I
REGGIE CAMERON, said this project speaks to the creativity of artists and is excited to
have the mixed-use project at this location.
JUAN-MANUEL ALONSO, said it's important to move forward to the future; this project
will have a place for artists.
ANDY CARPIAC, represents Hard Rock Hotel, said there is a demand for this type of
development and encouraged the Commission to see past the skepticism of other
speakers.
MIGUEL CRIEGO, artist, said this project will open up to the community giving it culture
and life.
TERRY HASTINGS, artist council board member, praised the development for creating
a solid artistic project. He said this would be a great anchor for the artists and
community.
The following persons spoke in opposition to the project:
GARY JOHNS, said the city has a resort lifestyle and does not believe there is the
clientele for an urban center.
4
3 068
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, 2015
RON MARSHALL, PS Preservation Foundation, said this property needs to be
evaluated as a historic resource and requested an environmental analysis be
conducted.
ROBERT IMBER, said that thousands of people come to see the city's heritage of
architecture.
JUDY DEERTRACK, said the demolition needs to be compared with adaptive historical
re-use.
ROXANN PLOSS, encouraged the idea of adaptive re-use in regards to the existing 3
buildings.
i
BARBARA MARSHALL, said the plan to demolish this property will injure the city; and
encouraged the developer to adaptively re-use the historic resource.
1
DICK BURKETT, suggested the developer come back with a plan as an option to show
the study of the adaptive re-use of the Kaptur building.
PETER MORUZZI, PS Modern Committee, chair, spoke about letters received from
architectural experts and encouraged the Commission to read the letters.
i
DR. MICHAEL MCQUARTER, architect, does not understand why the buildings from
good architects are torn down.
FRANK TYSON, said people come here because they like the historic architecture;
thinks this project needs substantial work and a full impact study.
HUGH KAPTUR, architect, commented that developers come from big cities with
projects that change the environment and village of Palm Springs and requested these
buildings be preserved.
ROB EKES, applicant rebuttal, thanked all the public that spoke; and clarified that the
Aberdeen project will have 2 car garages as well as driveway parking for 2 vehicles,
unlike the Morrison project.
There being no further appearances the public hearing was closed.
Chair Hudson commented that providing space for artists in the city is admirable;
however, he questioned the appropriateness of the site; there is very little flexibility to
have larger retail businesses along this frontage.
Vice-Chair Klatchko noted the community concern about adaptive re-use and asked the
developer if they rethought keeping the buildings.
a 069
i
. ...................... ..
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, 2015
Chris Pardo said they looked at many options and none were economically viable.
Commission Roberts commented that this is a good project - it's attractive and fits well
in the area. However, he is struggling with the project because the zoning mix is very
complex. The R-1 zoning is not allowed in this area and does not fit anywhere. It feels
overly dense for single-family houses. He does not see the public benefit given for the
relief that will be granted for this project. He expressed concern with the live/work units
because of the lack of parking in the busy corridor. He would like to send this project
back to look at the density and suggested one public benefit could be reconditioning an
existing building and contribute to the character of the city. '
Commissioner Middleton said she likes what this project does away from Tahquitz but
does not see the public benefit for the relief given. She is most impressed with the
connection created by the Calle Alvarado extension from Tahquitz to the Convention
Center and would like to see a 2-way street. She would like to see the Kaptur buildings
preserved. She said the 6' setback on Tahquitz is very crammed with tight spaces. She
appreciates the setbacks on Andreas and would like to see the project pushed back
from Tahquitz to create more space. ?
I
i
Commissioner Calerdine congratulated the design team and asked questions in
reference to the roof deck space. He questioned if some of the live/work units could be
brought around the corner on El Segundo and Tahquitz to allow some preservation of
existing buildings. He preferred to see Calle Alvarado as a full use street, vehicular
gates (parking will be used when conventions are in town) and agreed that a degree of
building preservation should be maintained.
Commissioner Lowe expressed concerns about parking on the live/work space on
Tahquitz Canyon. He agreed that Called Alvarado would work better as a two-way
street.
Rob Eres said they are open to having Calle Alvarado as a two-way street and
respectfulty requested for an action on this project.
Chair Hudson commented that the most important thing about this project is the
preservation of at least a portion of the buildings. He expressed concern with the
setbacks on Tahquitz Canyon and thinks this is one location in the city that can handle
high density if it were done in a more creative way.
Commissioner Weremiuk spoke about the Section 14 design guidelines and the
importance of the Tahquitz Canyon presence. She expressed concern with the
setbacks and viability of the livelwork units, and would like to see more community
public benefit. She noted that one public benefit could be the preservation of one of the
Kaptur buildings.
5 070
i
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
February 25, 2015
Commissioner Roberts said that he does not a have problem and made the following
motion.
ACTION: To continue to a date uncertain to allow the applicant to work with staff in
making the following modifications to the project:
s
• Density/ height -justification.
• Distance between buildings - 10 feet.
• Calle Alvarado - a two-way street.
• Viability of live/work (configuration)
• Public benefit - (preserve and consider study)
• Solar panels.
• Consider live/work units on side streets.
Motion Commissioner Roberts, seconded by Commissioner Weremiuk and unanimously
carried on a roll call vote.
s
AYES: Commissioner Calerdine, Commissioner Lowe, Commissioner Middleton,
Commissioner Roberts, Commissioner Weremiuk, Vice-Chair Klatchko, Chair Hudson 3
i
Commissioner Calerdine noted that the Tribe's conservation plan fees were dropped I
and requested staff look into applying the CVMSHCP fees.
The meeting resumed at 3:47 pm.
2B. 750 LOFTS, LLC FOR A MIXED-USE HOTEL DEVELOPMEN A 1,13-ACRE
PARCEL LOCATED AT 750 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIV NE CA / R-3 I PD
104 / RESORT COMBINING ZONE / LAS PALMAS BUS S HISTORIC DISTRICT
(HD-1) (CASE NOS. 5.1350 PDD 374/GPA I CUP .3795 MAJ). (KL)
Associate Planner Lyon provided an ov of the proposed mixed-use hotel as
outlined in the staff report.
The Commission asked fu clarification on issues relating to:
• Capture or valet parking at the Colony Palms.
• Park' survey to determine the whether the rest of the Uptown area is I
uately parked_ I
Reciprocal parking agreement with Colony Palms for the existing 750 lot.
l
6 i
071
i
/ Architectural Advisory Committee Minutes
January 26, 2015
ber Hirschbein asked if a subcommittee is the best way to move this forward.
Member commented that the applicant has increased the quantity of plants. She
commented tha subcommittee needs to give clear direction up front.
Member Purnel made the wing suggestions:
• Increase some plant sizes (slo rowing plants);
• A little more massing and rhythm o nts; rather than individual ones scattered
out.
• Clarification on plants that are not labeled on fans
• Identify plants to be replaced - Aurelia is a poor recommends alternative
plant.
• Greener groundcover- to make it lusher.
M/S/C (Purnell/Fredricks, 7-0) Approve, subject to review with subcomml and
5. O & M HR, LLC (NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR THE DEMOLITION OF
AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING AREA TO CONSTRUCT
"ABERDEEN"; A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF (74) ATTACHED
AND DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, (17) LIVE-WORK UNITS AND
APPROXIMATELY 1,568-SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ON 8.05-ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
AND CALLE EL SEGUNDO, ZONE REO AND RA (CASE NOS. 5.1361 PD-375,
3.3820 MAJ AND TTM 36876). (DN)
Douglas Holland, City Attorney, reviewed the AAC's responsibilities for Architectural
Review.
Associate Planner Newell provided an overview of the proposed project.
Vice-Chair Fredricks noted issues with the landscape plan - does not see the landscape
plan that shows the plant sizes and materials - (can be submitted with final plan).
Member Song commented that landscape is not per Section 14 Plan on Tahquitz
Canyon Way; and questioned the prohibition of residential use of live/work space on
Tahquitz Canyon Way.
Member Secoy-Jensen verified appropriateness of reviewing context.
Chair Fauber asked staff to identify where in the staff report where it does not conform
and what the standards are.
3 072
Architectural Advisory Committee Minutes
January 26,2015
ROB ERES and CHRIS PARDO, applicants, identified the changes made to the plan.
Public Comment:
BETH EDWARDS HARRIS, said she would like to see the list of responsibilities of the
Committee.
RON MARSHALL, applauds the AAC for its comments two weeks ago; sustainability
should be discussed here.
BARBARA MARSHALL, spoke about the important of the Hugh Kaptur buidlings.
Member Cassady requested clarification of Calle Alvarado design.
Member Hirschbein asked for clarification of pedestrian access through the site.
Member Song asked about the width of the landscape area at Alvarado. She
commented that no landscape buffer is shown on Calle El Segundo and asked about
the signage - which is not included as part of this approval.
Member Purnel expressed concern about the street trees in tight spaces - it needs to
be addressed on landscape plan; need street trees on El Segundo. He said landscape
is under-developed. It needs to show landscape of the interior streets.
Member Secoy-Jensen commented that architecture and urban design are inseparable.
She noted that Calle Alvarado could be wider and questioned what the design concept
is for the live/work buildings on Tahquitz.
Chair Fauber asked if there are no swimming pools on Tahquitz for the livetwork units.
He commented that parking is short per submitted drawings; and also questioned the
Calle Alvarado width.
Member Cassady commented that no parking along Tahquitz will hurt the retail spaces.
Member Secoy-Jensen said she is struggling with the live/work design and monotony of
garage doors; however, the residential behind may be appropriate.
Chair Fauber said the issue is with the fourth floor.
Member Hirschbein commented that what is before them now is better than what was
originally proposed; however, it is monotonous.
M/S/C (Cassady/Secoy-Jensen, 7-0) Deny.
The Board made a finding that the project does not conform to adopted standards, and
4 073
n
Architectural Advisory Committee Minutes
January 26,2015
recommended the following modifications:
1. Study alternatives along Tahquitz Canyon Way;
2. Provide streetscape along El Segundo;
3. Address Calle Alvarado traffic, parking and circulation issues;
4. Resubmit planting diagrams.
e a pm.
NEW BUSINESS:
6. SERGE DOROSHIN FOR A PRELIMINARY PLANNED D ELOPMENT
DISTRICT APPLICATION TO DEVELOP A 32-UNIT CON MINIUM AND
TWO LIVE-WORK UNITS LOCATED AT 262 SOUTH INDIA ANYON DRIVE,
ZONE LSC/C-1AA & C-2, SECTION 14 (CASE 5.1358-PD 76). (ER)
Principal Planner Robertson presented the proposed project.
Chair Fauber questioned if tribal land is subject to city re w.
Member Hirschbein asked for clarification of prope use to the north.
Member Song questioned the landscape/stree ape requirement along Indian Canyon.
CHRIS PARDO, project architect, provide dditional details.
Member Purnel asked about the Ian ape at Indian Canyon, vehicular circulation and
parking for live/work. He asked ab the function of gate at Calle Encilia.
Member Secoy-Jensen ques ' ned the functionality of the parking area at Indian
Canyon.
Chair Fauber asked if t e are any guest spaces on the interior.
Member Song co ented on the architecture: relationship of retail to street is too
bare; not well del
e ' ed. She said the interior street needs trees/plantings.
Member P ell commented that the street is "harsh" feeling; it needs increased
plantings.
Me r Secoy-Jensen commented that the vehicular entry is inadequate. Architecture
is od, but exterior spaces need to be studied more; footprint may need to be reduced.
Member Hirschbein stated that the density is appropriate for downtown; it needs more
5
074
i
Architectural Advisory Committee Minutes
January 12,2015
it Fauber proposed a subcommittee review the project. Staff level review was
prefe
M/S/C (Secoy-Je Song, 6-0-1) To approve with conditions:
• Awnings be replaced o h Palm Canyon and Indian Canyon in the existing
locations and evaluate con i of the awning frames; paint to match color
sample #2.
• Building painted color sample #1.
• Windows will be in-filled with stucco to match adja wall surface leaving a 1" -
2" recessed back panel with the reveal between the in- i enings.
3. O & M HR, LLC (NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR THE DEMOLITION OF
AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING AREA TO CONSTRUCT
"ABERDEEN"; A MIXED-USE PROJECT CONSISTING OF (74) ATTACHED
AND DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS, (17) LIVE-WORK UNITS AND
APPROXIMATELY 3,000-SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ON 8.05-ACRES
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
AND CALLE EL SEGUNDO, ZONE REO AND RA (CASE NOS. 6.1361 PD-375,
3.3820 MAJ AND TTM 36876). (DN)
Associate Planner Newell provided an overview of the proposed project.
Discussion:
Member Song asked questions about the following:
• Lettered lots;
• Demolition of existing buildings;
• CUP submittal;
• Setbacks from Tahquitz for residential units;
• Building height.
Member Hirschbein questioned what square footage is being demolished versus how
much is proposed.
Member Cassady requested clarification on ownership of property.
Member Secoy-Jensen asked what the timeline is for Planning Commission review
(environmental needs to be computed).
075
3
Architectural Advisory Committee Minutes
January 12,2015
ROB ERES AND CHRIS PARDO, applicants, responded that that existing building is
about 32,000 square feet; and objects to conditions #1 and #2 in the staff report.
Public Comment:
JOHN WESSMAN, Wessman Development, commented that he knows the Hugh
Kaptur buildings, and they were not developed to full potential.
BARBARA MARSHALL, commented that the demolition of the buildings injures the city.
This project is not what Palm Springs wants or needs; let's find a way to adequately re-
use this property.
GARY JOHNS, commented that Hugh Kaptur will have a voice in this matter at a later
time.
RON MARSHALL, commented that the buildings qualify for preservation because they
are the work of a master architect.
Questions:
Member Hirschbein asked how would uses be regulated (live/work space - per
underlying zoning) and where is parking for coffee shop?
Member Cassady asked if there will be gates at the south end of interior streets.
Member Song made the following comments:
• Why gated? Why not open it up and allow it to flow?
• Expressed concern about the setbacks of the live/work units.
• Why not put art garden and caf6 together (enliven the space)
• Do townhouse units share a sidewalk?
• How will the live/work signage be addressed?
• Open up pool area to pedestrian path.
Member Hirschbein asked if the workspace can be rented separately. How many
parking spaces are required by code? And was the adaptive re-use of the existing
buildings looked at?
Member Secoy-Jensen questioned why not re-use the buildings?
Member Hirschbein made the following comments:
• Appreciates that the community is bringing information forward on the historic
4 076
Architectural Advisory Committee Minutes
January 12,2015
nature of the existing buildings;
• Prefers the site not be gated;
• Would like to see Calle Alvarado developed in a pedestrian-friendly manner;
• Questions the viability of live/work units.
Member Secoy-Jensen made the following comments:
• Likes the connection of Calle Alvardo;
• Struggling with regularity/monotony of Tahquitz elevation;
• Thinks office buildings could be re-used;
• This project is not characteristic of Palm Springs.
Member Cassady said the project lacks connectivity. He likes the design; however,
questioned if this is the right place for it. He would prefer to see the Hugh Kaptur
buildings saved.
Chair Fauber made the following comments:
• Concerned with the density and height of the 3 story building;
• Concerned with live/work units;
• Parking is not functional;
• The building is beautiful but not the right location for it;
• Should be non-gated (using St. Baristo as an example).
Member Song said she has three issues with this project: the gates, parking and re-use
of existing office buildings.
Chair Fauber said Calle Alvarado street section needs to be increased.
M/S/C (Secoy-Jensen/Fauber, 6-0-1) Table with direction to the applicant to modify the
following:
1. Architecture along Tahquitz is too monotonous, lacks interest and out of scale
and context;
2. Parking needs further evaluation for commercial and live-work;
3. Circulation — Increase pedestrian amenities (i.e. landscaping, wider sidewalk,
etc.) along extension of Calle Alvarado;
4. Connectivity— Eliminate gates and improve connectivity of project within existing
community;
5. Adaptive re-use of existing commercial buildings should be considered in
redesign.
no
5 077
CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS LLP
2200 PACFIC COAST HIGHWAY
TELEPHONE.(310)798-2400 SUITE 318 &MAIL:
FACSIMILE: (310)798-2402 HERMOSA BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90254 ACMQCHCEA TH W.COM
www.cbcearthiaw.com
February 10, 2015
Via Email and US. Mail
Flinn Fagg, AICP
Director of Planning Services
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Jim Zicaro
Director of Building and Safety
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Proposed Demolition of Kaptur Designed Buildings as Part of Aberdeen
Project; Case Nos. 5.1361 PD-375, 3.3820 MAJ and TTM 36876.
Dear Mr. Fagg and Mr. Zicaro:
On behalf of the Palm Springs Modern Committee, we write regarding the
proposed demolition of two mid-century modern office buildings designed by noted Palm
Springs' architect Hugh Kaptur ("Kaptur buildings") as part of the proposed Aberdeen
mixed use project ("Project"), which is planned for the northeast corner of Tahquitz
Canyon Way and Calle El Segundo. We would like to confirm that the City will not issue
demolition permits for the Kaptur buildings prior to the completion of environmental
review for the entire Aberdeen Project and final approval of this Project by the City
Council.
The applicant's plans and the Architectural Advisory Committee's January 12 and
26, 2015 staff memorandums regarding the Project make clear that demolition of the
Kaptur buildings is a necessary first step to developing the Project as proposed by the
applicant. Because the demolition would be part of the Aberdeen Project, it is subject to
the same environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act
("CEQA") as the rest of the Project. (CEQA Guidelines § 15378(a).) This is true even
though demolition permits on their own may be considered ministerial. "Where a project
078
Flinn Fagg, Jim Zicaro
February 10, 2015
Page 2 of 2
involves an approval that contains elements of both a ministerial action and a
discretionary action, the project will be deemed to be discretionary and will be subject to
the requirements of CEQA." (CEQA Guidelines § 15268(d); see also Orinda Assn. v.
Board of Supervisors (1986) 182 Ca1.App.3d 1145, 1171 ["demolition was a phase of the
overall Project; as such, it was subject to the same CEQA review as the rest of the
Project, and the demolition permit could not be issued until the entire CEQA process was
completed and the overall Project lawfully approved."].) Please let us know if the City
agrees it will not issue demolition permits for the Kaptur building until after
environmental review for the Aberdeen Project is complete and the City Council has
approved the Project.
Additionally, pursuant to the CEQA section 21092.2, we request to receive a copy
of all CEQA notices for the Aberdeen Project as they are completed. We also request
immediate notice of applications for or approval of demolition permits for the Kaptur
buildings and notice of any public hearings or meetings regarding this Project. If
possible, we request these notices be sent via email to acm@cbcearthlaw.com.
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Amy Minteer
Attorney at Law
cc: James Thompson, City Clerk
079
ALAN HE$$
ARCHITECT
4991 CORKWOOD LANE
IRVINE,CA 92612
949 551 5343
aa�p�alanhess net
www.alanhess.net
February 19, 2015
Terri Hintz
Planning Department Administrative Coordinator
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Re: Tahquitz Plaza by architect Hugh Kaptur, Tahquitz Canyon and Calle El Segundo
To the Planning Commission:
I am writing as an architect, historian, and author of nineteen books on Modern
architecture to express my support for the preservation of the Tahquitz Plaza office
complex because of its historical significance to Palm Springs and California
architecture. Please share this letter with the Planning Commissioners prior to their
February 25, 2015 meeting.
I have written two books on Palm Springs architecture (Julius Shulman: Palm Springs,
Rizzoli International, 2008, and Palm Springs Weekend, Chronicle Books, 2001) and
can say that these buildings, and the work of architect Hugh Kaptur, play an important
role in what is now identified as Palm Springs Modernism.
I am also a consultant on architectural history for the current City of Palm Springs
architectural survey. I have already unequivocally recommended Tahquitz Plaza as a
significant building in that survey.
My resume is attached. I have written on architecture for the Los Angeles Review of
Books, The Architect's Newspaper, The Los Angeles Times, Architectural Digest, the
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, and other journals. I have been the
architecture critic of the San Jose Mercury News since 1986, received a grant from the
Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, and was a National Arts
Journalism Fellow at Columbia University.
The research of the importance of Palm Springs Modern architecture in general is very
recent. Only a decade ago, the work of now-recognized architects such as William
Cody, Donald Wexler, Palmer & Krisel, and E. Stewart Williams was not well known
080
generally; few Modern buildings now considered iconic were identified as historic then.
Since then, our understanding of these and other architects has made us aware of the
full dimension of Palm Springs architectural history.
As we continue researching this history, it is clear that the work of Hugh Kaptur makes a
significant contribution to the unique character of Palm Springs architecture. This
opinion is not mine alone; the newly published book The Desert Modernists: The
Architects Who Envisioned Midcentury Modem Palm Springs (Desert Publications,
2015) and the documentary film Quiet Elegance: The Architecture of Hugh M. Kaptur
(Bert Simonis, director, 2014) indicate the clear direction of scholarly opinion on
Kaptur's importance.
Briefly stated, Kaptur's significance is this: 1) Palm Springs midcentury Modern
architecture is known for its use of Modem concepts to solve the challenges of climate,
function, and new materials; 2) an extraordinary group of talented architects lived or
worked in Palm Springs, and while they addressed the same problems they expressed
a wide range of aesthetic solutions; 3) Hugh Kaptur's aesthetic is unique in Palm
Springs, demonstrating the wide range of fertile innovation in the city.
Tahquitz Plaza is an important and well preserved example of Kaptur's unique
approach. Rather than drawing on the rectilinear steel and glass geometries of, for
example, Richard Neutra, he draws on organic forms and ideas from the American
Southwest, and Frank Lloyd Wright. This is seen in Tahquitz Plaza's irregular roofline,
the deep, sculpted, curving frames around windows, the eaves and sun shading
features, and the integration of outdoor areas interspersed among the offices. This is a
strong piece of design that deserves to remain in place.
In addition, its site on Tahquitz Canyon places it in the context of the city civic center, an
extraordinary collection of Modern buildings serving civic purposes, and rare in the
state.
I am writing this letter pro bono because historic architecture of this quality adds to the
civic character and quality of city life. In the years before Palm Springs' heritage was
fully understood, the city lost many significant structures. Unfortunately, this degradation
has continued; the demolition of a major Kaptur design would be a loss to history and
the city's urban quality.
Sincerely,
Alan Hess
081
RESUME OFALAN HESS, ARCHITECT
4991 Corkwood Lane, Irvine, CA92612 949/551 5343 www.alanhess.net
alan(a)alanhess.net
WORK 1981- Alan Hess,Architect
1986- Architecture critic, San Jose Mercury-News
EDUCATION 1975-78 M.Arch. I, School of Architecture and Urban Planning,
University of California, Los Angeles
1970-74 B.A., Principia College, Elsah, IL
DESIGN Jamm's Coffee Shop, Petersen Automotive Museum, Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History; principal contributor to
interpretive exhibits
Gordon Onslow-Ford guesthouse, Marin County, CA
TEACHING 1989-91 Instructor, University of California, Los Angeles
1986-90 Lecturer, Southern California Institute of Architecture
PRESERVATION Design Guidelines, Heatherstone Community, Mountain View, CA
Honor Award 1997, National Trust for Historic Preservation
President's Award, California Preservation Foundation
Qualified for National Register of Historic Places:
Bullock's Pasadena (Wurdeman and Becket 1947), Pasadena
CA
McDonald's Drive-In (Stanley C. Meston 1953), Downey, CA
Valley Ho Hotel (Edward Varney, 1957), Scottsdale, AZ
Stuart Pharmaceutical Factory (Edward Durell Stone 1958),
Pasadena, CA
Expert testimony on behalf of landmark designations for Century
Plaza Hotel, Los Angeles (Minoru Yamasaki, 1966); Bob's
Big Boy, Burbank (Wayne McAllister, 1949); Wichstand, Los
Angeles (Armet and Davis, 1957), Columbia Savings, Los
Angeles (1964), Stanford Hospital (Edward Durell Stone
1959), National Theater, Westwood (1969) and other
mid-century modern structures
FELLOWSHIPS Fellow, National Arts Journalism Program, School of Journalism,
Columbia University, 1997-98
GRANTS Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts,
research on Brazilian landscape architect Roberto Burle
Marx, 1990
LICENSE Licensed architect, California # C 15747
082
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
BOOKS:
Frank Lloyd Wright:Natural Design, Organic Architecture Rizzoli International,
New York 2012
Casa Modernist: A History of the Brazil Modern House Rizzoli International, New
York 2010
Oscar Niemeyer Buildings Rizzoli International, New York 2009
Frank Lloyd Wright: The Buildings Rizzoli International, New York 2008
Julius Shulman: Palm Springs Rizzoli International, New York 2008
Forgotten Modern: California Houses 1940-1970 Gibbs Smith Publisher, Layton,
UT 2007
Frank Lloyd Wright: Mid-Century Modern, Rizzoli International, New York 2007
Organic Architecture: The Other Modernism Gibbs Smith Publisher, Layton, UT
2007
Frank Lloyd Wright: Prairie Houses, Rizzoli International, New York 2006
Oscar Niemeyer Houses, Rizzoli International, New York 2006
Frank Lloyd Wright: The Houses, Rizzoli International, New York 2005
The Ranch House, Harry Abrams, Inc., New York 2005
Googie Redux: Ultramodern Roadside Architecture, Chronicle Books,
San Francisco 2004
Palm Springs Weekend: the Architecture and Design of a Midcentury Oasis,
Chronicle Books, San Francisco 2000
Rancho Deluxe: Rustic Dreams and Real Western Living, Chronicle Books,
San Francisco 2000
The Architecture of John Lautner, Rizzoli International, New York 1999
Hyperwest: American Residential Architecture on the Edge, Thames & Hudson,
London1996
Viva Las Vegas, Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA 1993
Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture, Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA
1986
MAGAZINES, JOURNALS, NEWSPAPERS AND WEBSITES:
"Big Man on Campus: Alan Hess on Modernist Maverick, a new exhibition at the
Nevada Museum of Art exploring the architecture of William Pereira,"
Architect's Newspaper, Sept. 26, 2013
"Connecting the Dots:Alan Hess on Pacific Standard Time Presents: Modern
Architecture in L.A.," Architect's Newspaper, Sept. 6, 2013
"The Beauty of Authenticity: Dana Point Harbor," Orange Coast Magazine, Aug.,
2013
"Wide Angle Lens:Alan Hess on the Getty's new exhibition, Overdrive: LA
Constructs the Future 1940-1990, " Architect's Newspaper, June 21,
2013
"Everyday Modernisms: Diversity, Creativity, and Ideas in L.A. Architecture,
1940-1990"
Los Angeles Conservancy, "Curating the City" website, June 2013
083
"Schindler Goes Hollywood," Los Angeles Review of Books, May 26, 2012
"New Apple Campus," San Jose Mercury News, Sept. 2011
"John Lautner and Los Angeles," Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2011
"Coming to Terms with the Sixties," National Trust Forum Journal, Summer
2010 vol 24 no 4
"Colorful Landmarks: how color shaped public space in 1950s suburbia," New
Geographies, Harvard Graduate School of Design, Oct 2010
"The Suburbs and the Ranch House," California College of the Arts
Architecture Studio Series, 2005
"The Place of Histories," Architecture California, 04:1, 2003
"Steven Ehrlich house, Pacific Palisades," Metropolitan Home, Dec. 2005
"Montalvo Artists' Village," Architectural Digest, June 2005
"Cliff May's Romantic Mandalay," Architectural Digest, May 2005
"Meeting the Horizon in California, Roscoe House by Helena Arahuete,"
Architectural Digest, Jan. 2005
"Historic Architecture: Oscar Niemeyer," Architectural Digest, May 2003
"The Place of Histories,"Architecture California, 04:1, 2003
"San Jose: A Downtown in the Making," Places, vol. 15, no. 2
"High Art Parking Lot," Rearview Mirror: Automobile Images and
American Identities, University of California, Riverside 2000
"Eine kurze Geschichte von Las Vegas," Stadt Bauwelt 143, Sept. 1999
"City Center to Regional Mall," Journal of Preservation Technology, vol XXVII,
no 4, 1997
"New York, New York," Architectural Record, March 1997
"John Lautner" Progressive Architecture, December 1994
"The Origins of McDonald's Golden Arches," Journal of the
Society of Architectural Historians, XLV: 60-67, March 1986
"Technology Exposed," Landscape Architecture, May 1992, pp 38-48
"Burle Manx: A Shaky Legacy," Landscape Architecture, April 1992 p 38
"Back to Brasilia," Progressive Architecture, October 1991 pp 96-97
"Greenwald house," Los Angeles Times Magazine, October 27, 1991, p 31
"Of Cities and Their Halls," San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 7, 1991
"American Style and Fifties Style: reviews," Design Book Review, Winter 1989
"Schindler and Goff: Architectures," L.A. Style, March 1989
"Monsanto House of the Future," Fine Homebuilding, August/September 1986,
No. 34
"The Eichler Homes,"Arts +Architecture, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1984
SELECTED TALKS
LECTURES:
Getty Research Institute; Kansas City Modern; Dallas Modern; Arizona
Preservation Conference Keynote; Nevada Museum of Art Symposium; Society
of Architectural Historians Tour; Commonwealth Club of San Francisco; Society
for Commercial Archeology Conference Keynote; Los Angeles Conservancy
Welton Becket Centennial Keynote; Columbia University School of Architecture;
Houston Modern; Phoenix Modern; Walker Art Museum; Chicago Humanities
084
Festival; Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Design; Yale University School of
Architecture; Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts;
Greenwich (England) National Maritime Museum; Cliff May Lecture, Los Angeles
Conservancy; Vancouver (B.C.)Alcan Lecture Series; Architecture League;
International Association of Shopping Center Owners; National Real Estate
Editors Association; Colby College Southworth Lecture; Monterey Design
Conference; University of British Columbia; National Trust for Historic
Preservation Conference;AIA 2005 National Convention, Las Vegas; Hammer
Museum Symposium; San Francisco AIA; California Preservation Foundation;
Schusev State Museum of Architecture, Moscow.
BROADCAST MEDIA AND FILMS:
"William Krisel, Architect," DesignOnScreen Foundation, 2010
"A Kick in the Head—The Lure of Las Vegas," BBC-TV January 2010
"Journeyman Architect: The Architecture of Donald Wexler,"
DesignOnScreen 2009
"Desert Utopia," DesignOnScreen, 2008
Which Way LA, KCRW-FM, July 7, 2008
Which Way LA, KCRW-FM July 27, 2007
The Late Show, BBC-TV January 16, 1995
CBS Sunday Morning News with Charles Kuralt, January 23, 1994
Good Morning America,August 3, 1993
CBS Morning News, Jan. 17, 1990
Videolog, KCET, Los Angeles, June 1985
Patrick Monroe Show, CBC Radio, February 1987
Morning Edition, NPR, May 2, 1986
Smithsonian World, "Speaking Without Words," PBS, March 1984
SELECTED REFERENCES TO WORK
Thomas Hines, Architecture of the Sun, 2010
"Las Vegas meets la-la land," Smithsonian, October 1995
"In Los Angeles, a '50s Flameout," New York Times, September 7, 1995
"Oldest McDonald's Closes," New York Times, March 6, 1994
"Would Las Vegas Landmark Be an Oxymoron?" New York Times, Oct. 7, 1993
"Restaurant Architecture," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians,
XLVIII:2, June 1989
"Legacy of the Golden Arches," TIME, June 2, 1986
"Books: Pop Style to Free Style," Progressive Architecture, December 1986
"Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture, a review," Architectural Record, May
1986
"Who Says It's Not a Landmark?" Historic Preservation, November/December
1987
"Googie -- History Closing the Menu on a 1950s style," Los Angeles Times, June
9, 1986
"Now let's hear it for Googie style," Vancouver Sun, February 5, 1987
"Architecture and Design reviews," Philadelphia Inquirer, November 30, 1986
085
"Architecture To Go," David Dillon, Dallas News, June 22, 1986
"Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture," Art and Design, London, June 1986
086
April 9, 2015
Flinn Fagg
Director of Planning Services
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Dear Mr. Fagg:
Historic Resources Group, LLC (HRG) is currently under contract to the City of Palm
Springs to develop a historic context statement and conduct a citywide historic
resources survey of properties constructed prior to 1968.
We wish to note that comments submitted by Alan Hess on February 19, 2015,
regarding Tahquitz Plaza are his own opinions. Mr. Hess is a sub-consultant to the
survey effort assisting with the development of the historic context. He and other
experts have recommended specific sites for study during the survey project. However,
survey findings will only address buildings constructed prior to 1968, as specified in
our contract with the City of Palm Springs.
We would be happy to respond to any questions or comments.
Sincerely,
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP, LLC
Pey Hall, FAlA
Mar ingPrinci.pal
HISTORIC RESOURCES GROUP
12 S.Fair Oaks Avenue,Suite 200,Pasadena,CA 91105-1915
Telephone 626 793 2400,Facsimile 626 793 2401
w .historieresourcesgroupxom 087
Terri Hintz
From: Brad Dunning <brad@braddunning.comn
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2015 12:41 AM
To: Terri Hintz
Subject: Tahquitz Plaza
Feb. 20,201s -.---___---
Lem _211
Planning Commission Tanning Commission Meeting
City of Palm springs )ate: �2 2L -ISS
3200 E. Tahquitz,Canyon Way dditinnal Material
Palm Springs, CA 92263
1 was quite shocked recently upon hearing the City of Palm Springs is considering a developer's plan to
demolish the Hugh Kaptur-designed Tahquitz Plaza. It seems almost inconceivable to me that these buildings,
some of the best work of Hugh Kaptur's career, could be lost. Although recognition of Hugh Kaptur's work is
coming later than those of his local peers--Albert Frey, E. Stewart Williams, Donald Wexler, William Cody and
other prominent locals that have made Palm Springs world renowned as a destination for fans of architecture
and design and the appreciation of mid century architecture in Palm Springs seems to be the major factor in the
revival of the town--Kaptur's work is certainly as important and worthy. His achievements mark the latter end.
of the mid century era. His work is distinctive,unique and in the case of his pueblo modern design at Tahquitz
Plaza highly contextual and specific to stylish Palm Springs. Perhaps his work has not become fully
appreciated yet as it is relatively recent when compared to Albert Frey's modern work of the '50s or 60s for
instance. That is why Kaptur's complex is threatened to some extent--the work is just now at the cusp of
rediscovery---just as Frey's and Williams' and Cody's work was a few years ago.
Hugh Kaptur was a local and made an indelible mark on the landscape of Palm Springs and the City should be
very proud and respectful of his work, celebrate and preserve it. It does the City well when it signals to the
world the pride it has its achievements and the artistry of its local architects and most of all the appearance and
history of the town. It is terrible for the town to be known for allowing demolition of another important
building. This estimable canvas that is modern architecture in Palm Springs.is economically instrumental and
Vital now for tourist appeal and more importantly many residents now have chosen to invest in the town and to
live here simply because of the great modern architecture we have in our midst.,
' 1 urge the City to reconsider any decision which would allow the destruction of this important Kaptur complex,
it would be a terrible loss and when it is gone it is gone forever.
I served as a member of the Historic Site Preservation Board in 1995-96. I suspect some of you will recall the
firestorm that greeted nay nomination of five Frey buildings which included the 'Tramway Gas Station. A
developer wanted to demolish that building soon after designation and quite a controversy erupted. I hope you
will agree in hindsight the decision to preserve the building was the correct one. I believe you will feel the
same way as time passes and the Tahquitz Plaza is preserved. The complex is inventive,playful,and
sophisticated with forms and.open areas that best represent not only Kaptur at the top of his game but a true
reflection of the state of the best modem architecture in Palm Springs at that period.
My written work about Palm Springs and modernism has appeared in the Los Angeles Times,the New York
Times; Vogue, and GQ magazine among others.
t �88 I
i
I hope you will present my plea before or during the Feb. 25th meeting.
Sincerely,
Brad Bunning
I
2 089
Terri Hintz
From: Morris Newman <morris_newman@sbcglobaI net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 24,2015 3:33 PM
To., Terri Hintz
Subject: Expert letter regarding the proposed demolition of Tahquitz Plaza(Morris Newman) for
Feb.25 hearing --_•- __ _____
.tF'Iti .o�fy—
Planning Commission
On Meeting
Honorable Planning Commission Date: �- mmiss
City;of Palm Springs n��+*,••,,,r t�r,ra,;at
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Dear Members of Planning Commission:
I'm writing to provide some comment about the proposed demolition of the Tahquitz Plaza
designed by Hugh Kaptur._
I am a qualified architectural historian (M.A., Architectural History and Theory, UCLA,
1984) and the author of two books on architecture and the editor of a third.
- I'm also a professional joumalist, specializing in real estate, urban design and architecture.
My work has appeared widely, including several dozen articles about commercial real
estate in The New York Times and Los Angeles Times. I have written extensively on
Modern Architecture, historic preservation, public-private projects, zoning and entitlement
issues and other topics relating to the design, financing and government approval of
buildings. I
- I have published three articles about the architecture of Hugh Kaptur, including a chapter
in a recently published book of Palm Springs architecture.
i
Tahquitz Plaza is a landmark building both in the City of Palm Springs and in the career of
Hugh Kaptur. Mr. Kaptur, as you probably know, is one of the luminaries of the "Golden Age"
of architecture in the city, having worked in Palm Springs continuously since the 1950s.
Mr. Kaptur has told me this is one of his favorite projects, which seems fitting for a building
where he maintained his architectural practice for many years. Although Tahquitz Plaza is not
a loud or flashy building, it shows many signs of architectural originality and creativity. One of
the themes of Mr. Kaptur's work, and Southern California architecture in general, is the ability
of local architects to "make lemonade" when faced with lim€ts both in budget and choice of
materials (i.e. the least expensive). I quote one of my own articles on Mr. Kaptur.
"Practical projects, like an office complex on Tahquitz, did not always allow such freedom, yet
the comparatively restrained project remains one of the architect's favorites. Originally
designed in concrete, cost consideration dictated a less expensive wood frame structure.
Despite this constraint the Tahquitz buildings manage to look like masonry, due to walls that
are sculptured to look massive as concrete. To further the illusion of thick walls, Kaptur
provided the Tahquitz buildings with window that appear to be deeply recessed. In other
places, windows push outward from the wall surface, as if trying to break free of the building.
Similar out-pushing windows can be found at Kaptur's Mus€cland Hotel, another building that I
flirts with the illusion of heavy masonry...."
090
i
3
In my view, the human experience of cities is largely made up by memorable images,
structures and spaces that lend a sense of identity to the community. These buildings mig ht be
described as the "sina qua non" of any particular city, meaning that without these structures or
images, the city would be diminished and lose part of its "sense of place." Every person who is
aware of architecture in Palm Springs is still feeling the loss of the Palm Springs Spa Hotel. In
my view, the Tahquitz office complex is one of the "sina qua non" buildings of Palm Springs. It
is a tasteful, viable building that has been tenanted since its completion. The Tahquitz is also
part of a trio of Kaptur-designed buildings on either side of the street, which increases both its
interest and importance.
At the very least, the Commission should give serious consideration to preserving at least the
original building of the complex, which included Mr. Kaptur's former office. Perhaps the City f
Planning Department can incentivize the developer by granting a density bonus on the
remaining portion of the parcel, to compensate for any loss of buildable square footage that
preservation of the Tahquitz offices may entail. Additionally, the Planning Department might
consider the waiver and/or forgiveness of certain development fees as a further incentive to
preserve the Tahquitz offices. Development is vital for the economic wellbeing of all cities.
Equally so is the preservation of buildings that define its character in a positive way. It is my
deeply held hope that the Planning Commission will find a way to accommodate both the best
interests of both the City and the developer.
i
Respectfully yours,
Morris Newman
4850 Cameron Ranch Drive, Sacramento, CA, 95608 i
(323) 365-5655
i
I
I
091 y
2
3
t
i
PALM SPRINGS
i "PRESERVATION
FOUNDATION
February 22,2015
Item
Mr. Doug Hudson Planning Commission Meetin
Chair,Planning Commission Date: —Z S / g
City of Palm Springs
3200 Bast Tahquitz Canyon Way It A,4 ;nnat tirataviat
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Aberdeen Project and the Proposed Demolition of Tahquitz Plaza(1971, Kaptur&
Lapham)(Case Nos. 5.1361 PD-375, 3.3820 and TTM 36876)
Dear Chairman Hudson,
We understand that the Planning Commission will meet on February 25,2015 to evaluate
the merits of"Aberdeen,"a mixed-use project consisting of 74 attached and detached
residential dwellings, 17 live-work units and approximately 1,568-square feet of retail on
8.05 acres located at the northeast corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Calle BI Segundo.
Our primary issue with the project is the unnecessary demolition of the architecturally-
significant Tahquitz Plaza complex. Further,it is our view that you should not approve this
project because it is flawed on many Ievels and fails to comport with the values and
priorities of the city's general plan,historic resources program and sustainability program.
The proposed demolition of Tahquitz Plaza directly contradicts many of the city's general
plan values and priorities Including: "unique architecture" (page 1-12);"Promot[ing]
the...use of...existing construction to minimize resource depletion and conserve resources
for future generations"(page 1-12); "Creat[ing] unique places that strengthen community
identity, offer visual interest,and support lively activity"(page 1-13); "Preserv[ing]and
uphold[ing]the high quality of architecture and the unique visual and aesthetic form in
buildings—that distinguish Palm Springs from other cities."(page 1-13); and perhaps most
to the point,to "Recogniz[ing]the importance of adaptive reuse for architecturally and
historically significant resources."(page 1-13).
The importance of the work of architect Hugh Kaptur has only recently become appreciated.
He received a star on the Palm Springs Walk of Stars during Modernism Week 2014 and he
was the subject of a recent documentary fihn(Quiet Elegance: The.Architecture of"Hugh M.
Kaptur). Additionally,his Tahquitz Plaza complex has been recommended to the contractor
currently conducting the city's historic resources survey.
Possible future activities like the historic preservation of the Tahquitz Plaza are cost-
effective tools that can be used to leverage private capital,create jobs,revitalize business
districts,and stimulate a wide range of other economic activities. Palm Springs property
owners,like Nexus Development, can take advantage of federal and state tax credit
programs to help rehabilitate historic buildings. Preserving historic character helps
tourism by providing interesting and unique opportunities for visitors. REM WED
FEB 2 3 2015 i
1775 FastFulm Qmvun.Chivo,Suito I10-195,P&Im Springs,C,A 92264 �f !
(700)837-7117 • iafo@`1Mproscrration&rundatiomwg • env.pspresavutionfoundedmi%Ptww1 4u.2'�tr"ViCFS i
DEPAs RTIME11b 92
j
While the staff report recommends the approval of this project,that approval is highly
"conditioned"and raises a host of issues with the project. Many of these concerns are
driven by the unseemly density of the project and the developer's attempt to wring the
maximum value out of the site. In perhaps one of the most audacious and surreal examples
of developer logic,on page I 1 of the staff report Nexus Development claims as a public
benefit"The project itself as it enhances an `underutilized site' in Section 14." Apparently,
the elegant and brilliant siting of the architecturally-significant Tahquitz Plaza complex on a
main city thoroughfare is viewed by this developer as a waste of land and therefore a
detriment to the community.
Finally, we applaud the city's Architectural Advisory Committee's recent decision to
unanimously deny this project. In that decision,only the merits of the project were
considered by the AAC,not the architectural significance of Tahquitz Plaza. That issue falls
more properly under your purview(as stated repeatedly by the city attorney during the
AAC's January 26, 2015 meeting). In that regard, we suggest you recommend to the city
council consideration of Tahquitz Plaza as a Class I historic site. The Tahquitz Plaza
complex should easily qualify as an historic site under criterion 8.05.020(ax3)(as the
Tahquitz Plaza exemplifies a particular period in local history,to wit,the rise of modernist
architecture in Palm Springs) and criterion 8.05.020(a)(5)(the work of a"master...
architect").
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to contact the foundation at 760-837-711.7 or
info@pspreservationfoundation.org.
Sincerely,
Erik Rosenow
President
Attachments:
I_ Advocacy postcard for Tahquitz Plaza produced by the Palm Springs Preservation
Foundation
Copy to:
Palm Springs Modern Committee(Chris Menrad)
Desert Sun(Skip Descant)
2
093
Frank Tysen
Advocates for Better Community Development
Palm Springs, California
February 25, 2015
To the Honorable Planning Commission
City of Palm Springs, California
Re: 2A. O & M HR. LLC (NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN,EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING AREA TO_CONSTRUCT 'ABERDEEN"; A_MIXED-USE PROJECT
CONSISTING Of ATTACHED AND DETACHED RESIDENTIAL_DWELLINGS�j17ZLIVE-WORK
UNITS AND APPROXIMATELY 1 568-SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL ON 8.05-ACRES LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CALLE EL SEGUNDO, ZONE RED AND CU
(CASE NOS. 5.1361 PD-375, 3.3820 MAI AND TfM 36876). DN)
To Whom It May Concern:
On behalf of Advocates for Better Community Planning (ABCD), we are requesting that the
Planning Commission recommend denial of the demolition project, Planned Development District
375, Architectural Permit, and Tentative Tract Map based upon a failure of the project to
conform to the City's General Plan, the Section 14 Specific Plan, and to conform to the
surrounding heights, mass, design, architecture, and function of the surrounding business area.
The pending Mitigated Negative Declaration also fails to adequately assess environmental
impacts of the proposed demolition project and destruction of an architectural heritage, or HR
affordable housing impacts, through failure to consider adaptive re-use, through failure to use
multi-family housing in the design, or introduce a viable alternative to the project as proposed -
such as adaptive reuse of the current structures.
This project, as proposed, takes a functioning, viable business environment, immediately across
from the Regal Theater, and proposes to demolish the design, architecture, and function of the
District, and to severely disrupt business functions for most likely a two-year period of time,
during a time when the protections of State Redevelopment are defunct, and there is absolutely
no evidence of blight in this District -- to the contrary.
Very little has been introduced as a justification for the demolition of existing buildings within a
thriving District, and it is a bit frightening to conclude that the City Is basically free to do this
anywhere within the City, so that a developer can further maximize profit and increase the
density and height of a commercial area, and slowly erode the architectural heritage and scale of
downtown Palm Springs. This action sets a bad precedent, and needs strong justification - but
at the least, it requires a full Environmental Impact Report!
The primary building proposed for demolition is an architectural treasure built by the prominent
architect, Hugh Captor. Although Mr. Captor's building was constructed subsequent to 1969,
and does not qualify for a Class III historic designation, this is a moot point in terms of its
historic value, which can be assessed independently of age. An example of this is the Palm
Springs Art Museum (PSAM), a Class I historic resource constructed subsequent to 1969. What
has complicated the issue of historic preservation Is the rather awesome backlog of buildings
awaiting assessment by the City, as the Historic Site Preservation Board is underfunded.
Accordingly, it is not surprising the building has not yet been catalogued. But at the least, this
building Is a treasure and is highly valued by a large and very active se9E8ig&Athe historic
preservation population of Palm Springs. Planning COMMIaslOn
i
FEB 25,2015 094
Case#
i
2
The applicant is further proceeding in violation of the General Plan and Section 14 Specific Plan
standards as follows, and has failed to consider viable environmental alternatives:
1. Table 6-1 of the Section 14 Specific Plan prohibits single-family residential buildings within
the REO and RA land use classifications. Palm Springs is a charter city, but without doubt,
it must comply with the General Plan and Specific Plan legislative standards that guide
development and build-out.
2. The applicant is using a permit that is not authorized within Chapter 6 Implementation
Section of the Section 14 Specific Plan, which limits land use entitlement to permitted
uses, land use permits, and conditional use permits. A Planned Development Permit (PD
375) is a rezone action, incompatible with a Specific Plan that has already rezoned the
area. Reference page 6-1 and Table 6-1 of the Section 14 Specific Plan
3. The applicant then uses the PDD flexibility procedures to justify the Imposition of single-
family residential within an area where it is expressly prohibited, and alters the
development standards of the Specific Plan into a new configuration with greater
economic benefit to the developer.
4. The proposed development creates cumulative impacts by destroying further high density
residential low-income housing stock, because Section 14 Specific Plan anticipated multi-
family residential for renters or low income persons, and the reservation of this housing
stock was counted in the City's housing element to meet its allocation of acreage for the
Regional Housing Needs Assessment. Instead, through a series of previous permits and
this project, the City has slowly replaced the HDR classification with non-permitted single-
family residential. They have used their new revised ordinance that eliminates the
minimum threshold for residential. This should be evaluated in an Environmental Impact
Report, and be considered non-compliance with its Housing Element and General Plan.
5. The Specific Plan was amended to reflect the recent amendment of the City's housing
ordinances to eliminate minimum thresholds of density. This leaves the Specific Plan out
of compliance with the General Plan and its State housing obligations.
6. The Specific Plan requires a density of 30 du/ac. By proposing 11 du/ac, the applicant
violates the General Plan, Specific Plan, and State housing law.
7. The Specific Plan requires a minimum lot size of two acres, and the project lot size is
considerably smaller, and it Is accordingly, not consistent with the Specific Plan or General
Plan.
8. By failure to require a Environmental Impact Report, the City has failed to consider the
growth-inducing Impacts of demolishing a viable business district and replacing It with a
structure that does not conform to the historical character of the area, that does not
match its density or form or height, nor does it address adequate housing in the mixed-
use residential area. This change in the District may induce further incompatible changes.
9. The Mitigated Negative Declaration was not attached to the staff report, and has not been
considered in conjunction with the staff report assessment. Accordingly, the decision
makers do not have adequate information about impacts to make a proper
recommendation to the City Council. The general public should have been given access in
like-kind to the staff report, rather than be forced to make a trip to City Hall and get a
non-electronic copy of the Initial Study.
1O,The PDD replaces the development standards of the Specific Plan with new housing, new
lot size, as a gated community where prohibited, inadequate street fronts, inadequate
side, rear and front-yard setbacks, and not the least - an unrealistic examination of the
impact of added height to the buildings.
With regard,
Frank Tysen
095
ITEM 2A
Judy Deertrack
1333 South Belardo Road, Apt 510
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Submitted to
Planning Commission
Wednesday, March 23 2015 MAR 2 5 2015
To the Honorable Members of the
Palm Springs Planning Commission CW6#�_
City of Palm Springs, California
2A. O & M HR, LLC. (NEXUS DEVELOPMENT CORP.) FOR THE DEMOLITION OF AN EXISTING
DEVELOPMENT AND PARKING AREA TO CONSTRUCT"ABERDEEN"; A _M€XED-USE PROJECT
CONSISTING OF (74) ATTACHED AND DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DWELLINGS. (17). LIVE-WORK UNITS
AND APPROXIMATELY 1.568 SQUAREFEET OF RETAIL ON 8.05-ACRES-_LOCATED_AT_ TH,E
NORTHEAST CORNER OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND CALLE EL SEGUNDO, ZONE REO AND CU
(CASE NOS. 5.1361 PD-375 3,3820 MAJ AND TTM 36876)._(DN]
To Whom It May Concern:
I am a resident of the City of Palm Springs, with an active interest in historic preservation, and commitment to
the small-town village atmosphere planned for in the City's General Plan. I ask the following of the Planning
Commission, but also with a conclusion that these acts of proper environmental consideration are mandated by
law:
1. I am asking the City to set aside its finding in the Mitigated Negative Declaration that the project has "no
impact° on cultural resources, nor does it "a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a historical resource as defined in 15064.5."
2. 1 am asking that the City properly refer this project proposal to the Historic Site Preservation Board
(HSPB) for a full report and consideration of whether the two Hugh Captor buildings on the site
proposed for demolition is a resource that shall be considered by the lead agency to be 'historically
significant' as buildings that meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources.
I refer the Planning Commission to the comment letters on file from distinguished members of the
preservation community.
3. 1 am asking that the City make a finding on the historical significance of the Hugh Captor buildings at
issue as to whether they qualify as discretionary historic resources. That finding should be informed by
the evaluation of the HSPB.
4. I am asking the City to review and revise its findings at page 24 of the Mitigated Negative Declaration
"Discussion of Impacts a) No Impact" to reflect that the criteria for a finding of impact reflect CEQA
Guidelines 15064.5 subd. (a) (3)&(4).
5. 1 am asking the City to review and revise its findings in the staff report that concludes there is no
historic impact of significance in the decision to demolish the Hugh Captor buildings, because they
have never been locally registered or state registered as an historic resource. This language is
misleading to the decision makers on this project.
6. 1 am asking the City to review and revise its findings on impacts to Land Use and Planning in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration at page 37, wherein it concludes that the project does not "conflict with
any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project,
(including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, -.-. Or zoning ordinance). Adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect" The Discussion of impacts does not even
mention the fact that the development standards are not in compliance with the Specific Plan; nor does
it reference the fact the project proposes single-family residential in a Specific Plan area where single-
family residential is specifically prohibited! (RA and REO). In fact, the discussion at b) is factually
096
2
inaccurate, because it discusses multi-family residential buiidout. The factual inaccuracy and lack of
consistency has impacted mitigation measures and findings, and these need to be corrected.
7. 1 am asking the City to properly evaluate and mitigate the impact of eliminating multi-family housing
within a Specific Plan area that provides for MFR to the exclusion of SFR, along with the attendant
affordable housing impact that might arise from exclusion of MFR housing where it is intended to be
built.
8. 1 am asking the City to conform its findings of consistency with the general plan and specific plan for
Section 14, to reflect the actual non-compliance with building standards and housing type. (see
previous letters on file by Frank Tysen)
9. Most importantly, I am asking for the City to provide a full EIR evaluation so that the environmental
alternative of conserving the Hugh Captor buildings can be properly considered. The MND is fatally
defective without this assessment.
Please consider the following language from Valley Advocates v. City of Fresno (2008):
VALLEY ADVOCATES et al,v.CITY OF FRESNO ct al.
72 Caldtptr.3d 690(2008) 160 Cai.AppAth 1039
OPINION
. . . . . "We reach the following conclusions. First, at the meeting where City determined the project was exempt from
CP,QA, it was misinformed about its discretionary authority to determine the buildings were historic resources. As a
result, City cut short its inquiry into the historic significance of the buildings and relied too heavily on its earlier decision
not to list the buildings in the local register of historic resourres." [emphasis added] Valley Advocates at page 694.
----------------------------------------
DISCUSSION. _-
1.Background on CEQA's Treatment of Historical Resources
"Section 21084.1 and its implementing Guidelines establish three analytical categories for use in determining whether an
object is an historical resource for purposes of CEQA. (See League for Protection of Oakland,supra, 52 Cal.App.4th at
pp. 906-907, 60 Ca1.Rptrld 821 [three categories of historical resources identified as mandatory, presumptive and
discretionary].)" Valley Advocates at page 698
11.Mandatory Historical Resources
A.Applicable Test of CEQA and Guidelines
"The category of mandatory historical resources is based on the second sentence of section 21084.1, which states: `For
purposes of this section, an historical resource: is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the
California Register of Historical Resources: [emphasis added]
The Guidelines define the scope of the category of mandatory historical resources by adding one limitation to the text of
the second sentence of section 21084.1. Specifically, Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (a) (1) provides that "the
term 'historical resources' shall include ... [q] ... [al resource listed in, or determined to be '699 eligible by the State
Historical Resources Conunission [] for listing in[,] the California Register of Historical Resources (Pub. Res.Code §
5024.1,Title 14 CCR,Section 4850 et seq.)."(Italics added_)" Valley Advocates at page 698-699
III.Presumptive Htstorical Resources
A.Applicable Text of CEQA and Guidelines
"The category of presumptive historical resources is created by the third sentence of section 21084.1,which states:
097
3
"Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k)of Section 5020.1,
or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision(g)of Section 5024.1,are presumed to be historically or
culturally significant for purposes of this section,unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource
is not historically or culturally significant."
The Guidelines reiterate this definition by staring that "the term 'historical resources' shall include ... [q) ... [a] resource
included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in section 5020.1(k) of the Public Resources Code or
identified as significant in an historical resource survey meeting the requirements of section 5024.1(g) of the Public
Resources Code,shall be presumed to be historically or culturally significant. Public agencies *701 must treat any such
resource as significant unless the preponderance of evidence demonstrates that it is not historically or culturally
significant."(Guidelines,§ 15064.5,solid.(a)(2).)
Under these provisions,there are two types of presumptive historical resources.The first type is a resource included in a
local register of'historic resources. A "local register of historic resources" is defined as a "list of properties officially
designated or recognized as historically significant by a local government pursuant to a local ordinance or resolution." (§
5020A, solid. (k).) The second type of presumptive historical resource is a resource identified as significant in certain
surveys of historical resources. (§ 5024.1,subd, (g),) The historical resource survey must meet all four of the criteria set
forth in section 5024.1,subdivision(g).[81" Valley Advocates at 700-701
----------------------------------------
1V. Discretionary historical Resources
A.Text of CRQA
"The category of discretionary historical resources is derived from a combination of*702 the second sentence and the last
sentence of section 21084.1.
The text or the second sentence of section 21084.1 states: "For purposes of this section,an historical resource is a resource
listed in,or determined to be eligible for listing in,the California Register of Historical Resources." [101
The last sentence of section 21084.1 states:
"The fact that a resource is not listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical
Resources,not included in a local register of historical resources,or not deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1 shall not preclude a lead agency from determining whether the resource may be an
historical resource for purposes of this section." Valley Advocates at pp. 701-702.
----------------------------------
IL Provisions in the Guidelines. .
2.Guldeffnes section 15064.S,subdivision(a)(3)
"Guidelines section 150643, subdivision (ax3)[131 addresses aspects of a lead agency's *701 discretionary authority in
two ways. First,it limits what the lead agency is allowed to do. Second,it appears to impose an affirmative obligation on
the lead agency. [emphasis added]
The limitation is stated at the beginning of Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (a)(3): "Any object [or] building ...
which a lead agency determines to be historically significant ...may be considered to be an historical resource,provided
the lead agency's determination is supported by substantial evidence in ligbt of the whole record."The Guidelines use the
word "may" to identify discretionary authority. (Guidelines, § 15005, solid. (c); see § 15 ["may" defined[.) 'thus,
Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (ax3) confirms the lead agency's discretion to true an object or building as an
historical resource for purposes of CEQA and limits that discretion to situations where substantial evidence supports the
lead agency's determination of historical significaux.[141
098
4
The second sentence of Guidelines section 150645, subdivision (a)(3) contains the following mandatory language:
"Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be 'historically significant' if the resource meets the
criteria for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources.._"[151 (italics added.) The word "shall" is used in
the Guidelines to identify "a mandatory element which all public agencies are required to follow." (Guidelines, § 15005,
subd.(a).)" Valley Advocates at page 702-703
------------------------------------------------
3.Discretionary authority.. ...
C.Application of Interpretation to Facts of this Case
"The May 3, 2005, staff report that recommended the City Council affirm the issuance of the categorical exemption for
the project addressed whether the administrative record contained substantial evidence that the Flats were an historic
resource:
`The Subject Building is not a'historic resource' under CEQA because it does not fall into any of the categories within the
definition of'historic resource in CEQA. That is, the Subject Building is not on a State register,it has not been found to
be eligible for a State register by the State Historic Preservation Commission, it is not on a local register, and Council has
not treated nor chosen to treat the building as historical." (Italics added,)" Valley Advocates at p 704
-----------------------------------------------
"The staff report, Unruh's advice,and a statement made by an attorney from the city attorney's office misinformed the
City Council about its discretion.The City Council was not told that it had a choice to make at the May 3,2005,hearing.
It was told that it already had determined the Flats were not historical resources and that the previous determination
answered whether the Flats were historic resources or not.
.Instead, the City Council should have been informed of the following. First, its prior determination to deny the listing
application meant that the Flats did not qualify for CEQA's presumptive historical resource category.1161 Second.a listing
determination and a CEQA determination are not the same thing. Third, at a minimum, the City Council had a
discretionary election to make at the May 3, 2005,herring_Specifically,it could elect to separately consider whether the
Flats were an historical resource for purposes of CEQA's discretionary historical resources category.
"Because the City Council was misinformed about its discretion to snake such an election,it follows that the City Council
did not,in fact,exercise its discretion and stake such an election," Valley Advocates at page 704.
2.Informational errors
"In some contexts presented under CEQA, a prejudicial abuse of discretion occurs when the absence of relevant
information precludes informed decision making by the public agency. (E.g., San Joaquin Raptor Rescue Center v.
County of Merced(2007) 149 Cal App.4th 645,653,57 Cal.Rptr.3d 663.)
This case involves something more than the simple absence of relevant information. Here, the relevara itaforrnation was
absent and incorrect information was provided in its plane." [emphasis added] Valley Advocates at page 705.
----------------------------------------------
R. Discretionary Historical Resources
"Prior determinations regarding the listing of a building an a local register are relevant to the presmnptive historical
resource category,but prior determinations not to list a building or include it in a survey do not control whether the object
or building may be treated as an historical resource under CEQA's discretionary historical resource category. (See
Guidelines,§ 150645,subd.(a)(3)&(4).)".....
"Accordingly,the decision not to list a building on a local register does not necessarily resolve all factual question���
5
discretionary aspects of the City Council's inquiry into whether the building is an historical resource for purposes of
CEQA's discretionary historical resource category." Valley Advocates at page 708.
— -- -- --- — - ------------------
VII:IX.t**1
DISPOSITION
"The judgment is reversed. The matter is remanded to the superior court with directions to vacate its order denying the
petition for writ of mandate and to enter a new order that grants the petition for writ of mandate and directs City to (1)set
aside its approval of the site plan review Application S-04-399, (2) set aside its findings that the proposed project is
categorically exempt, and (3) conduct a preliminary review *712 that property considers the discretionary historical
resources category." Valley Advocates at page 711-712.
Thank you for your kind consideration.
Judy Deertrack
I00
Terri Hintz
From: Paul Kaplan <paulkaplanre@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2015 9:37 AM
Tm Terri Hintz;David Newell;lay Thompson
Subject Aberdeen
1 am opposed to the Aberdeen project and encourage the planning commission to DENY approval.
(Planning Commission meeting March 25 ITEM 1.13)
This project is too dense,lacks open spaces, and offers a poorly designed facade along Tahquitz Canyon.
Please deliver a hard copy to each commissioner before today's meeting. I
Paul Kaplan
Director
Website: www.Paufl{aolanGrouo com
Email: Pa I� planGroup.corn
Cell/TEXT; 760-285-8559
Office: 760-459-1396
Fax: 760-406.4221
The Paul Kaplan Group, Inc.
BRE 01325536
1701 N Palm Canyon #5
Palm Springs, CA 92262
i
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and Intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are
addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. This message contains confidential information and is
Intended only for the individual named. If you are not the named addressee 3
you should not disseminate,distribute or copy this e-mail. Please !
notify the sender immediately by e-mail if you have received this e-mail by mistake and delete this e-mail from your system, If you are not ;
the Intended recipient you are notified that disclosing, copying,distributing or taking any action in reliance on the contents of this information €
Is strictly prohibited.
,
Planning Commission Meeting
Date: 3-2 5 / 5 `I
Additional Material
Item -Z'-
i loll
David Newell
From: Judy Deertrack <judydeertrack@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, March 27, 2015 9:52 PM
To: Flinn Fagg; David Newell
Subject: Aberdeen Project/Historic Ordinance (1969)
Attachments: Chapter 8.05 HISTORIC PRESERVATION.pdf; 2015.02.25 PCSR Preservationist Resumes.pdf
Dear Mr. Fagg:
With kind consideration for the hard work put into this project, I wanted to ask questions about the City's
comments given to the Planning Commission at Wednesday's hearing, and make some recommendations.
Would you also submit this email (letter) on the record of Aberdeen for inclusion in the staff report for City
Council review?
Could you please clarify for me at the hearing with the Planning Commission: (1) what you actually told them
regarding continuance and review jurisdiction; and (2) if(on hindsight) you would alter any of those
statements.
I did not understand some of the limitations imposed upon review of the historic nature of the building, as you
can tell from my comment letter submitted; nor did I understand the limitations on a continuance (in general), or
denial of jurisdiction to refer the matter to the HSPB.
Please forgive if any of my understandings are incorrect, my Adobe Flash will not function or allow me to
update, so I can't view the video of the proceedings until this is repaired.
Although you may want to respond in writing, I would also welcome a meeting with you or staff to clarify some
of this before the City Council hearing on Aberdeen, and I really believe some of the historic preservation folks
might be willing to meet as well. It is my impression that the City has always been very generous in resolving
issues with the general public through constructive meetings, particularly when an issue reaches this level of
controversy:
(1) Continuance: The Planning Commission was told they did not have the option of continuing the matter
because of ordinance limitations. May I please know what ordinance or rule or limitation the City was referring
to? It was not cited at the hearing. Is there a time limitation running under the Permit Streamlining Act? If so,
may I have a sense of that timeline? What the time limitation is, what event triggered its time frame, what date
terminates the legal time to review?
I was uncomfortable that "a yes or no vote and nothing else" was the City's adamant position, because the
applicant/ developer was in the audience demanding this! Nexus (O&M HR, LLC) appeared to be exercising
the jurisdiction, rather than the City or the Planning Commission, and this is problematic.
This pressure to move up to City Council has happened in a context where the AAC and the Planning
Commission clearly have major problems with this project, as proposed, and have refused to recommend
approval.
The fact the City also recently passed an urgency ordinance shortcutting committee and commission review,
and an unusual appearance of the City Attorney warning the Commissions/Committees against bias, together
102
with what appears to be a failure to properly assess historic impacts under CEQA - combines to create pressure
that may not be in the best interest of anyone.
I so strongly recommend that this process slow down for public intervention. It is so clear to me the developer
has chosen to expedite timewise, rather than spend requisite time on the issue of the historical significance of
the Hugh Kaptur buildings.
The obligation of the City is to keep the scope of jurisdiction open during these administrative hearings, so that
the record is not truncated.
(2) HSPB Referral: The Planning Commission was told by the City that the ordinance language of the City
did not allow the Planning Commission to make a referral back to the Historic Site Preservation Board (HSPB)
to determine the buildings' historical significance for purposes of CEQA (Commissioner Weremiuk asked staff
about my comment letter on Valley Advocates - and the claim that the HSPB should have reviewed this
building as a "discretionary historical resource" under CEQA, with an advisory opinion to the Planning
Commission and City Council.)
I believe the City also (somewhat separately) concluded the HSPB did not have jurisdiction to review this
building for listing or designation as a local historical resource.
At the hearing you stated that the HSPB is limited to review of buildings constructed on or before 1969,
therefore, the matter could not be referred to the HSPB on any basis. Later (I am not sure) -- there may have
been a comment that "perhaps there could be a referral," but ultimately the City told the PC this matter could
not be delayed or continued, and must go "up" to City Council. Is this, in fact, correct?
On the issue of Aberdeen historic resources (and the Hugh Kaptur buildings), I recommend the City clarify
HSPB jurisdiction in four important ways:
(a) whether the ordinances and/or practices of the City grant authority to the HSPB to review CEQA historicity
on a demolition permit to advise the AAC, Planning Commission, and City Council on whether the buildings
are historical in nature under the CEQA Guidelines for Cultural Resources, and if so, whether the buildings fall
within the classification of(a) mandatory; (b) presumptive, or(e) discretionary, for purposes of setting a proper
record of decision for CEQA.
(b) associated with Section (a), whether the HSPB has jurisdiction to review and advise whether there is
"substantial evidence on the record," given Mr. Hess'testimony and that of others, to conclude that the Hugh
Kaptur buildings "meet the criteria for listing on the California Register of Historic Resources"; and
(c) whether, as part of its review, the HSPB has jurisdiction to advise and recommend consideration in the
commercial district of adaptive reuse of historic resources (Kaptur buildings) as an environmental alternative to
the proposed project, or including any specialized conditions of approval or suggested mitigation and
monitoring conditions that might be appropriate for the actual proposed project, if applicable; and
(d) whether an applicant, the City, and/or the HSPB can initiate an application for local listing eligibility
during the pending of an application for demolition permit for the historic buildings at issue (with a clear
understanding that local listing or local eligibility are NOT germane to the CEQA responsibilities!).
(3) Substantial Evidence of Historicity: Alan Hess is a credentialed historian and nomination expert that
stated the following in his letter on file in the Aberdeen project:
2 103
"Briefly stated, Kaptur's significance is this: 1) Palm Springs mid century Modern architecture is
known for its use of Modern concepts to solve the challenges of climate, function, and new
materials; 2) an extraordinary group of talented architects lived or worked in Palm Springs, and
while they addressed the same problems they expressed a wide range of aesthetic solutions; 3)
Hugh Kaptur's aesthetic is unique in Palm Springs, demonstrating the wide range of fertile
innovation in the city.
Tahquitz Plaza is an important and well preserved example of Kaptur's unique approach. Rather
than drawing on the rectilinear steel and glass geometries of, for example, Richard Neutra, he
draws on organic forms and ideas from the American Southwest, and Frank Lloyd Wright. This
is seen in Tahquitz Plaza's irregular roofline, the deep, sculpted, curving frames around
windows, the eaves and sun shading features, and the integration of outdoor areas interspersed
among the offices. This is a strong piece of design that deserves to remain in place."
Comment Letter of Alan Hess on file, dated February 19, 2015.
This description, without a doubt, should qualify the Hugh Kaptur buildings for review under CEQA and
independently qualify it for consideration as a Class I structure if the application is still timely(and I do not see
anything barring that application).
I see nothing in the ordinances that bars qualified public members, HSPB, or City Council from initiating a
review or nomination simply because a demolition and PDD permit is in process. I would want to be sure that
the City, in its hearing process, has done nothing to discourage the public or HSPB from concluding this
application is permissible -- at least not without carefully documenting the legal bar to filing an application.
(4) Distinguish CEQA: Please note through all of this discussion --my position in my comment letter cites
Valley Advocates --there is a vast difference between a request for designation and listing as a local resource,
and the requirements of review for CEQA with its informational and mitigation responsibilities!
Without a doubt, the City should have provided a clear record of review to establish whether the Kaptur
buildings qualify as a discretionary resource under CEQA Guideline 15064.5 sub (a) (3) & (4). That clearly has
not occurred:
"The second sentence of Guidelines section 15064.5, subdivision (a)(3) contains the
following mandatory language: "Generally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to
be 'historically significant' if the resource meets the criteria for listing on the California Register
of Historical Resources...."[15] (Italics added.)" [emphasis added] Valley Advocates at 702-703
Mr. Hess'letter certainly would have raised this issue for environmental consideration. Mr. Hess' analysis and
findings, together with the impressive resume and credentials, appear to create substantial evidence on the
record for administrative consideration on the building historicity.
Reviewing the Mitigated Negative Declaration proposed for adoption by the City Council, the reasoning
appears fatally defective and falls right into the trap of Valley Advocates. By CEQA discussion, the City
disqualifies the buildings for CEQA historicity as a potentially significant resource ONLY because (quoting the
MND).
Discussion of Impacts: a) No Impact. "The existing buildings are not listed as a state historical
resource of significance, nor are the buildings locally listed with the City of Palm Springs. No
3 104
impacts to historic resources are expected to occur as a result of build out of the proposed
project."
I, again, return to the finding of Valley Advocates, invalidated the project permit for insufficient CEQA review
and lack of jurisdiction to act:
B. Discretionary Historical Resources
"Prior determinations regarding the listing of a building on a local register are relevant to the
presumptive historical resource category, but prior determinations not to list a building or include
it in a survey do not control whether the object or building may be treated as an historical
resource under CEQA's discretionary historical resource category. (See Guidelines, § 15064.5,
subd. (a)(3)&(4).)"..... [emphasis added]
"Accordingly, the decision not to list a building on a local register does not necessarily resolve
all factual questions and discretionary aspects of the City Council's inquiry into whether the
building is an historical resource for purposes of CEQA's discretionary historical resource
category." Valley Advocates at page 708.
(5) Stay of Demolition: Throughout the entire review period of Aberdeen, the City appears to have always
taken (or implied) a public position that it would be null and void for a third party or for any member of HSPB
to initiate an application for review and designation of the site for historic significance or listing for these
buildings (aside from CEQA). Certainly that is true if they have advised the public that the building must be
constructed on or before 1969 to qualify. Can the City now profit (laches) from misleading the public (if, in
fact, they have), and preclude the timeliness of an application for listing?
Looking at Ordinance 8.05, it appears to anticipate action by the HSPB during a period when a demolition
permit and project review is in progress, for Ordinance 8.05 clearly states:
8.05.170 Stay of demolition.
"At any time after the initiation of proceedings for designation of an historic site or district, the
historic site preservation board may, upon its own motion or upon the application of any
interested person, issue an order staying any proposed or threatened demolition or alteration of
the exterior of any structure within or upon such proposed site." [emphasis added]
8.05.166 Initiation of proceedings—National Register.
(a) The historic site preservation board may initiate proceedings for designation of an historic
site or district or the recommendation of a property for nomination to the National Register by
motion, and shall then hold at least one public hearing prior to making a recommendation to the
city council.
105
4
(b) The city council may initiate proceedings for designation of an historic site or district or the
recommendation of a property for nomination to the National Register by motion, and shall then
refer to the matter to the historic site preservation board for public hearing and
recommendation.
(c) Upon final action by the city council recommending a property for nomination to the National
Register, the recommendation will be forwarded by appropriate application to the state of
California Department of Parks and Recreation. (Ord. 1320 § 7, 1988)
8.05.200 Procedure upon application.
(a) Upon the filing of an application, the secretary of the board shall set the matter for review
and shall give notice in accordance with the rules of the board. The board shall make its
decision within forty-five days from the date the application is filed. If the board fails to act within
forty-five days, the application is considered approved unless the applicant and the board agree
to an extension of time. [emphasis added]
I am assuming any party may file for an application, as long as they submit the required data, since the
ordinance does not specify otherwise.
(6) Brown Act: I did want to alert the City that the posted agenda (notification) for this PC hearing looks
problematic to me. It states in the public notice, "O&E HR, LLC,for the demolition of an existing project and
parking area to construct.....[project description]" The staff report states, "Recommend the City Council
adopt the mitigated negative declaration and approve the project, subject to conditions." [emphasis
added]
For purposes of adequate public notice on the agenda, I would recommend referring to the underlying permit typology. Approving"a
project"doesn'ttell us what is being approved. Decision makers approve land use entitlements and the supplemental permits, and
often in stages. Wherein the description does this say whether this is a PDD, a CUP, a combination, a demolition permit that will be
issued before or after project approval? A carefully crafted description answers those questions.The public needs to know whether
Planning Commission has final approval or is making a recommendation to the City Council.
(7) Demolition Permit Premature: Frank Tyson raised the issue that it is premature to issue a Demolition Permit when the
underlying project has not been approved, and I agree. What will happen if the historical structure is demolished and the subsequent
project is denied? It sets up a perfect bias. Once demolished, with an empty lot, impartiality of review cannot be maintained, because
the City will be desperate to correct the blight. If demolished ahead of a CEQA determination on the MND(or need for an EIR),
the consideration of environmental alternatives is destroyed as an option, and mitigation considerations are truncated or
destroyed. This cannot possibly be legal.
This,again,is why public notice must show the action item. Is the demolition permit under review? Who has final authority? What
happens to the unresolved PDD and MND?
(8) Valley Advocates Finding: The Fourth District Court of Appeal spoke overtly about the failure to property instruct the decision
making body of their options in classifying the structure as an historic resource. The result of not doing so prejudiced the final election
of the body on whether to approve, deny,or refer. I maintain the City has created the same bias through failure to properly instruct the
Planning Commission on the option to elect or consider the Kaptur buildings as historic resources,or precluding them from seeking
legal advice on this issue,and/or referring the matter for determination to the HSPB. Valley Advocates discusses the issue as such:
"Instead, the City Council should have been informed of the following. First, its prior determination to deny the
listing application meant that the Flats did not qualify for CEQA's presumptive historical resource category.[ts]
Second, a listing determination and a CEQA determination are not the same thing. Third, at a minimum, the City
Council had a discretionary election to make at the May 3, 2005, hearing. Specifically, it could elect to separately
consider whether the Flats were an historical resource for purposes of CEQA's discretionary historical resources
category. "Because the City Council was misinformed about its discretion to make such an election, it follows that
the City Council did not, in fact, exercise its discretion and make such an election." [emphasis added] Valley
Advocates at page 704.
5 106
Because of advice of staff at the Planning Commission hearing,the Planning Commission was denied the full range of opportunities to
consider the implications of the Hugh Kaptur buildings as discretionary historical resources.
Thank you so much for your review of this material.
Judy Deertrack
760 325 4290
107
6
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—THE NATURAL RESOURCES AGENCY EDMUND G.BROWN,JR.,Gowz
OFFICE Of HISTORIC PRESERVATION 't'`
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION Y
1725 2P Slreel Sane 100 \
SACRAMENTO,CA 95616-7100
(916)44r✓7000 Fa (916)445-7053
croshpcopar"ca gav
w _ohp.parks.ca.gm
March 27, 2015
David Newell
Associate Planner
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Dear Mr. Newell,
RE: ABERDEEN PROJECT INITIAL STUDY MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION
Thank you for including the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) in the
environmental review process for the proposed Aberdeen Project. Pursuant to the
National Historic Preservation Act and the California Public Resources Code, the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and the OHP have broad responsibility for the
implementation of federal and state historic preservation programs in California. We
have a history working with the City of Palm Springs (Lead Agency)through our
Certified Local Government Program. Our comments are offered with the intent of
protecting historic and cultural resources, while allowing the City of Palm Springs to
meet its program needs. The following comments are based on the information
included in the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND)for the Aberdeen
Project.
The proposed project will construct an 8 acre mixed-use development with 74
residential units, and 17 live-work units, with approximately 1,568-square feet of retail
space. The project site is partially occupied by the Tahquitz Plaza office complex,
which would be demolished as part of the proposed project. In order to adopt the
IS/MND as an adequate environmental document the in compliance with CEOA, the
decision making body must find that it has adequately addressed environmental
impacts. If the document has failed to identify significant environmental impacts, the
decision making body should not adopt the findings as adequate.
Pursuant to the city's Municipal Code § 8.05.135, the City's Preservation Board is
responsible to "conduct or cause to be conducted such preliminary surveys, studies or
investigations as it deems necessary to adequately inform the historic site preservation
board and city council prior to public hearing, and shall make available to any interested
person the results of any such survey, study or investigation." In keeping with this
provision of the municipal code, the City of Palm Springs commissioned a city-wide
historic architecture survey. This survey effort is currently ongoing. As part of this
survey effort, we understand the Tahquitz Plaza office complex was evaluated and
identified as a historical resource. These findings were provided to the Lead Agency as
108
David Newell
March 27, 2015
Page 2 of 2
part of the CEQA comment process in a letter dated February 19, 2015, authored by
Alan Hess, a specialist in the field of architectural history.
The discussion of environmental impacts within the IS/MND states that the Tahquitz
Plaza office complex is not a historic resources as defined in the CEQA Guidelines §
15064.5 because "[t]he existing buildings are not listed as a state historical resource of
significance, nor are the buildings locally listed with the City of Palm Springs." Yet,
CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5 (4) states that "[t]he fact that a resource is not listed in, or
determined to be eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, not
included in a local register of historical resources, or identified in a historical resources
survey does not preclude a lead agency from determining the resource may be a
historical resource [for the purposes of CEQA]..." There is no mention in the IS/MND of
the ongoing city-wide survey, nor any evaluation of eligibility for the Tahquitz Plaza
office complex. In light of the preliminary findings of historical significance described in
the Alan Hess letter, we encourage the Lead Agency to act within its discretion,
provided in § 15064.5(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, to consider the Tahquitz Plaza office
complex as a historic resource for the purposes of CEQA. If the Lead Agency is to
consider the Tahquitz Plaza office complex a historic resource, it could not reasonably
adopt the findings in the IS/MND as being in compliance with CEQA and adequately
addressing significant environmental impacts.
If the Lead Agency chooses to exercise its discretion under § 15064.5(4) of the CEQA
Guidelines and treat the Tahquitz Plaza office complex as a historic resource, it may be
possible to modify the proposed project to avoid impacts to the historical resources. If
the project is modified to avoid demolition, impacts to historic resources could be
avoided. In this way, the Lead Agency could modify the IS/MND, and avoid the time
and cost involved in preparing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
If you have questions, please contact Sean de Courcy of the Local Government and
Environmental Compliance Unit, at (916)445-7042 or at Sean.deCourcvCd>_parks.ca.gov.
Sincerely,
ef
vi
Carol Roland-Nawi, Ph.D.
State Historic Preservation Officer
CC:
Palm Springs City Council
Palm Springs Preservation Foundation
I09
Er !`?FP
Palm Springs City Council 2015 AM _7 P1 1 4: 3
My name is Hugh Kaptur, I have spent fulltime, the last60 i '
years of my life living in Palm Springs, earning a living in the
field of architecture. In the eighties and nineties I've
contributed my time, as a member to the city Architectural
Review Board and the Planning Commission. I have a deep
respect for you, contributing your time to our great city as
well.
Reviewing the Aberdeen project, I have some serious
concerns as to the concept that is being presented. They are
from a historic standpoint, good planning practices, and
personal.
Our forefathers from the fifties envisioned Tahquitz
Mccallum to be a grand boulevard connecting the City
Airport and the Downtown. Their dream was cemented into
the Palm Springs General Plan and Zoning Ordinances along
this boulevard. Their plan was high end development along
its frontage, to create an impressive avenue for visitors,
visiting Palm Springs. To achieve this goal, strict conditions
were written into the Zoning Ordinance as to what would be
allowed. The Aberdeen project as presented violates all of
the conditions set forth in the zoning, including setbacks,
heights, density, parking and use. This dream our
forefathers had for Palm Springs and Tahquitz Mccallum has
been handed down through the years, council to council and
respected. In my opinion it is your duty, to continue that
legacy, and enforce our General Plan and Zoning Ordinances.
110
This concept being presented of small cubicles with live
workings spaces, is not new, it's been going on for hundreds
of years, and under certain conditions works well. The
Pacific Coast and other similar areas, where wide
boardwalks and several 100 yards of Sandy Beach
overlooking the Ocean, it has become particularly popular.
These areas draw hundreds if not thousands of vacationers
and beachgoers to enjoyed nature's gifts. These areas also
have wide barriers separating people from vehicular traffic.
Looking at the Aberdeen project at this location none of
these demographics are represented.
Let's assume the developers hope comes true, that this use
will draw pedestrians, that creates a major planning
problem. With its narrow sidewalks and the 40 mph speed
limit on Tahquitz with no barrier, separating pedestrians
and vehicular traffic, is an accident waiting to happen. Even
downtown you have curb parking which separates people
from vehicles.
Tahquitz Plaza has become a significant piece of
architecture, not that I have designed it, but that the
buildings themselves have become part of a heart and soul
for iconic architecture in Palm Springs. These buildings are
being suggested for CEQA. review. Tahquitz Plaza is
included in many of the architectural tours that have made
Palm Springs so popular in recent years. According to Palm
Springs Life Magazine, modernism week, and yearly
architectural tours brings hundreds and hundreds of
thousands of dollars of revenues to local hotels, restaurants
II1
and retailers and some of the things which in turn adds to
the city tax base.
I'm in hopes this counsel will keep in mind its historic
commitment to your predecessors, and not allow the Plan
Development process to overrule good planning practices!
Respectfully yours
Hugh M. Kaptur
112
CHATTEN-BROWN& CARSTENS LLP
2200 PACFIC COAST HIGHWAY
TFLEPHONF:(310)798-2400 SUITE 318 E-MAIL:
FACSIMILE: (310)798-2402 HERMOSA BEACH,CALIFORNIA 90254 ACM@CBCEARTHUW.COM
www.cbcearthlaw.com
April 8, 2015
Via Email
Original to follow
Honorable City Council
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Re: Comments on Aberdeen Project, Case Nos 5.1361 PD-375, CUP, 3.3820
MAJ and TTM 36876; Objection to Demolition of Historic Tahquitz Plaza
Honorable Councilmembers:
On behalf of the Palm Springs Modem Committee, we urge the City to require the
preservation of the Tahquitz Plaza as part of the proposed Aberdeen Project. The
Aberdeen Project, as described in the mitigated negative declaration (MND) prepared for
the project, includes: demolition of all four Hugh Kaptur designed buildings that
comprise the historic and architecturally significant Tahquitz Plaza; construction of 74
residential units; and construction of 17 live-work units along Tahquitz Canyon Way(the
"Project" or "Aberdeen Project"). The Project was slightly revised as presented to the
Planning Commission to reduce the number of residential units to 73 and the number of
live-work units to 13 to allow for the preservation of one of the four Tahquitz Plaza
buildings, but it is unknown to the Palm Springs Modem Committee whether the MND
version of the Project or the Planning Commission version of the Project will be
presented to the City Council.
Under either iteration, the Project would result in significant adverse impacts that
have not been disclosed or analyzed in the MND. The California Environmental Quality
Act("CEQA") requires preparation of an environmental impact report ("EIR") whenever
a project may have a significant adverse impact on the environment. (Public Resources
Code section 21151.) As proposed, the Aberdeen Project would result in the demolition
of all or most of the Tahquitz Plaza, resulting in significant adverse historic resource and
aesthetic impacts. Despite pleas to analyze the significance of and impacts to this
resource from numerous members of the public, including experts in historic architecture,
the Planning Commission and even the California Office of Historic Preservation, the
113
Palm Springs City Council
April 8, 2015
Page 2 of 10
City has provided no analysis of the Tahquitz Plaza. The Project would also result in land
use and aesthetic impacts due to the Project's inconsistencies with height, setback,
inclusion of prohibited uses and landscaping requirements. Approval of the Project as
proposed, and based upon only a MND, would result in a clear violation of CEQA.
However, revising the Project to include the preservation of the Tahquitz Plaza would
mitigate the majority of these potentially significant impacts, likely obviating the need for
an EIR A revised Project would provide the City with a project that preserves Palm
Springs' important architectural history while still accommodating a substantial amount
of new development.
I. CEOA's Requirements
An EIR must be prepared instead of a MND when there is substantial evidence to
support a fair argument that the project may have significant adverse environmental
impacts. "The fair argument standard is a "low threshold" test for requiring the
preparation of an EIR" (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento (2004) 124
Cal.App.4th 903, 928.) "If there is substantial evidence of a significant environmental
impact, evidence to the contrary does not dispense with the need for an EIR when it can
still be `fairly argued' that the project may have a significant impact." (Friends of"B"
Street v. City of Hayward(1980) 106 Cal.App.3d 988, 1001; see also CEQA Guidelines §
15064.) It is a question of law, not fact, whether a fair argument exists, and courts owe no
deference to a lead agency's determination. There is a clear preference for resolving
doubts in favor of preparing an EIR. (Architectural Heritage Association. v. County of
Monterey(2004) 122 Cal.App.4th 1095, 1110; San Joaquin Raptor/Wildlife Rescue
Center v. County of Stanislaus (1996)42 Cal.App.4th 608, 617-618; Stanislaus Audubon
Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 151; Quail Botanical
Gardens Foundation, Inc. v. City of Encinitas (1994) 29 Cal.AppAth 1597, 1602-03.)
There is substantial evidence to support a fair argument that, as proposed, the
Aberdeen Project may have significant adverse impacts. The Project would demolish the
historically significant Tahquitz Plaza, resulting in significant historic resource impacts.
The Project also fails to comply with numerous land use regulations and requirements.
This noncompliance results in both land use and aesthetic impacts that were not analyzed
or even acknowledged by the MND.
A. Historic Resource Impacts.
CEQA section 21084.1 mandates that"[a] project that may cause a substantial
adverse change in the significance of an historical resource is a project that may have a
significant effect on the environment." A substantial adverse change in the significance
114
Palm Springs City Council
April8, 2015
Page 3 of 10
of an historical resource includes "physical demolition, destruction, relocation, or
alteration of the resource..." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(b)(1).) The Aberdeen Project
would demolish the historically significant Tahquitz Plaza, resulting in a significant
adverse impact.
1. Tahquitz Plaza is an Historic Resource.
Hugh Kaptur is among Palm Spring's most important and visionary local
architects. He is an innovative designer with his own distinctive to Desert Modern
architecture. Mr. Kaptur was the subject of a recent documentary, Quiet Elegance: The
Architecture of Hugh M. Kaptur. (See http:,,/wNsiv.thisnthatfilms.net/hugh-kaptur.html,
incorporated by reference.) The importance of his work within the City was also
recognized when he received a star on the Palm Springs Walk of Stars in 2014 alongside
those including William F. Cody, Albert Frey, Donald Wexler and E. Steward Williams.
The Tahquitz Plaza is a shining example of Mr. Kaptur's originality and ingenuity.
The beautiful pueblo-influenced design of these buildings embodies his distinctive style.
The Tahquitz Plaza was also designed to be energy efficient with thick walls and wide
overhangs that protect the buildings from absorbing heat and an orientation intended to
capture breezes. The visually prominent location of the Tahquitz Plaza along Tahquitz
Canyon Way heightens the significance of this resource.
Under CEQA, "[g]enerally, a resource shall be considered by the lead agency to be
`historically significant' if the resource...: (A) Is associated with events that have made a
significant contribution to the broad patterns of California's history and cultural heritage;
(B) Is associated with the lives of persons important in our past; (C) Embodies the
distinctive characteristics of type.period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of an important creative individual, or possesses hizh artistic values;
or(D) Has yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or
history." (CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5(a)(3).)
The record for the Aberdeen Project is replete with evidence regarding the
importance of Hugh Kaptur and the significance of the Tahquitz Plaza. The following
evidence submitted by experts clearly demonstrates the Tahquitz Plaza embodies
distinctive characteristics of Desert Modern design, represents the work of an important
creative individual and possesses high artistic values. Thus, the City must consider the
Tahquitz Plaza an historic resource and analyze any impacts to this resource in an EIR.
Alan Hess, architect, historian, and the author of numerous books on Modern
architecture, submitted comments regarding the importance of Hugh Kaptur in history of
115
Palm Springs City Council
April 8, 2015
Page 4 of 10
Palm Springs Modernism. (Attachment 1, February 19, 2015 Hess Letter to City and
March 20, 2015 Hess Letter to OHP.) His letter describes Hugh Kaptur's unique style and
the high artistic value of his work at Tahquitz Plaza. Mr. Hess is a consultant on the
City's Citywide Historic Resource Survey Update that is currently being prepared. He
has strongly recommended the listing of Tahquitz Plaza as a significant resource on that
survey.
Architectural historian Morris Newman interviewed Hugh Kaptur as part of his
work on an essay regarding Mr. Kaptur published in The Desert Modernists: The
Architects Who Envisioned Midcentury Modern Palm Springs. (Attachment 2, Newman
Essay re Hugh Kaptur.) Mr. Kaptur informed Mr. Newman that the Tahquitz Plaza,
where Mr. Kaptur maintained his practice for many years, is one of his favorite projects.
In comments submitted to the City, Mr. Newman found that "[a]lthough Tahquitz Plaza is
not a loud or flashy building, it shows many signs of architectural originality and
creativity...In my view, the Tahquitz office complex is one of the"sins qua non"
buildings of Palm Springs." (Attachment 3, Newman Email to City.) Mr. Newman also
noted the importance of Tahquitz Plaza is enhanced by the fact that it is part of a trio of
Kaptur-designed buildings along this stretch of Tahquitz Canyon Way.
Brad Dunning, a former Historic Site Preservation Board member and designer
known for working on architecturally significant properties and restorations, also
submitted comments urging preservation of the Tahquitz Plaza. He stated that Hugh
Kaptur's work is as important to Palm Springs as that of Albert Frey, E. Stewart
Williams, Donald Wexler, and William Cody. He found Kaptur's work to be "distinctive,
unique and in the case of his pueblo modern design at Tahquitz Plaza highly contextual
and specific to stylish Palm Springs." (Attachment 4, February 20, 2015 Dunning Email
to City.)
The architect for the Tahquitz Plaza, Hugh Kaptur, who is also a former Planning
Commissioner and member of the City's Architectural Advisory Committee, has
articulated before the Planning Commission and in a recent editorial why the Tahquitz
Plaza is one of his favorite projects. (Attachment 5, April 7, 2015 Kaptur Editorial in
Desert Sun.) Mr. Kaptur feels the Tahquitz Plaza represents some of his best work, noting
that the buildings were the recipients of architectural awards in 1979 and 1980.
The California Office of Historic Preservation has also urged the City consider the
Tahquitz Plaza an historic resource and either modify the Aberdeen Project to preserve
the Tahquitz Plaza or to prepare an EIR to analyze the impacts. . The OHP's letter
officially states "in light of the preliminary findings of historical significance described in
the Alan Hess letter, we encourage the Lead Agency [the City] to act within its
116
Palm Springs City Council
April 8, 2015
Page 5 of 10
discretion...to consider the Tahquitz Plaza office complex as a historic resource for the
purposes of CEQA." The OHP letter further states that the City has the discretion under
CEQA to "treat the Tahquitz Plaza office complex as a historic resource, [and that] it may
be possible to modify the proposed project to avoid impacts to the historic resources.... In
this way, [the City] could avoid the time and cost involved in preparing an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR)."
The City's own design and land use experts, the Architectural Advisory Committee
and the Planning Commission,recognized the significance of Tahquitz Plaza and
recommended denial of the Project based in large part upon the proposed demolition of
these buildings.' At the Planning Commission hearing, a Commissioner asked City staff
whether the City could find a building to be a local historic resource if it had not yet
reached 50 years of age. No specific answer was provided, but a review of the City's
Historic Preservation Ordinance demonstrates there is no prohibition or limitation
regarding buildings that are less than 50 years and the City has previously listed resources
that were less than 50 years of age. The Historic Preservation Ordinance was adopted
"for the purpose of preserving areas and specific buildings of the city which reflect
elements of its cultural, social, economic, political, architectural and archaeological
history." (Palm Springs Municipal Code 8.05.010.) This Ordinance defines an historic
site as "any real property ... that is unique or significant because of its location, design,
setting, materials, workmanship or aesthetic effect and: ... (4) That embodies the
distinctive characteristics of a type, period or method of construction; or(5) That presents
the work of a master builder, designer, artist, or architect whose individual genius
influenced his age; or that possesses high artistic value." (Palm Springs Municipal Code
8.05.020(a).) The expert testimony demonstrates that the Tahquitz Plaza meets criteria
(4) and (5) of the City's definition of an historic site.
The wealth of evidence regarding the historic significance of the Tahquitz Plaza is
similar to the evidence presented to the county in Architectural Heritage Association v.
County of Monterey(2004) 122 Cal.AppAth 1095. In that case, the court found that the
opinion of a consultant commissioned by the county, findings of an advisory committee
and testimony of members of the public with relevant expertise represented "substantial
evidence supporting a fair argument that the Old Jail is an historic resource." (Id. at
1118.) Here, a City commissioned consultant (Alan Hess), other experts in the
community, the Architectural Advisory Committee, the Plannine Commission and
1 The Planning Commissioners that voted against denial of the Project did not dispute the significance of
the Tahquitz Plaza. Instead,they stated that they did not believe it was economically feasible to preserve
these buildings. There is no economic analysis in the record to support this conclusion. Moreover, this is
a determination that can only be made after analysis in an EIR.
117
Palm Springs City Council
April 8, 2015
Page 6 of 10
even the California Office of Historic Preservation have ureed the City to consider
the Tahquitz Plaza to be an historic resource. Failure to do so is a violation of
CEOA as it was in Architectural Heritage Association.
2. The MND Provide No Evidentiary Support for Finding of Insignificant
Impacts to Historic Resources.
Despite all of the evidence presented to the City, and the importance of Hugh
Kaptur and the Tahquitz Plaza, the MND/Initial Study completely ignores the buildings'
potential historic significance. Instead of evaluating the historic significance of these
resources, the MND/Initial Study merely references the Tahquitz Plaza as "1971 vintage
office buildings." (MND p. 24.) The MND/Initial Study does not disclose that Hugh
Kaptur was the architect of these buildings nor does it describe their unique design. It
states that the buildings are not listed on the state or local register, but does not
acknowledge that the buildings may soon be listed on the City's historic resources
survey. Further, as pointed out by the Office of Historic Preservation, the fact that a
resource is not listed on a register does not preclude a resource from meeting the criteria
for historic resource under CEQA. CEQA "does not demand formal listing of a resource
in a national, state or local register as a prerequisite to `historical' status. The statutory
language is more expansive and flexible." (Architectural Heritage Assn, supra 122
Cal.AppAth at 1114, citation to League for Protection of Oakland's Historic Resources
v. City of Oakland(1997) 52 Cal.AppAth 896, 907.)
The City's failure to evaluate the historic significance of the Tahquitz Plaza,
despite substantial evidence of the buildings historicity and requests from the Planning
Commission to study these impacts, is a violation of CEQA. The purpose of the initial
study is to provide the lead agency with adequate information regarding a project to
determine the appropriate environmental review document and "documentation of the
factual basis for the finding in a negative declaration that a project will not have a
significant effect on the environment." (Ctr.for Sierra Nevada Conservation v. County
of El Dorado (2012) 202 Cal. App. 4th 1156, 1170, citations omitted.) "Where an
agency. . . fails to gather information and undertake an adequate environmental analysis
in its initial study, a negative declaration is inappropriate." (El Dorado County Taxpayers
for Quality Growth v. County of El Dorado (2004) 122 Cal. App. 4th 1591, 1597,
citations omitted.) Failure to adequately analyze all of a project's potentially significant
impacts or provide evidence to support conclusions reached in the initial study is a
failure to comply with the law.
This failure to provide an analysis is also a violation of the City's General Plan
Policy RC 10.3, which states: "Require site assessment conducted by a qualified
118
Palm Springs City Council
April 8, 2015
Page 7 of 10
specialist whenever information indicates that a site proposed for development may
contain paleontological, historic, or archaeological resources." The evidence cited above
clearly indicates the Tahquitz Plaza not only may be but is an historic resource.
3. The City's Failure to Follow OHP Recommendations Could Jeopardize
Its Status as a Certified Local Government
Palm Springs was recently approved as a Certified Local Government (CLG) by
the California Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). The CLG Program is designed to
encourage the participation of local governments in the identification, evaluation,
registration, and preservation of historic properties in their communities. CLG
communities are also eligible to receive a wide range of technical assistance and
substantial grants from the OHP. The OHP monitors CLG communities' compliance with
CEQA and other laws and regulations intended to protect historic resources. A
determination by OHP that the City has failed to comply with CEQA could result in a loss
of CLG status and/or the City's inability to receive OHP grant funding. OHP has
recommended the City evaluate the historic significance of the Tahquitz Plaza. To
comply with CEQA and protect its status as a CLG, the City should follow this
recommendation.
B. Land Use Impacts.
The Architectural Advisory Committee and the Planning Commission have
identified numerous areas in which the Aberdeen Project would be inconsistent with the
Section 14 Specific Plan and City zoning regulations. The majority of these
inconsistencies would be resolved if the Project were modified to include the preservation
of Tahquitz Plaza.
A project's conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation is a
significant environmental impact under CEQA. (Pocket Protectors v. City of Sacramento
(2004) 124 Cal.AppAth 903, 929.) "If substantial evidence supports a fair argument that
the proposed project conflicts with [land use] policies, this constitutes grounds for
requiring an EIR. Whether a fair argument can be made on this point is a legal question"
that provides no deference to a city council determination.
The Aberdeen Project would exceed Section 14 height limits. The MND dismisses
this land use policy conflict by claiming the Project would meet the requirements of the
City's high-rise development standards. (MND p. 12.) As found by the Planning
Commission, the Project would not comply with the high-rise development standards
because it lacks the required setbacks by providing only 6.75 feet of setback from
Tahquitz Canyon Way. Planning Commissioner's fact-based conclusions regarding a
119
Palm Springs City Council
April 8, 2015
Page 8 of 10
project's failure to comply with land use policy is substantial evidence to support a fair
argument that the project would have significant land use impacts. (Stanislaus Audubon
Society, Inc. v. County of Stanislaus (1995) 33 Cal.AppAth 144, 155.) Additionally, the
Project would not include 60 percent open space, which is required to meet the high-rise
development standards. (Palm Springs Municipal Code 93.04.00(A).) If the Tahquitz
Plaza were preserved, adequate setbacks would be provided along Tahquitz Canyon Way
and additional open space would be included in the Project, which would likely allow the
Project to meet the high-rise standards for the remainder of the Project.
The Project would also result in a land use impact by including single family
homes in area where single family homes are prohibited. (Section 14 Specific Plan p. 6-
4.) The MND ignores this inconsistency by mischaracterizing the Project as multi-family
housing. The City's Municipal Code defines multi-family housing as "a building
designed for or occupied by two (2) or more families living independently of each other."
(Palm Springs Municipal Code 91.00.10.) In the Aberdeen Project, the majority of the
buildings, particularly those along Tahquitz Canyon Way, are completely detached units
that are designed for occupancy by only one family, thus they do not meet the City's
definition of multi-family housing and are prohibited by the Section 14 Specific Plan.
The MND is inaccurate and misleading to the public and decision makers by failing to
disclose the inclusion of a prohibited use in this Project.
The setback, height and use conflicts are similar to those found by the court to be
significant impacts requiring preparation of an EIR in Pocket Protectors v. City of
Sacramento (2004) 124 Ca1.App.4th 903. In the Pocket Protectors case, the planning
commission found a densely packed single family housing project to be inconsistent with
housing type and setback policies for the area. The MND prepared in that case glossed
over or ignored the inconsistencies, much the way it does here, and the project approval
was found to be in violation of CEQA.
The Aberdeen Project further violates land use policies due to its inconsistencies
with required landscaping along Tahquitz Canyon Way. The minimal setbacks provided
by the Project do not allow adequate space for the large palm trees, desert landscaping,
public art and pedestrian amenities along Tahquitz Canyon Way required by the Section
14 Specific Plan. The MND acknowledges the inconsistency and provides mitigation
measure MMI-1, which states: "Project site plans, architectural renderings and landscape
plans shall be revised to address inconsistencies with the development standards and other
design requirements of the Section 14 Specific Plan, as determined by City Council." The
ability of mitigation measures to actually mitigate impacts must be evaluated in the
environmental review document. By waiting until after the City Council hearing to
develop a mitigation measure for this impact, the MND fails to assess the efficacy of the
120
Palm Springs City Council
April 8, 2015
Page 9 of 10
measure and improperly defers mitigation. The developer has opted not to make the
revisions necessary to bring this Project into compliance with the Section 14 Specific Plan
and thus the inconsistency, and land use impact, remains.
The Project would also violate several City General Plan policies, resulting in
further land use impacts. The General Plan requires the City to:
• RC 10.1 Support the preservation and protection of historically, architecturally, or
archaeologically significant sites, places, districts, structures, landforms, objects,
native burial sites and other features.
• RC 10.2 Encourage and support the retention and adaptive reuse of buildings of
architectural, historic, or cultural significance where financially feasible.
• RC10.5 Actively encourage and promote the understanding, appreciation, and
preservation of the archaeological, historic, and cultural resources.
By allowing the demolition of the historically significant Tahquitz Plaza, the City's
approval of the Project would violate these General Plan policies.
C. Aesthetic Impacts
The Aberdeen Project would also result in significant aesthetic impacts that require
analysis in an EIR. The proposed demolition of the historically significant Tahquitz Plaza
at a prominent location in the City's downtown would degrade the visual character of the
area. These architecturally distinctive buildings with wide landscaped setbacks would be
replaced with densely packed units that exceed height limits and violate setback
requirements. The Planning Commission has questioned the viability of providing live-
work units along Tahquitz Canyon Way and expressed concern that these visually
prominent units would end up being used as storage space, further degrading the visual
character. This degradation is particularly significant because Tahquitz Canyon Way is
designated as a scenic corridor by the City's General Plan.
Conclusion
The Palm Springs Modem Committee urges you to reconsider the proposed
Aberdeen Project. As proposed, the Project's impacts require analysis in an EIR and the
City's proposal to approve the Project based upon a MND violates CEQA. If the Project
were revised to include preservation of the Tahquitz Plaza, the majority of the housing
units could still be constructed, but the impacts of the Project would be substantially
reduced.
121
Palm Springs City Council
April 8, 2015
Page 10 of 10
Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter.
Sincerely,
Amy Minteer
Attorney at Law
Attachments:
Attachment 1, February 19, 2015 Hess Letter to City and March 20, 2015 Hess Letter to
OHP
Attachment 2, Morris Newman Essay re Hugh Kaptur.
Attachment 3, Morris Newman Email to City re Aberdeen Project
Attachment 4, February 20, 2015 Dunning Email to City
Attachment 5, April 7, 2015 Kaptur Editorial in Desert Sun
cc: Flinn Fagg, AICP, Director of Planning Services
David Newell, Associate Planner
David H. Ready, Esq., Ph.D., City Manager
James Thompson, City Clerk
Palm Springs Modern Committee
National Trust for Historic Preservation
California Preservation Foundation
122
ATTACHMENT 1
123
ALAN HESS
ARCHITECT
4991 CORKWOOD LANE
IRVINE,CA 92612
949 551 5343
alanhl Imhe v,
..alanhess.wt
February 19, 2015
Terri Hintz
Planning Department Administrative Coordinator
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA92263
Re: Tahquitz Plaza by architect Hugh Kaptur, Tahquitz Canyon and Calle El Segundo
To the Planning Commission:
I am writing as an architect, historian, and author of nineteen books on Modern
architecture to express my support for the preservation of the Tahquitz Plaza office
complex because of its historical significance to Palm Springs and California
architecture. Please share this letter with the Planning Commissioners prior to their
February 25, 2015 meeting.
I have written two books on Palm Springs architecture (Julius Shulman: Palm Springs,
Rizzoli International, 2008, and Palm Springs Weekend, Chronicle Books, 2001) and
can say that these buildings, and the work of architect Hugh Kaptur, play an important
role in what is now identified as Palm Springs Modernism.
I am also a consultant on architectural history for the current City of Palm Springs
architectural survey. I have already unequivocally recommended Tahquitz Plaza as a
significant building in that survey.
My resume is attached. I have written on architecture for the Los Angeles Review of
Books, The Architect's Newspaper, The Los Angeles Times, Architectural Digest, the
Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians, and other journals. I have been the
architecture critic of the San Jose Mercury News since 1986, received a grant from the
Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts, and was a National Arts
Journalism Fellow at Columbia University.
The research of the importance of Palm Springs Modern architecture in general is very
recent. Only a decade ago, the work of now-recognized architects such as William
Cody, Donald Wexler, Palmer& Krisel, and E. Stewart Williams was not well known
124
generally; few Modern buildings now considered iconic were identified as historic then.
Since then, our understanding of these and other architects has made us aware of the
full dimension of Palm Springs architectural history.
As we continue researching this history, it is clear that the work of Hugh Kaptur makes a
significant contribution to the unique character of Palm Springs architecture. This
opinion is not mine alone; the newly published book The Desert Modernists: The
Architects Who Envisioned Midcentury Modern Palm Springs(Desert Publications,
2015) and the documentary film Quiet Elegance: The Architecture of Hugh M. Kaptur
(Bert Simonis, director, 2014) indicate the clear direction of scholarly opinion on
Kaptur's importance.
Briefly stated, Kaptur's significance is this: 1) Palm Springs midcentury Modern
architecture is known for its use of Modern concepts to solve the challenges of climate,
function, and new materials; 2) an extraordinary group of talented architects lived or
worked in Palm Springs, and while they addressed the same problems they expressed
a wide range of aesthetic solutions; 3) Hugh Kaptur's aesthetic is unique in Palm
Springs, demonstrating the wide range of fertile innovation in the city.
Tahquitz Plaza is an important and well preserved example of Kaptur's unique
approach. Rather than drawing on the rectilinear steel and glass geometries of, for
example, Richard Neutra, he draws on organic forms and ideas from the American
Southwest, and Frank Lloyd Wright. This is seen in Tahquitz Plaza's irregular roofline,
the deep, sculpted, curving frames around windows, the eaves and sun shading
features, and the integration of outdoor areas interspersed among the offices. This is a
strong piece of design that deserves to remain in place.
In addition, its site on Tahquitz Canyon places it in the context of the city civic center, an
extraordinary collection of Modern buildings serving civic purposes, and rare in the
state.
I am writing this letter pro bono because historic architecture of this quality adds to the
civic character and quality of city life. In the years before Palm Springs' heritage was
fully understood, the city lost many significant structures. Unfortunately, this degradation
has continued; the demolition of a major Kaptur design would be a loss to history and
the city's urban quality.
Sincerely,
A
Alan Hess
125
RESUME OFALAN HESS, ARCHITECT
4991 Corkwood Lane, Irvine, CA92612 949/551 5343 www.alanhess.net
alan(a)alanhess.net
WORK 1981- Alan Hess, Architect
1986- Architecture critic, San Jose Mercury-News
EDUCATION 1975-78 M.Arch. I, School of Architecture and Urban Planning,
University of California, Los Angeles
1970-74 B.A., Principia College, Elsah, IL
DESIGN Jamm's Coffee Shop, Petersen Automotive Museum, Los Angeles
County Museum of Natural History; principal contributor to
interpretive exhibits
Gordon Onslow-Ford guesthouse, Marin County, CA
TEACHING 1989-91 Instructor, University of California, Los Angeles
1986-90 Lecturer, Southern California Institute of Architecture
PRESERVATION Design Guidelines, Heatherstone Community, Mountain View, CA
Honor Award 1997, National Trust for Historic Preservation
President's Award, California Preservation Foundation
Qualified for National Register of Historic Places:
Bullock's Pasadena (Wurdeman and Becket 1947), Pasadena
CA
McDonald's Drive-In (Stanley C. Meston 1953), Downey, CA
Valley Ho Hotel (Edward Varney, 1957), Scottsdale, AZ
Stuart Pharmaceutical Factory(Edward Durell Stone 1958),
Pasadena, CA
Expert testimony on behalf of landmark designations for Century
Plaza Hotel, Los Angeles (Minoru Yamasaki, 1966); Bob's
Big Boy, Burbank (Wayne McAllister, 1949); Wichstand, Los
Angeles (Armet and Davis, 1957), Columbia Savings, Los
Angeles (1964), Stanford Hospital (Edward Durell Stone
1959), National Theater, Westwood (1969) and other
mid-century modern structures
FELLOWSHIPS Fellow, National Arts Journalism Program, School of Journalism,
Columbia University, 1997-98
GRANTS Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts,
research on Brazilian landscape architect Roberto Burle
Marx, 1990
LICENSE Licensed architect, California # C 15747
126
SELECTED PUBLICATIONS
BOOKS:
Frank Lloyd Wright:Natural Design, Organic Architecture Rlzzoli International,
New York 2012
Casa Modernist: A History of the Brazil Modern House Rizzoli International, New
York 2010
Oscar Niemeyer Buildings Rizzoli International, New York 2009
Frank Lloyd Wright: The Buildings Rizzoli International, New York 2008
Julius Shulman: Palm Springs Rizzoli International, New York 2008
Forgotten Modern: California Houses 1940-1970 Gibbs Smith Publisher, Layton,
UT 2007
Frank Lloyd Wright: Mid-Century Modern, Rizzoli International, New York 2007
Organic Architecture: The Other Modernism Gibbs Smith Publisher, Layton, UT
2007
Frank Lloyd Wright: Prairie Houses, Rizzoli International, New York 2006
Oscar Niemeyer Houses, Rizzoli International, New York 2006
Frank Lloyd Wright: The Houses, Rizzoli International, New York 2005
The Ranch House, Harry Abrams, Inc., New York 2005
Googie Redux: Ultramodern Roadside Architecture, Chronicle Books,
San Francisco 2004
Palm Springs Weekend: the Architecture and Design of a Midcentury Oasis,
Chronicle Books, San Francisco 2000
Rancho Deluxe: Rustic Dreams and Real Western Living, Chronicle Books,
San Francisco 2000
The Architecture of John Lautner, Rizzoli International, New York 1999
Hyperwest: American Residential Architecture on the Edge, Thames & Hudson,
London 1996
Viva Las Vegas, Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA 1993
Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture, Chronicle Books, San Francisco, CA
1986
MAGAZINES, JOURNALS, NEWSPAPERS AND WEBSITES:
"Big Man on Campus:Alan Hess on Modernist Maverick, a new exhibition at the
Nevada Museum of Art exploring the architecture of William Pereira,"
Architect's Newspaper, Sept. 26, 2013
"Connecting the Dots: Alan Hess on Pacific Standard Time Presents: Modern
Architecture in L.A.," Architect's Newspaper, Sept. 6, 2013
"The Beauty of Authenticity: Dana Point Harbor," Orange Coast Magazine, Aug.,
2013
"Wide Angle Lens: Alan Hess on the Getty's new exhibition, Overdrive: LA
Constructs the Future 1940-1990, " Architect's Newspaper, June 21,
2013
"Everyday Modernisms: Diversity, Creativity, and Ideas in L.A. Architecture,
1940-1990"
Los Angeles Conservancy, "Curating the City" website, June 2013
127
"Schindler Goes Hollywood," Los Angeles Review of Books, May 26, 2012
"New Apple Campus," San Jose Mercury News, Sept. 2011
"John Lautner and Los Angeles," Los Angeles Times, July 23, 2011
"Coming to Terms with the Sixties," National Trust Forum Journal, Summer
2010 vol 24 no 4
"Colorful Landmarks: how color shaped public space in 1950s suburbia," New
Geographies, Harvard Graduate School of Design, Oct 2010
"The Suburbs and the Ranch House," California College of the Arts
Architecture Studio Series, 2005
"The Place of Histories," Architecture California, 04:1, 2003
"Steven Ehrlich house, Pacific Palisades," Metropolitan Home, Dec. 2005
"Montalvo Artists' Village," Architectural Digest, June 2005
"Cliff May's Romantic Mandalay," Architectural Digest, May 2005
"Meeting the Horizon in California, Roscoe House by Helena Arahuete,"
Architectural Digest, Jan. 2005
"Historic Architecture: Oscar Niemeyer," Architectural Digest, May 2003
"The Place of Histories," Architecture California, 04:1, 2003
"San Jose: A Downtown in the Making," Places, vol. 15, no. 2
"High Art Parking Lot," Rearview Mirror: Automobile Images and
American Identities, University of California, Riverside 2000
"Eine kurze Geschichte von Las Vegas," Stadt Bauwelt 143, Sept. 1999
"City Center to Regional Mall," Journal of Preservation Technology, vol XXVII,
no 4, 1997
"New York, New York," Architectural Record, March 1997
"John Lautner" Progressive Architecture, December 1994
"The Origins of McDonald's Golden Arches," Journal of the
Society of Architectural Historians, XLV: 60-67, March 1986
"Technology Exposed," Landscape Architecture, May 1992, pp 38-48
"Burle Marx:A Shaky Legacy," Landscape Architecture, April 1992 p 38
"Back to Brasilia," Progressive Architecture, October 1991 pp 96-97
"Greenwald house," Los Angeles Times Magazine, October 27, 1991, p 31
"Of Cities and Their Halls," San Francisco Examiner, Aug. 7, 1991
"American Style and Fifties Style: reviews," Design Book Review, Winter 1989
"Schindler and Goff: Architectures," L.A. Style, March 1989
"Monsanto House of the Future," Fine Homebuilding, August/September 1986,
No. 34
"The Eichler Homes,"Arts +Architecture, Vol. 3, No. 3, 1984
SELECTED TALKS
LECTURES:
Getty Research Institute; Kansas City Modern; Dallas Modern;Arizona
Preservation Conference Keynote; Nevada Museum of Art Symposium; Society
of Architectural Historians Tour; Commonwealth Club of San Francisco; Society
for Commercial Archeology Conference Keynote; Los Angeles Conservancy
Welton Becket Centennial Keynote; Columbia University School of Architecture;
Houston Modern; Phoenix Modern; Walker Art Museum; Chicago Humanities
128
Festival; Cooper-Hewitt Museum of Design; Yale University School of
Architecture; Graham Foundation for Advanced Studies in the Fine Arts;
Greenwich (England) National Maritime Museum; Cliff May Lecture, Los Angeles
Conservancy; Vancouver(B.C.)Alcan Lecture Series; Architecture League;
International Association of Shopping Center Owners; National Real Estate
Editors Association; Colby College Southworth Lecture; Monterey Design
Conference; University of British Columbia; National Trust for Historic
Preservation Conference;AIA 2005 National Convention, Las Vegas; Hammer
Museum Symposium; San Francisco AIA; California Preservation Foundation;
Schusev State Museum of Architecture, Moscow.
BROADCAST MEDIA AND FILMS:
"William Krisel,Architect," DesignOnScreen Foundation, 2010
"A Kick in the Head—The Lure of Las Vegas," BBC-TV January 2010
"Journeyman Architect: The Architecture of Donald Wexler,"
DesignOnScreen 2009
"Desert Utopia," DesignOnScreen, 2008
Which Way LA, KCRW-FM, July 7, 2008
Which Way LA, KCRW-FM July 27, 2007
The Late Show, BBC-TV January 16, 1995
CBS Sunday Morning News with Charles Kuralt, January 23, 1994
Good Morning America,August 3, 1993
CBS Morning News, Jan. 17, 1990
Videolog, KCET, Los Angeles, June 1985
Patrick Monroe Show, CBC Radio, February 1987
Morning Edition, NPR, May 2, 1986
Smithsonian World, "Speaking Without Words," PBS, March 1984
SELECTED REFERENCES TO WORK
Thomas Hines, Architecture of the Sun, 2010
"Las Vegas meets la-la land," Smithsonian, October 1995
"In Los Angeles, a '50s Flameout," New York Times, September 7, 1995
"Oldest McDonald's Closes," New York Times, March 6, 1994
"Would Las Vegas Landmark Be an Oxymoron?" New York Times, Oct. 7, 1993
"Restaurant Architecture," Journal of the Society of Architectural Historians,
XLVIII:2, June 1989
"Legacy of the Golden Arches," TIME, June 2, 1986
"Books: Pop Style to Free Style," Progressive Architecture, December 1986
"Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture, a review," Architectural Record, May
1986
"Who Says It's Not a Landmark?" Historic Preservation, November/December
1987
"Googie -- History Closing the Menu on a 1950s style," Los Angeles Times, June
9, 1986
"Now let's hear it for Googie style," Vancouver Sun, February 5, 1987
"Architecture and Design reviews," Philadelphia Inquirer, November 30, 1986
129
"Architecture To Go," David Dillon, Dallas News, June 22, 1986
"Googie: Fifties Coffee Shop Architecture," Art and Design, London, June 1986
130
ALAN HESS
ARCHITECT
4991 CORKWOOD LANE
I RV I N E,CA 92612
949 551 5343
alan@alanheaa net
w .alanhm.net
March 20, 2015
Carol Roland-Nawi
State Historic Preservation Officer
Office of Historic Preservation
1725 23rd Street, Suite 100
Sacramento, CA 95816
Re: Tahquitz Plaza by architect Hugh Kaptur, Tahquitz Canyon and Calle El Segundo
Dear Ms. Roland-Nawi:
I am writing at the request of the Palm Springs Preservation Foundation to ask you to
consider writing a letter to the City of Palm Springs encouraging them to conduct an EIR
for the Tahquitz Plaza office buildings (1971) by Kaptur & Lapham. The four buildings in
this complex are excellent and well preserved examples of key aspects of architect
Hugh Kaptur's work, and of Palm Springs Modernism.
The buildings are currently under threat of demolition for a proposed residential project.
So far the city has not requested an EIR, but I believe the complex's significance and
quality require it.
Kaptur is an important architect in Palm Springs Modernism. Rather than drawing on the
rectilinear steel and glass geometries of, for example, Richard Neutra, Kaptur often
draws on organic concepts from Frank Lloyd Wright and forms from the American
Southwest. This is seen in Tahquitz Plaza's irregular roofline, the deep, sculpted frames
around windows, the bermed walls, the eaves and sun shading features, and the
integration of outdoor areas interspersed among the offices. The strong composition of
these many elements shows Kaptur's skill and the high artistic value of his work.
In addition, Tahquitz Plaza's location on Tahquitz Canyon places it in the context of the
city's Modern civic center. Tahquitz Canyon is the city's main civic thoroughfare, linking
the airport to downtown; along this boulevard is an extraordinary collection of Modern
buildings serving civic purposes, including city hall, police and county facilities, and the
airport, complemented by commercial buildings of similar style and siting. Such a
collection of Modern civic center buildings is rare in the state.
131
Palm Springs' midcentury Modern architecture is known for its use of Modern concepts
in addressing the challenges of climate, functions, and new material technologies.
These are not typified by a single aesthetic; it ranges from the lightweight, steel framed
houses resting lightly on the earth seen in the work of Richard Neutra and Albert Frey,
to the autochthonous monolithic concrete structures, literally buried in the earth, seen in
John Lautner's work, with many more interpretations in between.
Within this wide range, Kaptur's work is singular. His training in design was closely
associated with midcentury automotive design in Detroit, where he attended Lawrence
Tech and worked for General Motors' consumer design division. Kaptur has worked in
Palm Springs from 1956 to the present day. He worked for and with other noted local
architects, including Donald Wexler, Richard Harrison, and William Cody. Like those
architects, his work is distinctive and individual, and yet his design also reflects common
themes that distinguish Palm Springs Modernism.
The Tahquitz Plaza offices are an excellent representation of his use of sculptural,
expressionist forms influenced by Native American adobe structures, but modernized
and abstracted aesthetically in the spirit of Modernism. The complex's thick stuccoed
walls do not imitate those vernacular structures; the silhouette of the walls and the
curving windows frames that grow directly from those walls are carefully abstracted into
forms that represent a distinct, modernized aesthetic vocabulary. This approach is also
seen in other Kaptur designs, including the William Holden house(1977), and the Casa
Blanca motel (1979.)
In addition, the Tahquitz Plaza offices incorporate unpainted wood walls and wood
trellises. These also update the wood ramadas and trellises of traditional Southwestern
architecture. The siting of the office structures creates small courtyards between the
buildings (another design aspect seen in historic Spanish architecture of the Southwest)
allowing for shaded outdoor areas.
Likewise, the landscaping and siting of the Tahquitz Plaza buildings represent an
updating of traditional concepts and a Modern response to the hot climate. Berms rise
partway up the walls, providing thermal insulation and connecting the structure to the
earth, similar to Lautner's desert designs.
The thick walls, hooded windows, and shaded courts all have historic precedents, but
they are also practical, integral elements that help moderate the strong sunlight and
heat of the local climate. The design of all these elements is artful and well composed.
The use of historic regional architecture by twentieth century architects is an important
facet of Modern architecture in California and the West. It can be seen, for example, in
the work of Irving Gill in the 1910s, the Ranch Houses of Cliff May in the 1950s and
1960s, and the civic buildings and residences of Bennie Gonzales in Arizona, where
historic forms were blended with Modernism's abstraction. Hugh Kaptur is the primary
interpreter of this approach in midcentury Palm Springs, and Tahquitz Plaza is a primary
example in the city.
132
Kaptur's work has been rediscovered fairly recently. This is not surprising; our
understanding of the significance of Palm Springs Modern architecture in general is also
relatively recent. Only a dozen years ago, the work of now-recognized architects such
as William Cody, Donald Wexler, Palmer& Krisel, and E. Stewart Williams was not
generally well known outside Palm Springs, and its significance was not even widely
recognized within Palm Springs.
In the years before Palm Springs' heritage was fully understood, the city lost many
significant structures. Unfortunately, this degradation has continued; the demolition of a
major Kaptur design such as this would be a loss to history and the city's urban quality.
But as we continue researching this history, it is clear that the work of Hugh Kaptur
makes a significant contribution to the unique character of Palm Springs architecture.
This opinion is not mine alone; the newly published book The Desert Modernists: The
Architects Who Envisioned Midcentury Modern Palm Springs (Desert Publications,
2015) and the documentary film Quiet Elegance: The Architecture of Hugh M. Kaptur
(Bert Simonis, director, 2014) indicate the clear direction of opinion on Kaptur's
importance.
I have written to the Palm Springs Planning Commission about my support, as a
historian and architect, for the preservation of Tahquitz Plaza. I am also a consultant on
architectural history for the Palm Springs architectural survey, currently underway. I
have already unequivocally recommended Tahquitz Plaza as a significant building in
that survey. I believe that a letter from your state office would encourage them to
conduct an EIR that would document the significance of this complex.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
133
ATTACHMENT 2
134
s t,.
y
2
off'
In I'll
ti%Tf M1 \
COOO CD
t
M W `
C
a
z
w �
O
T Z
cn w
F— O
LU O
� r
w
ttt o$ u
o
fir fit tip, '�,
8 THE RIGHICLIMAIF
12 HOBSONC. CHAMBERS
20 JOHN PORTER CLARK
28 VVII I IAM F CODY
38 ALBERT FRIFY RW40W
48 A, QUINCYJONES
58 HUGH KAPTUR
68 WILLIAM "BILL' KRI$El
78 JOHNLAUTNER So-r. wKorxr
M,v-v A P90 st art rfcxc WkIP.,ems[to ltd Pt-M SPrWq5 88 RICHARD NEUTRA
J,,�nru oppo,fto tap lv-,�
IW,tm, hfiddl< kO•J hn Pbnvr Cie*, 98 DONALD WEXLER IVltdUe'S E T'
A t#arna,K'W w'SiR'KpisW-
I,&,Wppo.F CaA- ewning over deW 108 E, STEWART WILLIAMS
P,u$,q "wm R"h Kooftw f&es+a�'tWAlms
s G5gq .wo, Fagg 4 Edos H"�
-Z,I"f".4 city"x4 118 PAULR.WiLLIAMS
128 MODERN TIMES SteAj l ,',t,x,,gf
Ma,
136 THE AUTHORS
a
138 THE IMAGES
kf,v,
140 AFTERWORD
136
I
7 �t
# 86,
_ s
M r
H
T3�1
Y
i'
'yN
3.Nt .Ii'9 .Y
seR'w: kti
. ..
Ir
(MAY 22, 1931 — )
HUGH KAPTUR STANDS APART FROM MOST OFTHE PALM SPRINGS ARCHITECTS OF HIS
GENERATION. RATHERTHANTHE MAINLINE, INTERNATIONAL STYLE MODERNISM FAVORED BY
MOST OF HIS PREDECESSORS AND COLLEAGUES IN THE DESERT, KAPTUR PREFERS WHAT HE CALLS
"AN ARTISTIC ARCHITECTURE THAT IS ORGANIC AND FLOWING." HIS FIRST INSPIRATION WAS
FRANK LLOYD WRIGHT, NOT MIES VAN DER ROHE.
Kaptur is not a doctrinaire follower of Wright, however, shade structures to keep the sun off the windows.
He denies having a signature style. His primary Other "pop" buildings are the Siva House of 1959, with
debt to the master of Taliesin, he adds, was the scallop-shaped awnings draped in orange plastic, and
acknowledgment of climate and landscape in his the clubhouse Kaptur designed with Robert Ricciardi
projects,as well as a taste for sculptural masses and for the Palm Springs Goff Course (1959), with a curved
a delight in contrasting materials. In some cases, rooftlne resembling a cresting wave
Kaptur was able to translate some of the scuptural Practical commissions, such as the Tahquitz Plaza
feeling of Wright's designs into a colorful, "populuxe" office complex 0971, by Kaptur, I_apharn, and Associates)
style: Kaptur's first Palm Springs project was the on Tahquitz Canyon Way, did not always allow total
Impala Lodge (1957-58; now the Triangle Inn), a wildly freedom, yet;his comparatively restrained project remains
inventive building with steel beams supporting a one of Kaptur's favorites.After an original design called
canopy reminiscent of a lean-to. Walls of glass stand for concrete, cost considerations dictated that a less
On a stone base, while external "buttresses" support expensive wood frame structure be employed. Despite this
i
w�
.zvt c o,"i",
... __raE; P.x :rrtos 5,m� .alti
.Fatm,b`i' ,•gx (hG`itrnrSE'
)ez::pti319s£Si>irUu.xSNli{JOJyC ""^.
An.f':+r.itn je'sd i(xtuY:f
rr.rn k<,u�sz
cori_aarnt,the takrqui;?twildings ntarw9e to lock ifke masonry:dun r wails t:rdr an,,s%,'caI "c lane as
massive--is concrete.To further the rliusion of thick walls,Kaptur provided the t),Awigs v i rl+rr vs
€hat arpear deepiv recessed.In other places win lov rs push outward from .r .va r sr.rf an, i t trl,
is b evk Ore ,of the building Simikar jutting wxxiovva can be found at Kaptur s Ni,>,sand r o r l i95%S_
arn)tlher P,ut rfing that flirts with the illusion of heavy masonry in the form of a pveoio adobe.
A Denoit rtahve. Hugh Kaptur was born.in 1931 to an artistic mother and an aut sr c=; des�q�
ehgirteerfather_After high school, he briefly attended Lawrence Instin.rte of Tedvtoingy or,k^�,r
as LawrenceTechnoiogica!University)in Michigan to study engineering, But at 20. l o enro find ii
the.Marines during the KoreanWan he and his young family briefly lived n Cal fornia t 0ona ne
returned to Michigan so;that tie could work with his father at G'v!'s design study iidnr4
:s education At thaCPoint,Kaptur and his family returned.to California, ttus lithe to t e angel
undeveloped Faint Springs of the early 1950s.Afitet working briefly for Wexler and Hi scn. Kant<`
supported himselt by making presentation drawings for Donald Wexier, Albert Frey, air,r;thW5.
Although Kaptur says hers v ring and able to design in any style. sometimes his,finer
exta>erance babbles m the surface_Commissioned in 1988 to design,a eonvennona l o e`M' ,4;r
and Kap Selzer, Kaptur cams up with something very different a lively,i5ard kcrdesc lire resi`erce
comprising a cone-shaped dame set amid other,simple g90n1etrie Shapes that seem,u v,ara±e
together.Twenty-five years later, the$elzers report that they are still happy with the, unlvxwa*,�,n,
house and they remain friendly with the architect,
The.exuberance hasSuryved into the architects ninth decade. Kaptur is Carnal11 y r es!!grting
an actdrkan to an existing home+n the form of ¢ireular eas4ta, or gulls%house,seuarate.d 're^,'i'a
main house by p courtyard In a nod to the ongorrg itthuenr,�of Frank Lloyd Wright, the .adcirt�rt
to he nestled PTO the natural aomocrs of the golaring influence
139
0
Aw
�y F
P'. i � `v
i� "• � ��.':� a '�
a ➢ L g s
xp'Sk
g�
V -` YY s�,� }, "yam "'°a. � �. "�'.A�> �dta.'• oroe�4 " '.
t. -4 a x< -- * Ps { f;
-
tea'
if
ON
QWV
555 � Pam•
-}!01
NO
i'4� :4 x �rpS w y
z s.' �, - ass i �. w3 4
setr
60.
t } t # qrl �
! .. t� kxar4# to
aF ♦ q
s ggqq s
� * s yy
� Et �
t 4 ��+,.�- �`
=
�q x 8
4
Am
Ow
MOM P
ss.st
# a"Fv- O�'4
+3v h Imp
or MwPv
tI` r p
4F
x� t
a
� •�• � � I I3 i' f'
d-'
q�u�L�kjii)
is
7 ✓
,; zzt.
Y y Y
e a
�•.. -� �.� '� �y' py—., e y.di � .1j � � Qy.��+,'i-c' h'� �6
� Y
3
r