The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2006-06-07 STAFF REPORTS 1B PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE! PUBLIC RECORD SEE CITY CLERK FOR COPIES PALM City of Palm Springs — _- SA4 w Department of Planning Services Y OAAMAYP{'' tl FORK\�'+ Ou OOO ° OOO Date: June 7, 2007 To: City Council and City Manager From: Department of Planning Services Subject: June 7, 2006 City Council Meeting Item 1 B Case 5.1038, PD - 310, TTM33542 "Tangerine" The following documents and drawings were submitted following the preparation of the Staff report for the June; 7, 2006 City Council Meeting. These documents and drawings have not been evaluated by staff. Sincerely, Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services City,of Palm Springs cc: Thomas J. Wilson Assistant City Manager of Development Services ERIC J. GUINAN Attorney at Law 175 E.Mesquite Post Office Box 2103 Palm Springs,CA 92263 (760)285-5270 Fax(760)778.5710 May 31, 2006 Palm Springs City Council 3200 E. Tahquitz Carryon Way Palms Springs, CA 92262 RE: TTM33542 Case5.1038 PD310 Applicant: Via Escuela Land Partners RECHWa APN: 504-310-035 Condition of Approval#51, Bus Turnout Requirement j�°C�9 U 12006 Dear Palm Springs City Council Members: Please accept the following as Applicant Via Escuela Land Partners' position summary regarding the issues surround Condition of Approval #51, scheduled for discussion and vote at the June 7, 2006 council meeting. SUMMARY The Tentative Tract Map and Condition of Approval 451, both of which were approved by the City Council on September 7, 2005, cannot be read consistently. Condition of Approval 451 for the above project mandates the construction of a 170 foot long, 12 foot wide bus turnout in front of the project. The addition of a twelve foot encroachment into the project would necessitate the movement of the wall surrounding the project into the project twelve feet because the retention ponds presently approved camlot be covered in concrete, as documented in the attached letter of the civil engineer for the project, D.K. Rice. As depicted on the map overlay entitled "hnpact of Condition #51" on the attached map, the resulting redesign of the project would necessitate the removal of three of the swimming pools in the twelve unit project. All of the units in the project are high end luxury homes and cannot realistically be marketed without swimming pools. The loss of the pools and mandatory redesign of the project is the bottom-line basis for Applicant's request to eliminate Condition#51. At the Plamiing Commission meeting on May 24, 2006, Applicant's request to remove Condition 451 was denied. However, the Planning Commission moved to allow an alternative to a full twelve foot cutout, that alternative being a four foot cutout, that, when added to the existing 8 foot parking lane, satisfies the 12 foot requirement of COA#51. This alternative is depicted in the map overlay entitled"Four Foot Turnout proposed in 5/24/06 Plamring Commission Meeting." Applicant wishes to emphasize that this four foot turnout alternative is absolutely acceptable, does not impact the engineering on the project, and is an ideal solution to this issue. However, CalTrans may not approve the four foot turnout, and as noted in Mr. Rice's letter, that approval process could take as long as a year. The issue squarely before the Council is what to do if CalTrans does not approve the four foot alternative. If CalTrans rejects the four foot alternative, Applicant is requesting the removal of Condition #51, while the Planning Commission is requesting the imposition of the full 12 foot cutout, which will impact the project as noted above. The project can proceed with the"four foot or removal of condition" scenario and cannot proceed with the "four foot or twelve foot" scenario. As noted by the Plaiming Commission, the entire issue will be moot if Sunline removes the bus stop from their route, but this is a complete uncertainty. IF THE FOUR FOOT TURNOUT IS NOT APPROVED BY CALTRANS, THE FOLLOWING FACTS MAKE REMOVAL OF THE CONDITION APPROPRIATE: 1. The Existing Stop With No Turnout Already Provides an Eight Foot Parking Area. City buses are approximately nine feet wide. Applicant will provide a photo showing the bus stopped at the stop in question with traffic passing next to it. The traffic is not impeded and has ample room both to the left and right. 2. The Existing Stop is Infrequently Used. A five day study of the use of the stop by project manager Don Messler showed only 10 total passengers used the stop to embark or disembark at the stop. (See attachment). Additionally, Sunline director of planning Eunice Lovi in her attached May 18, 2006 notes that the stop was created before the project property was zoned for residential use. The stop is not listed on the Sunline bus schedule. 3. The Existing Stop Should Not Be Emphasized Because of Safety Issues. Pedestrian traffic should not be encouraged at this stop because of the combination of a sharp turn to the south of the stop that impairs northbound traffic's line of sight, the existing speed limit on Highway 111 in front of the stop is 50 m.p.h., and there is no crosswalk or stoplight in the vicinity of the stop that would allow for safe pedestrian crossings. The stop .25 miles to the north, close to Highway 111 and Racquet Club Drive does have a stoplight. The addition of a bus turnout would do nothing to alleviate these safety concerns. 4. Sunline Is Not Requesting Any Improvements To The Stop. The attached correspondence from Eunice Lovi, in addition to not requesting improvements, notes that Sunline would prefer to retain control over bus stop placement and enhancement. Applicant submits that the transit operator's preferences, while certainly not conclusive, are entitled to significant weight and consideration by Council. COST/BENEFIT CONSIDERATIONS Obviously, it would be the hope of Applicant that CalTrans would approve the four foot turnout alternative supported by all parties. If that does not happen, however, the imposition of the twelve foot turnout would stop the project because of the necessary redesigns and encroachment discussed above, This project has been universally praised by neighbors, Planning Commission and City Council for its architectural beauty, low density, and landscaping enhancement. The principals of Via Escuela Land Development Partners, Robert Teaford and Mark DuPont, have invested over $475,000 to date towards the development costs associated with this project. The imposition of the full twelve foot turnout threatens all of this. Applicant submits that even if the four foot alternative is rejected by CalTrans, the elimination of the turn in would not create any significant impact for the reasons listed above; rather the elimination of a project of this quality would be the far greater detriment to the citizens of Palm Springs. CONCLUSION For the above rationale and attachments to this letter, Condition#51 should be revised to allow for the four foot alternative if approved by CalTrans, but if CalTrans does not approve that alternative, the Condition should be removed. Additionally, because of the immediate time pressures associated with their constriction loan, Applicant additionally requests Council to authorize final recordation of their tract map and to instruct city engineering to issue a grading permit. Thank you for your consideration of these issues. Sincerely, rtc J. Guinan c: Via Escuela Land Partners, w/enc. City Planning w/ enc. City Engineering w/enc. .. .. . . ... .... �i r rsrr ��aici FA�Daptft VdMW* rm C'40Wt r4'V AAikkAp w January 3,2006 W.Matthew Feske Ground Up Planning Gear Mr. Feske: This letter responds to your request for comments regarding the Tangerine residential developmenL As timcussed with you, the Sualne Transit Agency(SunUne) Is currently conducting a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) to evaluate eais" bus routes to determine how treat to improve the bus system As part of the COA,we are evaivattrtg existing bus steps to ascertain and establish better spacing betw+en e)Wng bus slops, as well as ensure that new bus stops adhere to new guidefines, Based an recommendations in the final report, all extaft routes will be realigned to better serve SunLine's passengers. Givers the on going study, SunLine is not requiring any improvements to the ousting bus Mop as the arrant route serving this step nM0 be resigned. Should you have any questions or require additional Information, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may call me at 760-343-3486, exLf 19. Sincerely. �vv Eunice Lovi Direcicr of Planning cc C.Mikel Oglesby, General Manager d29C6 Hurt'DAwrTnr.TocwdPaLm.CaNanb tl!71'i Pb= 76O4AM40 Fm 7W6M&SW wr[amrm.ay d 6Z16 ' ON aul del }uaplsaa a�aoj Wd6E df 900d 9l IdV ivlay 19 06 10:37a Inland Empire C C 951 769 6513 p.1 MAY-12-2006 FRI 09:31 AN SUNLINE TRANSIT FAX NO, 76U 343 3130 P, D2 �r�nllne w{MMIi: prr<rtN.eSpringR P,fm[pingr [„bdralO,F Ronr�aM;..gr P"AY7 YOOrI FOR IMMMOW'S WOAYO May 18, 2006 Mr. Don Messier 10263 Palm Avenue Beaumont, CA 92223 Dear Mr, Messier. This letter is a follow up on my first letter to you regarding the bus stop located in front of the proposed Tangerine residential development on Palm Canyon Drive. As indicated to you during several telephone discussions concerning the existing bus stop, SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine)continues to work on the bus stop inventory project. We have completed phase one of the project and have started working on phase two. During this phase, SunLine staff will evaluate and determine which bus stop may be consolidated, eliminated, and/or relocated. Preliminary findings from the bus stop inventory indicate that a number of our bus stops are too close and as such, it impacts transit service we offer to bus riders who ride the bus. Based on our findings, SunLine will determine bus stops that may be eliminated and/or relocated, and then meet with all jurisdictions to discuss potential elimination of these bus stops. At this time, SunLine has not determined i the bus stop located in front of the project site will be eliminated as we need to look at all bus stops along Line 111 and not just at specific locations. However, SunLine will inform the property owner within six months if this particular bus stop will be eliminated or will need to be enhanced. We also are looking to ascertain the best passible locations for some of the existing bus stops. Also, please remember that this bus stop is located within the public right-of-way and was installed before the adjacent property was purchased for residential development. As mentioned, SunLine is the transit provider in Coachella Valley and is responsible for siting locations for bus stops, as well as determining which existing bus stops need to be enhanced to include amenities such as bus turnouts and bus shelters. Although, SunLine appreciates the collaboration between the jurisdictions, the development community and SunLine to construct these amenities whenever possible; it is not the responsibility of the jurisdictions to determine where new bus stops should be placed, ,s well as which ones should be enhanced. As discussed, recommendations in the Comprehensive Operational Analysis include evaluation of existing bus stops to help SunLine establish spacing standard between existing bus stops, and proposed new bus stops, as well. This ensures that we are able to improve on-time performance of the transit..service we provide since the number of bus stops along a route directly impacts the convenience and performance of the bus service. 32-SOS Norq 01(e Fmq rhouror d Pabnr,CaliAxflle 92276 Phony 760.343-34S6 Fox 760-343-384S w ..lunUne.org Ivay 19 06 10:38a Inland Empire C C 951 769 6513 p.2 1AY-19-2006 FRI 09:32 AM SURLINE TRANSITrex Na reu Jqs d60 r, ua Mr. Messier Page Two Should you have any questions or concems regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may reach me at 760-343-3456, ext. 119. Sincerely, Eunice Lovi Director of Planning cc: C. Mikel Oglesby. General Manager Avr •26 . 2006 12:31PM Forte' Residential , Inn • "No•9128 P . 2 From:Don Messler Project Manager Tangerine 760-935-9992 Subject:Bus stop#010 To whom it may concern; My name is Donald Messier,past employee of the City of Palm Springs,and currently Project Manager for a project in Palm Suing%called Tangerine. During the week of April 17a'tbru the 22 ,there were approximately 35 hours of observation on bus stop 010 on North Pelt Canyon,just south of Via Escuela on the west side of the road.During my observations there were less than 10 passengers that either embarked or disumubarkcd the bus at that location. One of the primary reasons that l observed is that North Palm Canyon at that location is such a busy mad withh posted speeds of between 45 and 50 MPH.At that location it is also sort of a blind curve,with no crosswalks nor signals at the intersection. To put a bus turnout is this location in my opinion,would promote J-Walking and thus put pedestrians and drivers in a compromising situation.Thus,it could also put both the city and the bus oompany Sunline,in a possible legal situation. A'Ha c onfendng with Eunice Lovi,Planning Director of Sunline,she is is total agreement with the situation_This is a very dangerous corner for anyone trying to cross legally or J-Walling. The stop to the south was observer to be the busiest in the area due to bettor crossing and location.Sumlino is in the process of doing an evaluation of the atca mute and this stop could iudecd he eliminated or let as is. Don Messler Project Manager Jun 01 2006 1 : 47PM conCHELLR VALLEY ENGINEER 7603604204 p. 2 C_oa�hell� Valley �nglneer� June 1, 2006 Mayor Oden Patin Springs City Council 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Case 5.1038 PD-310,TTM 33542 Tangerine Condominiums Honorable Mayor Oden and Fellow Council Members, Via Escuela LLC Developers of the Tangerine Condominium project are striving to provide affluent prestige's homes on North palm Canyon Drive. They have been working intimately with the City of Palm Springs to perfect this production. They have evolved the design through numerous changes completed at the request of the citizen's neighborhood and Design Review committee. The present day project is stage with the proposed construction of 12 premier aesthetic condominium homes. The luxury attraction to these homes is the architectural design and buffer landscaping proposed for North Palm Canyon Drive. The production of this premier housing proj act is on the verge of destruction. What appears to be a complete misinterpretation the Councils' approval of the Condition of Approval no. 51 by the city engineering staff will totally and completely disintegrates the project. The Developers' reading of condition no.51 was that a bus turnout at the exiting bus shelter on North Palm Canyon Drive would comprise of a simple modification to the existing geometrics of the highway drive lane and parking lanes existing adjacent to the project. The architectural site plan presented and approved by Councils September 7, 2006 action confirmed this interpretation. The Council's approved site plan does not visually illustrate a 12 feet by 170 feet bus turnout encroachment into the Developer's project. The concrete turnout eliminates the functional use of the underground stone water retention structures as required by the City. These underground retention basins cannot operate when encased by concrete. The impervious concrete cover will not permit the operation and maintenance of these basins to function as designed. Thus,the project will have to be re-engineered to allow the movement of the walks and landscape into the private swimming pool areas as depicted on the exhibit. 77-899 WOLF ROAD, SUITE 102 PALM DESERT,CA 92211 TELEPHONE (760)360-4200 FAX(760)360-4204 Jun 01 2006 1 : 47PM COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEER 7GO3604204 p. 3 Based upon my past experience with CALTRANS, the encroachment permit process will delay this project for an estimate time period of nine to twelve months. Email communication with the CALTRANS District office confirms that the state highway standards do not depict the 12 feet by 170 feet for a bus turnout as a published construction design standard. Said determination of this bus turnout engineering standard rest solely on the City of Palm Springs. The four feet encroachment as depicted on the attached exhibit accomplishes the same task and sustains the beautiful landscape buffer. I strongly urge Palm Springs City Council to sustain the September 7, 2006 ruling to sustain and enforce the architectural landscape buffer by denying this concrete encroachment as requested by engineering. I remain, ice ly urs, avld K. Rice 7r. Civil Engineer Coachella Valley Engineering. ,.,...,�„, �� rpp J5 N' 2 j iJ L Ak YJ lea'/ *"Awl NI 4 1 N P F4k,IIII',\V cTFIA#rr,�, � r jI gpq] ! I13 r91 rJl ', � r. li rj±A �: 1 li k i ai i i Ir i y n r f y s a r ' y I r A I "I I ` __ — _ ilY' tea' ♦* ,. I I I I 1 i Y yI Y \ I 1 1 1 1 � I Aa Is z it WV�v(I p (171),1 U 11111 •d L( It ��5) .00V Vl. /Ij ------Ell i'S !51.38.1�t -(,3 r�C STORt" LY","IN Pli SNEEF 5) 1-768 J3 - 585.5J J %50 rS Ui`,11T 7 Fs -t i Ff 5 INV �2"-- 502.CJ PROP 15 3701HO b,j i'N F, iNV j5 '-- j82-03 CSi--E . Twrl PLAV SHT 30N o I "T. wo 04PpLM S.0 0 U Rn � M *C C4ROR41 ED ER3a^ q<rFORe"♦ City Council Staff Report DATE: June 7, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: AN APPLICATION BY VIA ESCUELA LAND PARTNERS, LLC, , FOR CASE 5.10388, TO APPEAL PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF MAY 24, 2006 DENYING THE REQUEST TO AMEND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33542 AND PD-310 TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 51, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIA ESCUELA AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE ZONE PD-310 SECTION 3, APN: 504-310-035. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY The City Council will hear an appeal by Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC, of the Planning Commission action of May 24, 2006 denying a request to amend the Tentative Tract Map 33542 and PD-310, to remove Condition of Approval No. 51 read as follows: Construct a 170-foot long by 12-feet wide bus turn out at the southwest corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. Construction of a bus stop shelter shall be required, with a design compatible to project architecture as approved by Sunline Transit Agency and the Director of Planning Services. Bus stop furniture and other accessories, as required by Sunline Transit Agency, shall be provided by the developer." The site is located at the southwest corner of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone PD-310, Section 3. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE REQUEST AND AMEND CONDITION NO. 51 OF TTM33542, AND PD-310, Item No. . � . City Council Meeting June 7,2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 TTM33542 Page 2 of 11 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIA ESCUELA AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, SECTION 3, APN 504-310- 035." PRIOR ACTIONS: On July 13, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 33542, Case 5.1038, and PD-310, which, was subsequently approved by City Council on September 7, 2005. On April 26, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Final Development Plans for Tentative Tract Map 33542, Case 5.1038, and PD-310. On May 24, 2006, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to deny the request to amend the Tentative Tract Map, and PD-310, to remove Condition of Approval No. 51. Instead, the Planning Commission modified the condition to read as follows: "The bus turn out may be constructed with an alternative design that uses the existing 8 feet wide paved shoulder, and by removing the existing curb throughout the location of the bus turn out and off- setting the curb 4 feet west to provide a full, 12-feet wide bus turn out such that no encroachment onto the property is required. The alternative design is subject to final review and approval by the City Engineer and/or Caltrans. In the event Caltrans does not approve of the alternative design, the standard bus turn out design shall be constructed. The requirement for construction of any bus turn out (standard design or alternative design) shall be deleted as a requirement of this project if a formal letter written to the City of Palm Springs from the Manager of the Sunline Transit Agency is received by the City Engineer, indicating Sunline's intention to immediately remove the existing bus stop from service (including the existing shelter and other amenities located at the bus stop). This condition shall only be deleted if the required letter is received prior to approval of off-site street improvement plans by the City and/or Caltrans, and the Sunline letter provides the City with a date certain at which time the existing bus stop will be removed from service by Sunline. Otherwise, construction of a bus turn out as required by the City and/or Caltrans shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy." City Council Meeting June 7, 2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 T-FM33542 Page 3 of 11 BACKGROUND AND SETTING The subject property is a vacant lot located at the corner of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon Drive (HWY 111). A bus stop and shelter exists along the Highway 111 frontage. A development project consisting of twelve condominiums was approved by City Council on September 7, 2005 and includes Condition No. 51, a requirement for a bus turnout, which removes the bus from the travel lane. Pursuant to the attached letter from the applicant, the request is to appeal Planning Commission's denial of a subsequent request to eliminate the requirement to construct a new bus turn out at the existing bus stop. The request would also amend Tentative Tract Map 33542, and the site plan for PD-310 to show no bus turnout improvements. Staff has reviewed the appeal letter and concluded that no new issues arose that were not discussed by the Planning Commission. The following discussion is a chronology of events relative to discussions on Condition No. 51. At the July 13, 2005 Planning Commission meeting on the preliminary PD, the applicant asked that Condition No. 51 be removed from the Conditions of Approval. Staff confirmed that Sunline was in the process of developing a Comprehensive Analysis (COA) to determine where changes to the service could be implemented to improve overall efficiency. The applicant believed the study would eliminate the existing bus stop and therefore designed the project without the bus turnout. Without an adopted COA from Sunline, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the project to City Council with Condition No. 51. (Sunline does not have the authority to override the City's requirement for a bus turnout; however if Sunline eliminated the bus stop from their route, the requirement for a bus turnout would be waived). At the September 7, 2005 City Council meeting the applicant again raised the question to remove Condition No. 51. The Council members discussed a need for adequate bus shelters and most importantly, a strong landscape streetscape along the project frontage on Highway 111 because it is landscape instead of buildings. The project was approved retaining Condition No. 51. On April 26, 2006, the Final PD was approved with an alternative bus turnout design. Because the Final PD review requires substantial conformance to the preliminary PD, staff worked with the applicant on an alternative bus turnout design that removes eight feet from the perimeter landscape instead of twelve on Highway 111 to create a compromising solution to minimize the effect on the project design. This design would be acceptable to Sunline, but would require City Council Meeting June 7,2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 TTM33542 Page 4 of 11 Caltrans approval. This design is only feasible if Caltrans issues an encroachment permit and approves plans for the alternative design. The applicant claims that after each meeting, they believed the bus turnout requirement was eliminated from the conditions of approval and their submitted drawings did not include a bus turnout on the Tentative Tract Map. Tentative Tract Maps can potentially change during the Final TTM review process to reflect required revisions; however, prior to recording the Final Map, all adopted Conditions of Approval by City Council must be illustrated on the Final Map. ANALYSIS If Caltrans does not approve the modification to Condition No. 51 as an alternative design, the standard Sunline bus turnout design will be required. This design removes twelve feet from the perimeter landscape and will cut into the rear yards, requiring a redesign, potentially eliminating the pools in Units 7-9, and substantially altering the size of the rear yards, the walls and the Highway 111 landscape frontage. The modified Condition No. 51 places the turnout in the parking Vane and subsequently removes about four feet from the Highway 111 frontage. This design does not interfere with the configuration of the walls, rear yards, or pools. The trees would remain, but the groundcover, Lantana, will be reduced where the wall is located closet to the edge of the sidewalk. Other alternative landscape solutions could offset the loss of the groundcover. Based on past City projects, Engineering commented that it is unlikely that Caltrans would revise their design standards. A more detailed analysis can be viewed in the attached Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 24, 2006. Findings in support of the Planning Commission action denying the request to amend the Tentative Tract Map, and PD-310, to remove Condition of Approval No. 51 with the modification to the condition are included in the attached draft resolution of denial. In conclusion, the requirement for a bus turnout was presented to the applicant in the first letter dated February 18, 2005, when the application was reviewed for completeness. Staff believes that the applicant has known about the requirement since the onset of the application review process. Staff also believes that the turnout is necessary as a matter of public safety because it removes the bus from the travel lane, and recommends denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to amend Condition No. 51 of TTM33542, and PD- 310. City Council Meeting June 7,2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 TTM33542 Page 5 of 11 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the original project was Categorically Exempt and preparation of further documentation is not necessary because the circumstances of the approved project have not changed. The appeal could not, therefore, result in any new environmental impacts. FISCAL IMPACT: IFinance Director Review: No fiscal impact. @Fai ing, 'IC Thomas Wilso ssistant City Mana er 9 Director of Pla ning ervices Development ervices David H. Ready, Cify IV►apai' er ,,yam Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Resolution 21387 with Conditions of Approval 4. Planning Commission Staff report dated 05/24/06 5. Planning Commission Minutes dated 05/24/06 6. Reductions City Council Meeting June 7,2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 TTM33542 Page 6 of 11 ;a•"`"s- Department of Planning Services W- ey a..l Vicinity Map VIA OLIVERA m C o r � O 9GfS` VIA ESCUELA F to S ¢ MARISCAL RD SANTA ELENA RD Legend SITE Q400'_Radius C- I City Council Meeting June 7, 2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 TTM33542 Page 7 of 11 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA DENYING THE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY THE REQUEST AND AMEND CONDITION NO. 51 OF TTM33542, AND PD-310, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIA ESCUELA AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, SECTION 3, APN 504-310-035. WHEREAS, Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC ("the applicant') has filed an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission action of May 24, 2006 denying a request to amend the Tentative Tract Map 33542 , PD-310, and to remove Condition of Approval No. 51, located at the southwest corner of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone PD-310, Section 3; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2005 a public hearing on the application for Case No. 51038 - PD-310, TTM 33542 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2005, after holding a public hearing and considering all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented, the City Council approved the project; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2006, a public meeting on the application for the Final Planned Development for Case 5.1038, TTM33542, PD-310 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2006, after holding a public hearing and considering all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented, the Planning Commission approved the final development project; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2006 a public hearing on a request to amend the Tentative Tract Map 33542 and modify Development District PD-310, to remove Condition of Approval No. 51, was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2006 after holding a public hearing and considering all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented, the Planning Commission denied a request to amend the Tentative Tract Map 33542 City Council Meeting June 7,2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 TTM33542 Page 8 of 11 and PD-310, to remove Condition of Approval No. 51 and modified the condition to read as follows: "The bus turn out may be constructed with an alternative design that uses the existing 8 feet wide paved shoulder, and by removing the existing curb throughout the location of the bus turn out and off- setting the curb 4 feet west to provide a full, 12-feet wide bus turn out such that no encroachment onto the property is required. The alternative design is subject to final review and approval by the City Engineer and/or Caltrans. In the event Caltrans does not approve of the alternative design, the standard bus turn out design shall be constructed. The requirement for construction of any bus turn out (standard design or alternative design) shall be deleted as a requirement of this project if a formal letter written to the City of Palm Springs from the Manager of the Sunline Transit Agency is received by the City Engineer, indicating Sunline's intention to immediately remove the existing bus stop from service (including the existing shelter and other amenities located at the bus stop). This condition shall only be deleted if the required letter is received prior to approval of off-site street improvement plans by the City and/or Caltrans, and the Sunline letter provides the City with a date certain at which time the existing bus stop will be removed from service by Sunline. Otherwise, construction of a bus turn out as required by the City and/or Caltrans shall be completed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy."; AND WHEREAS, on May 25, 2006, Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC filed an appeal to the City Council on the Planning Commission action of May 24, 2006 denying a request to amend the Tentative Tract Map 33542 and PD-310, to remove Condition of Approval No. 51; and WHEREAS, on June 7, 2006 a public hearing on an appeal to the City Council of the Planning Commission action of May 24, 2006 denying the appeal and upholding the decision of the Planning Commission to deny the request and amend Condition No. 51 of TTM33542, and PD-310, was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review as an (In-Fill Development Project); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council has considered the effect of the proposed project on the public health and safety needs, and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; and City Council Meeting June 7,2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 TTM33542 Page 9 of 11 WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32 In-Fill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this project is Categorically Exempt from environmental review subdivision and residential development is consistent with the General Plan designation as a residential use and the Planned Development zoning overlay application provides zoning consistency, because the proposed project site is within the city limits, is less than five acres, and is surrounded on all sides with existing urban development in the form of multiple-family residences, hotels, and businesses, and is surrounded by urban development, and there is not indication that the site has any value for habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, because the project will result in the construction of twelve condominiums, and there is no indication that the project approval would result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and because all required utilities are present in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and the proposed project can be served by all required utilities and public services. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act a. 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 is generally consistent with the stated purposed of promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and providing for comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources per Section 91.00.00. Although the construction of new bus turn out improvements are related to improving the use of public transportation, they also improve the safety of the general traveling public by removing parked busses from the adjacent travel lane by providing a separate loading area, therefore, avoiding the potential for rear-end collisions of vehicles with parked busses. b. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not.likely to cause serious public health problems. City Council Meeting June 7,2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 TTM33542 Page 10 of 11 The cited General Plan Goal, Objective and Policies generally relate to the fact that the construction of public transportation amenities, including new bus turn out improvements, is required as a matter of public health, safety and welfare. The design of the proposed residential subdivision includes the provision of public water and sewer systems, and an internal, private street system that provides an orderly system of ordinary and emergency access to the project. C. 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. The applicant was advised at the initial stage of its development that a bus turn out improvement would be recommended, and was a standard condition of approval where an existing bus stop was located adjacent to a project. The design of this subdivision should have accommodated sufficient landscaped parkway in and around the required bus turn out to provide the expected aesthetic enhancement along the street frontage. Typical with projects required to construct new bus turn out improvements, an additional dedication of right-of-way is necessary to accommodate the turn out and adjacent sidewalk. Section 3: The City Council DENIES THE APPEAL by Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC, and amends Condition of Approval No. 51 of TTM33542, and PD- 310. ADOPTED, this 7th day of June, 2006. MAYOR ATTEST: City Clerk V) ,�� City Council Meeting June 7,2006 Tangerine 5.1038 PD-310 TTM33542 Pagel 1 of 11 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 June 7, 2006, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California OF?A`M .2 V N * COttOE.EV i cA`'FOR,t P Planning Commission Staff Report Date: May 24, 2006 Case No.: TTM 33542 Case 5.1038 PD-310 Application Type: Amendment to TTM 33542 and Modification of PD-310 Location: The southwest corner of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon Drive Applicant: Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC '_one: PD - 310 General Plan: H 43/21 High Density Residential APN: 504-310-035 From: David Barakian, Director of Public Works PROJECT DESCRIPTION A request by Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC, to amend the Tentative Tract Map 33542 and modify Development District PD-310, to remove Condition, of Approval #51 a requirement to read as follows: Construct a 170-foot long by 12-feet wide bus turn out at the southwest corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. Construction of a bus stop shelter shall be required, with a design compatible to project architecture as approved by Sunline Transit Agency and the Director of Planning Services. Bus stop furniture and other accessories, as required by Sunline Transit Agency, shall be provided by the developer." The site is located at the southwest corner of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone PD-310, Section 3. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission DENY elimination of Condition No. 51 as originally required with approval of Tentative Tract Map 33542, Case 5.1038, and PD-310. Planning Commission Staff Report Case 5.1038 May 24, 2006 Page 2 of 10 PRIOR ACTIONS TAKEN ON THE PROJECT On July 13, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map 33542, Case 5.1038, and PD-310, which was subsequently approved by City Council on September 7, 2005. On April 26, 2006, the Planning Commission approved Final Development Plans for Tentative Tract Map 33542, Case 15.1038, and PD-310. 13ACKGROUND AND SETTING The subject property is a vacant lot located at the corner of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon Drive. A bus stop and shelter exists on the project site on North Palm Canyon Drive. This portion of North Palm Canyon Drive is Highway 111 and under the purview and requirements of Caltrans. During an e-mail exchange with the City Engineers, Caltrans indicated that a bus turnout would be required on this property. The final development was approved with an alternative bus turnout design from the traditional design that removes four feet from the perimeter landscape rather than twelve feet. As discussed in the final PD staff report, this design is only feasible if Caltrans issues an encroachment permit (approves plans) for the curb pop out and turnout. In the event that Caltrans does not approve the alternate design, the applicant will be required to construct a turnout consistent with the traditional Sunline bus turnout design standards. Pursuant to the attached letter from the applicant, the request is to eliminate the requirement contained in Condition No. 51 of the project approvals to construct a new bus turn out where an existing bus stop is located at the southeast corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. The request would also amend Tentative Tract Map 33542, Case 5.1038, PD-310 to show no bus turnout improvements. The applicant cites the following reasons for the request: 1. The approved site plan for TTM 33542 does not have a bus turnout, and includes a beautification plan for North Palm Canyon. 2. Sunline Transit Agency is not recommending construction of new bus turn outs, and has informally indicated that the existing bus stop may be eliminated in the future. 3. This bus stop has very few patrons, and is potentially dangerous. 4. The issue jeopardizes the ability to obtain funding for the project. ANALYSIS Regarding the applicant's first reason, the site plan for TTM 33542 presented to the Planning Commission and City Council for its review and approval did not show the Planning Commission Staff Report Case 5.1038 May 24, 2006 Page 3 of 10 required bus turn out, however, Condition No. 51 was included in the approval of the project, and as such, the submitted site plan was subject to final revision to reflect a variety of Conditions of Approval included in the approval of the project. The argument that the approved site plan does not show a bus turn out, has no validity because a bus turn out is required per the adopted set of Conditions. Regarding the applicant's second reason, Sunline Transit Agency is under new management and in the last year has changed long-standing policy on the requirement for bus turn out improvements. The policies were implemented as a part of the normal development process in Palm Springs. Sunline Transit Agency recently prepared a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) of their bus line service to determine where the system is deficient in providing transit service, and where changes to the service could be implemented to improve overall efficiency. The COA was approved by the Sunline Transit Agency Board at its February 22, 2006, meeting; however, the COA was adopted "in concept", and not as a final report. The COA has determined that Line 24 — which runs along North Palm Canyon Drive — is defined as a "Community Based Service" transit route and will continue to operate along most of its current alignment, including serving the existing bus stop at North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. Page 6-30 of the COA states: The goal of Line 24 is to provide improved access to the residential areas it currently serves and to new higher-density residential developments along Sunrise Way...Line 24 will connect these residential areas with Palm Springs High School, Palm Springs Mall and the Desert Regional Medical Center. 'The COA does not identify elimination of any existing bus stops along the Line 24 route, and it could be argued that the existing bus stop is ideally located to serve the existing residential development located west of North Palm Canyon Drive on Via Escuela, Identified as a collector on the Circulation Element of the City of Palm Springs General (Plan. (Regarding the applicant's third reason, the fact that an informal survey shows low usage of the existing bus stop does not validate the request to eliminate the requirement to construct new bus turn out improvements. Page 3-23 of the Sunline Transit Agency COA identifies that the "System Performance — Passengers per Revenue Hour" for Line 24 on a weekday is equivalent to the average performance for the entire Sunline system; and further states that "The Palm Springs/Cathedral City and Indio areas are the most productive areas...". The applicant's claim that the location of the existing bus :stop is "unsafe" lends further support to the need for a new bus turn out such that loading and unloading of passengers at this bus stop occur outside of the southbound travel lanes on North Palm Canyon Drive. Regarding the applicant's fourth reason, the determination of whether or not to adhere to the previously required condition of approval and its impact on the financial viability of Planning Commission Staff Report Case 5.1038 May 24, 2006 Page 4 of 10 the project is not criteria to be considered in this analysis. Staff communicated with the applicant at the onset of the development process regarding the need to develop a site plan around the requirement for a bus turn out. Despite the applicant's request to eliminate the bus turn out requirement at both the Planning Commission and City Council public hearings, the requirement remained as a condition of approval of this project. Finally, it should be noted that the City's long-standing practice of implementing improvements to public transportation through construction of new bus turn out improvements with private development projects is grounded in the General Plan. Specifically, the following Goal, Objective, and Policies apply: • General Plan Goal 7.A states: "Safe, efficient and improved transportation facilities which will support Palm Springs' goals for economic prosperity, environmental quality and public access to jobs, housing, recreation and community services." General Plan Objective 7.7 states: "Improved mobility of City residents to access local services, particularly for the disadvantaged including the elderly, the handicapped, those with low and moderate incomes, students and the temporarily disabled." General Plan Policy 7.7.1 states: "Support the implementation of local transit services with priority for the disadvantaged." General Plan Policy 7.7.4 states: "Provide attractive and protective transit stops with complete route and schedule information, and equipped with trash receptacles and phones, where feasible, to promote transit ridership. Such stops should be provided at quarter-mile intervals in built-out urban areas. Such stops should comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act." • General Plan Policy 7.7.6 states: "Require the construction of bus loading/unloading areas as a requirement of street development, as appropriate." Ultimately, as this segment of North Palm Canyon Drive is State Highway 111, under the control and jurisdiction of Caltrans, any required improvements will need Caltrans approval and permitting. During the preliminary entitlement review for this project, Engineering staff communicated with Caltrans staff, and obtained an informal e-mail communication from John Pagano, a Caltrans staff member from their Inter- Governmental Relations/CEQA Unit, who stated: "We tend to agree with you that bus turnouts are beneficial" Given that Caltrans has ultimate control of this right-of-way, whether or not the requirement to construct the new bus turn out improvements is deleted as a requirement of this project, Caltrans may impose the requirement due to the fact that the project is located adjacent to an existing bus stop, and that in this case, a bus turn out to completely remove stopped busses loading and unloading passengers from the travel lane is the appropriate and safe course of action. Planning Commission Staff Report Case 5.1038 May 24, 2006 Page 5 of 10 (REQUIRED FINDINGS Although there are no required findings for a request to amend the TTM and PD the following findings pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act were found to be pertinent to the request: a. 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 is generally consistent with the stated purposed of promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and providing for comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources per Section 91.00.00. Although the construction of new bus turn out improvements are related to improving the use of public transportation, they also improve the safety of the general traveling public by removing parked busses from the adjacent travel lane by providing a separate loading area, therefore, avoiding the potential for year- end collisions of vehicles with parked busses. b. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The cited General Plan Goal, Objective and Policies generally relate to the fact that the construction of public transportation amenities, including new bus turn out improvements, is required as a matter of public health, safety and welfare. The design of the proposed residential subdivision includes the provision of public water and sewer systems, and an internal, private street system that provides an orderly system of ordinary and emergency access to the project. c. 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. The applicant was advised at the initial stage of its development that a bus turn out improvement would be recommended, and was a standard condition of approval where an existing bus stop was located adjacent to a project. The design of this subdivision should have accommodated sufficient landscaped parkway in and around the required bus turn out to provide the expected aesthetic enhancement along the street frontage. Typical with projects required to construct new bus turn out improvements, an additional dedication of right-of-way is necessary to accommodate the turn out and adjacent sidewalk. Planning Commission Staff Report Case 5.1038 May 24, 2006 Page_6 of 10 (ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT Pursuant to CEQA, the Tentative Tract Map 33542 is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per Section 15332 (In-Fill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the preparation of further documentation is not necessary because the circumstances of the project have not changed. The present project could not, therefore, result in any new environmental impacts beyond those already assessed in the adopted mitigated negative declaration. NOTIFICATION A public hearing notice was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property/adjacent property owners. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any comment. Diane A. Bullock Associate Planner P Dir of PI t5nin Services ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Adopted Resolution and Conditions of Approval 4. Reductions 5. Correspondence from Sunline Planning Commission Staff Report Case 5.1038 May 24, 2006 Page 7 of 10 N Department of Planning Services w -4 Vicinity Map S �i�r4xt�+t VIA OL.IVERA m `+ O VIA ESCUELA C f h N Q CL' MARISCAL RD SANTA ELENA RD Legend SITE A00_Radlus C Planning Commission Staff Report Case 5.1038 May 24, 2006 Page 8_of 10 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA DENYING AMENDMENT TO TTM 33542 AND MODIFICATION OF PD-310 TO REMOVE CONDITION OF APPROVAL NO. 51 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIA ESCUELA AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, SECTION 3, APN 504- 310-035. WHEREAS, Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC ("the applicant') has filed a request to amend Tentative Tract Map 33542 and modify Development District PD-310, to remove Condition of Approval #51, located at the southwest corner of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone PD-310, Section 3; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2005 a public hearing on the application for Case No. 51038 - PD-310, TTM 33542 was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2005, after holding a public hearing and considering all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented, the City Council approved the project; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2006, a public meeting on the application for final development plans for Case 5.1038, TTM33542, PD-310 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on April 26, 2006, after holding a public hearing and considering all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented, the Planning Commission approved the final development project; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2006 a public hearing on a request to amend the Tentative Tract Map 33542 and modify Development District PD-310, to remove Condition of Approval #51, was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 15332 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);, the project is categorically exempt from environmental review as an (In-Fill Development Project); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the proposed project on the public health and safety needs, and has balanced these needs against the public service needs of Planning Commission Staff Report Case 5.1038 May 24, 2006 -Paga9-of 10- - residents and available fiscal and environmental resources; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the meeting on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. 'THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to Section 15332 (Class 32 In-Fill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, this project is Categorically Exempt from environmental review subdivision and residential development is consistent with the General Plan designation as a residential use and the Planned Development zoning overlay application provides zoning consistency, because the proposed project site is within the city limits, is less than five acres, and is surrounded on all sides with existing urban development in the form of multiple-family residences, hotels, and businesses, and is surrounded by urban development, and there is not indication that the site has any value for habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species, because the project will result in the construction of twelve condominiums, and there is no indication that the project approval would result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality, and because all required utilities are present in the immediate vicinity of the project site, and the proposed project can be served by all required utilities and public services. Section 2: Pursuant to Section 66474 of the Subdivision Map Act a. 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 is generally consistent with the stated purposed of promoting and protecting public health, safety, and welfare, and providing for comprehensive and orderly planned use of land resources per Section 91.00.00. Although the construction of new bus turn out improvements are related to improving the use of public transportation, they also improve the safety of the general traveling public by removing parked busses from the adjacent travel lane by providing a separate loading area, therefore, avoiding the potential for rear-end collisions of vehicles with parked busses. b. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. h • . 1�1(1'�?�1 Planning Commission Staff Report Case 5.1038 May 24, 2006 Page_ 10 of 10 The cited General Plan Goal, Objective and Policies generally relate to the fact that the construction of public transportation amenities, including new bus turn out improvements, is required as a matter of public health, safety and welfare. The design of the proposed residential subdivision includes the provision of public water and sewer systems, and an internal, private street system that provides an orderly system of ordinary and emergency access to the project. C. 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. The applicant was advised at the initial stage of its development that a bus turn out improvement would be recommended, and was a standard condition of approval where an existing bus stop was located adjacent to a project. The design of this subdivision should have accommodated sufficient landscaped parkway in and around the required bus turn out to provide the expected aesthetic enhancement along the street frontage. Typical with projects required to construct new bus turn out improvements, an additional dedication of right-of-way is necessary to accommodate the turn out and adjacent sidewalk. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission denies the request to amend the Tentative Tract Map 33542 and modify Development District PD-310, to remove Condition of Approval #51, ADOPTED this 24th day of May, 2006. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Planning Commission Chairman Planning Commission Secretary RESOLUTION NO. 21387 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33542 AND CASE NO. 5.1038 — PD310, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN EXHIBIT A FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A ONE LOT CONDOMINIUM MAP OF APPROXIMATELY 1.57 ACRES AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT TWELVE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS IN THE RESORT OVERLAY ZONE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIA ESCUELA AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE C-1 AND R-3, SECTION 3,APN 504310035 WHEREAS, Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC ("Applicant') has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 9.62 of the Municipal Code, Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 92.25.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development District to allow the construction of 12 residential condominiums in the Resort Overlay Zone, located at the southwest comer of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone C-1 and R-3, Section 3; and WHEREAS, notice of the public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider the application for Case 5.1038 PD-310 and TTM33542 was given in accordance with applicable law; and WEHERAS, the Conditional Use Permit to allow the construction of multiple-family residential in the Resort Overlay has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission, subject to the City Council approval of the Planned Development District;and WHEREAS, on September 7, 2005, a public hearing on the project was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1., Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that, Tentative Tract Map 32806 is categorically exempt from environmental assessment per Section 15332 (In-Fill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Section 2: The proposed project has multiple-family residential within the C-1 portion of the property. The C-1 Zone allows multiple-family residential use, subject to the R-3 development standards. The multiple-family residential use in the C- 1 Zone is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance for the use, but the Planned Development District will define the development standards for the multiple- Resolution No. 21387 Page 2 family residences. The following table outlines the development standards for .the single-family residences: Multiple Family Residential— R-3 Required Proposed Lot Area 20,000 square feet 68,424 square feet Lot Width 140 feet 197 to 335 feet Lot Depth 175 feet 232 to 291 feet Density 34 units (1 unit/2,000 12 units square feet) Building Height 24 feet 23.5 feet Front Yard 25 feet 30 feet, except 10 (Major Thoroughfare) architectural columns at 28.6 feet Side Yard 24 feet along south 10 feet* property line 20 feet along Via Escuela 16.5 feet* Rear Yard 24 feet along west 10.5 feet at building property line. height of 12 feet 24 feet at building height of 23.5 feet Building Distance 15 feet 10.5 to 13.5 feet* Parking 24 covered 24 covered Requirements 3 guest parking 12 guest parking Section 3: Pursuant to Section 92.25.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, the multiple-family residential land use is appropriate in the Resort Overlay subject to the following findings: and a. That the proposed use is compatible with its surroundings; The subject property is adequate in size and shape for the proposed multi-family and is surrounded by a mixture of hotel, commercial, single- family residences, and multiple-family residential properties. The proposed project is serviced by fully improved streets that have the capacity to carry the type and quantity of traffic expected to be generated. b. That the site in question is not appropriate for other uses allowed by right within the underlying zone; There is a shortage of housing in the City of Palm Springs and the proposed project would contribute to the housing supply for the City. The proposed project is desirable for the community and is in harmony with the Housing Element and objectives of the General Plan., Resolution No. 21387 Page 3 Section 4: Pursuant to Government Code Section 66474(Subdivision Map Act), the Planning Commission finds that with the incorporation of those conditions attached in Exhibit A: 1. The proposed Tentative Map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. The General Plan designation for the site is H43/21, High Density Residential, The General Plan allows up to 32 dwelling units on the project site. The applicant is proposing 12 dwelling units. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. 2. The design of improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable Specific Plan. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 the Planning Commission flnds that the proposed subdivision and the provisions for its design and improvement are compatible with the objectives, polices, and general land uses and program provided in the City's General Plan. All street, drainage, and utilities improvements will be constructed to the standards of the General Plan and Conditions of Approval associated with TTM 32732. The Planned Development District development standards have been determined to be compatible with overall goals and policies of the General Plan in order to provide quality architecture, open space and distinctive landscape elements. Therefore it is concluded that the Planned Development District development standards and Conditions of Approval will not be in conflict with the overall intent of the General Plan. 3. The site is physically suitable for the type and density of development contemplated by the proposed subdivision. The project proposes the subdivision of approximately 1.57 acres into a one lot condominium map for the construction of 12 residential condominiums. The proposed development is under the maximum allowable density of 32 units, as permitted under the General Plan, The subject property is surrounded with a mix of single-family residential, multiple-family residential, hotel, and commercial uses and is consistent with the surrounding developed properties. 4. The designs of the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. t _ Resolution No. 21387 Page 4 The subject property is less than five acres and is surrounded .by fully ' developed properties. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. The design of the subdivision and proposed improvements must comply with the conditions of approval including, but not limited to, the application of the Uniform Building Code Seismic Safety Standards, and the City of Palm Springs Fugitive Dust Control Ordinance in order to ensure public health and safety. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. The applicant will be required to construct on and off-site improvements. Therefore the design and the type of improvements proposed will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves: (A)Order the filing of a Notice of Exemption; and (B)Approve Planned Development District 310 for: t. A conditional use permit to allow the construction of 12 residential condominiums in the Resort Overlay Zone; and 2. Establish development standards for the 12 residential condominiums; and (C)Approve Tentative Tract Map 33542 of approximately 1.57 acres into a one lot condominium map, for 12 residential condominiums; located at the southwest corner of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone C-1 and R-3, Section 3, APN 504310035. ,ADOPTED this 71h day of September 2005. David H. Ready, Ci an, ATTEST: Ci d es Thompson, City Clerk Resolution No. 21387 Page 5 I� CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMP5ON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. 21387 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 September 7, 2005, by the following vote: AYES: Members Foat, Mills, McCulloch, Pougnet and Mayor Oden NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None yofesTornson hp , City Clerk Palm Springs, California li II Resolution No. 21387 Page 6 EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE TTM33642 -TENTATIVE TRACT MAP CASE 5.1038 PD-310 - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT VIA ESCUELA LAND PARTNERS, LLC SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIA ESCUELA AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE SEPTEMBER 7, 2005 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 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. ADMINISTRATIVE 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinarice, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. 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 TTM33542 — Tentative Tract Map and Case 5.1038— Planned Development District 310. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 3. That the property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, Resolution No. 21387 Page 7 parkways, 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 owners sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 4. 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. 5. Pursuant to Park Fee Ordinance No. 1632 and in accordance with Government Code Section 66477(Quimby Act), all residential development shall be required to contribute d o mitigate park and recreation impacts such that, prior to issuance of residential building permits, a parkland fee or dedication shall be made. Accordingly, all residential evelopment shall be subject to parkland dedication requirements and/or park improvement fees. The parkland mitigation amount shall be based upon the cost to acquire and fully improve parkland. The fee shall be collected by the Planning Services Department. 6. The Project will bring additional residents to the community. The City's existing public safety and recreation services, including police protection, criminal justice, fire protection and suppression, ambulance, paramedic, and other safety services and recreation, library, cultural services are near capacity. Accordingly, the City may determine to form a Community Services District under the authority of Government C, Section 53311 at seq, or other appropriate statutory or municipal authority. Developer agrees to support the formation of such assessment district and shall waive any right to protest, provided that the amount of such assessment shall be established through appropriate study and shall not exceed $500 annually with a consumer price index escalator. The district shall be formed prior to sale of any lots or a covenant agreement shall be rerorded against each parcel, permitting incorporation of the parcel In the district. CC&R's 7. 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 Services for approval in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to approval of a final map. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be Resolution No. 21387 Page 8 amended without City approval, shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with all ordinances, 8. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of $2,000, for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney. A $250 filing fee shall also be paid to the City Planning Department for administrative review purposes. Cultural Resources 9. Prior to any ground disturbing activity, including clearing and grubbing, installation of utilities, and/or any construction related excavation, an Archaeologist qualified according to the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines, shall be employed to survey the area for the presence of cultural resources identifiable on the ground surface. 10.The project area has the possibility of buried resources. A Native American Monitor shall be present during all ground-disturbing activities. a) Experience has shown that there is always a possibility of buried cultural resources in a project area. Given that, a Native American Monitors) shall be present during all ground disturbing activities including clearing and grubbing, excavation, burial of utilities, planting of rooted plants, etc. Contact the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indian Cultural Office 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 and after the consultation the Director shall have the authority to halt destructive construction and shall notify a Qualified Archaeologist to investigate and, 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. b) Two copies of any cultural resource documentation generated in connection with this project, including reports of investigations, record search results and site records/updates shall be forwarded to the Tribal Planning, Building, and Engineering Department and one copy to the City Planning and Zoning Department prior to final inspection. Final Design 12. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, fencing plans and landscaping on the street design shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning Services, Department of Public Works, and Department of Parks and Recreation, prior to issuance of a building permit. Additional landscaping Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. All landscaping located within the public right of way or within community Resolution No. 21387 Page 9 I� facilities districts must be approved by the Public Works Director and the Director of Parks and Recreation. 13. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 93.21.00, Outdoor Lighting Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning & Zoning prior to the Issuance off building permits. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting on the building and in the landscaping shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized. No lighting of the hillside is permitted. GENERAL CONDITIONS/CODE REQUIREMENTS 14. The Planned Development District approval shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause. 15. If the use of the subject property is ever changed, the City reserves the right to modify or revoke this Tentative Tract Map and/or Planned Development District application. 16. The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document Package to the Director of Planning and Zoning for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 17. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 1& The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped. 19. Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs. A detailed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prier to issuance of building pennits. 20. All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color. 21. All awnings shall be maintained and periodically cleaned. 22. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage points both existing and future per Section 9303.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. The screening shall be considered as an element of the overall design and must blend with the architectural design of the building(s). The exterior elevations and roof Resolution No. 21387 Page 10 plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be located on tha roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of screening. Parapets shall 1 be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening. 23. No exterior downspouts shall be permitted on any facade on the proposed building(s) which are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial areas. 24. Perimeter walls shall be designed, installed and maintained in compliance with the corner cutback requirements as required in Section 9302.00.D. 25. The design, height, texture and color of building(s), fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 26. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 27. Construction of any residential unit shall- meet minimum soundproofing requirements prescribed pursuant to Section 1092 and related sections of Title 25 of the Califomia Administrative Code. Compliance shall be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Director of Building and Safety. 28. Submit plans meeting City standard for approval on the proposed trash and recyclable materials enclosure prior to issuance of a building permit. ' 29. Details of pool fencing (material and color) and equipment area shall be submitted with final landscape plan. 30. No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except approved alarm systems. 31. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan. 32. 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. 33. Prior to the issuance of building permits, locations of all telephone and electrical boxes must be indicated on the building plans and must be completely screened and located in the interior of the Building. Electrical transformers must be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the project. Said transformer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened. 34. The applicant shall provide all tenants with Conditions of Approval of this project. Resolution No. 21387 Page 11 I� 35. Standard parking spaces shall be 17 feet deep by 9 feet wide; handicap parking spaces shall be 18 feet deep by 9 feet wide plus an 8 foot walkway at the right side of the parking space and shall be designated as"van accessible". 36. Handicapped accessibility shall be Indicated on the site plan to include the location of handicapped parking spaces, the main entrance to the proposed structure and the path of travel to the main entrance. Consideration shall be given to potential difficulties with the handicapped accessibility to the building due to the future grading plans for the properly. 37. Curbs shall be installed at a minimum of five (5) feet from face of walls, fences, buildings, or other structures. Areas that are not part of the maneuvering area shall have curbs placed at a minimum of two (2) feet from the face of walls, fences or buildings adjoining driveways. 38. Parking lot light fixtures shall align with stall striping and shall be located two to three feet from curb face. 39. Islands of not less than 9 feet in width with a minimum of 6 feet of planter shall be provided every 10 parking spaces. Additional islands may be necessary to comply with shading requirements. 40, Shading requirements for parking lot arras as set forth in Section 9306.00 of the Zoning Ordinance shall be met. Details to be provided with final landscape plan. 41. Parking stalls shall be delineated with a 4 to 6 inch double stripe - hairpin or elongated "U" design. Individual wheel stops shall be prohibited; a continuous 6" barrier curb shall provide wheel stops. 42. Concrete walks with a minimum width of two (2) feet shall be installed adjacent to end parking spaces or end spaces shall be increased to eleven (11)feet wide. 43. Tree wells shall be provided within the parking lot and shall have a planting area of six feet in diametertwidth. 44. The development standards for the multiple-family residences are as follows: Multiple Family Residential—R-3 Required Proposed Lot Area 20,000 square feet 68,424 square feet Lot Width 140 feet 197 to 335 feet Lot Depth 175 feet 232 to 291 feet Density 34 units (1 unit/2,000 12 units square feet) Building Height 24 feet _23.5 feet Front Yard 25 feet 30 feet, except 10 Resolution No. 21387 Page 12 (Major Thoroughfare) architectural columns at 28.5 feet Side Yard 24 feet along south 10 feet* property line 20 feet along Via Escuela 16.6 feet* Rear Yard 24 feet along west property 10.5 feet at building line. height of 12 feet 24 feet at building height of 23.5 feet Building Distance 15 feet 10.5 to 13.5 feet* Parking 24 covered 24 covered Requirements 3 guest parking 12 guest parking POLICE DEPARTMENT 45. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 46. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. FIRE DEPARTMENT 47. Shall comply with all Fire Department codes and regulations ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT 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 413. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. 4!3. Applicant shall obtain State permits and approval of plans for all work done on State Highway 111. A copy of Caltrans requirements shall be submitted to the City Engineer prior to the issuance of any grading or building permits. 50, NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE Resolution NO. Z1367 -- "-- -- - - Page 13 51. Construct a 170-feet long by 12-feet wide bus turn out at the southwest comer of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. Construction of a bus stop shelter shalt be required,with a design compatible to project architecture as approved by Sunline Transit Agency and the Director of Planning Services. Bus stop furniture and other accessories, as required by Sunline Transit Agency, shall be provided by the developer. 52. Remove the existing curb returns at the northwest and southwest corners of the intersection of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela and construct new curb returns with spandrels in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No.206. 53. Construct a 6 feet wide cross-gutter across the west side of the intersection of North Palm Canyon Drive at Via Escuela in accordance with .City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No.200. 64. Check the operation of the irrigation and electrical lighting system for the existing palm trees located along the frontage of the property in consultation with the Parks and Recreation Department, and make necessary repairs as directed by the Director of Parks and Recreation. 55. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. VIA ESCUELA 56. Construct a 24 feet wide driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201. The centerline of the driveway approach shall be located approximately 88 feet west of the east property line as shown on the approved site plan. 67. The entry shall not be gated. Insufficient space is provided for safe turn-around of vehicles unable to enter the project. 58. Construct an 8 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. 59. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. ON-SITE 60. All on-site private driveways, drive aisles, parking areas and other rarrmon accuse areas shall be constructed in accordance with the approved site plan. All drive aisles shall have a 24 feet minimum width. Resolution No. 21387 Page 14 61. Construct curbs, curb and gutter, and cross-gutters as necessary to accept and convey on-site stormwater runoff to on-site detention basins and/or parkways, In accordance with applicable City Standards. 62. Construct a minimum pavement section of 2'/2 inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, through the full width of the travel way (a minimum of 24 feet wide excluding the gutter at the centerline). If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "IT' values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 63. Parking shall be prohibited along the private street except for designated parking areas. ;iANITARY SEWER f34. All sanitary facilities shall be connected to the public sewer system. New laterals shall not be connected at manholes. 65. An on-site private sewer system shall collect sewage from the development and connect to the public sewer system in North Palm Canyon Drive. Sewer plans shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. Private on-site sewer'mains shall conform to City sewer design standards. A profile view of the on- site private sewer mains are not necessary provided sufficient invert information is indicated on the plan view, including elevations with conflicting utility lines. Connection of the on-site private sewer system to the public sewer main shall be connected as a lateral and not to an existing manhole or with a new manhole. Plans for sewers other than the private mains, (i.e. building sewers and laterals from the buildings to the on-site private sewer mains), are subject to review and approval by the Building Division. 615. 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. 67. A minimum 10 feet wide easement for sewer purposes shall be reserved on the final map for the benefit of the Home Owners Association across the southeast comer of the property, within the area designated for Unit 7, as necessary to facilitate construction of the on-site sewer system and connection to the public sewer main in North Palm Canyon Drive. The building no. 7 will require adjustments to the landscaping and pool features in the southwest corner of the site. i✓age -io GRADING 68. Submit a Precise Grading Plan prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer or qualified Architect 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 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 Elio Torrealba at AQMD at(909) 396-3752, or at etorrealba@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. The first submittal of the Grading Plan shall include the following information: a copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of 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. 69. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters. 70. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) stormwater permit, issued from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Phone No. 760- 346-7491) is required for the proposed development. A copy of the executed permit shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to approval of a Grading Plan. 71. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.026 (c), the developer shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per disturbed acre for mltlgatlon measures for erosion/blowsand relating to this property and development. 72, A 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 Resolution No. 21387 Page 16 proposed development. A copy of the soils report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading Plan. 73. , In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading pen-nits 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. The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert(Phone: 760-776-8208). (DRAINAGE '74. All stormwater runoff passing through the site shall be accepted and conveyed across the property in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. For all stormwater runoff falling on the site, on-site retention or other facilities approved by the City Engineer shall be required to contain the increased stormwater runoff generated by the development of the property. Provide a hydrology study to determine the volume of increased stormwater runoff due to development of the site, and to determine required stormwater runoff mitigation measures for the proposed development. Final retention basin sizing and other stormwater runoff mitigation measures shall be determined upon review and approval of the hydrology study by the City Engineer and may require redesign or changes to site configuration or layout consistent with the findings of the final hydrology study. No more than 40-50% of the street frontage parkway/setback areas should be designed as retention basins. On-site open space, in conjunction with dry wells and other subsurface drainage solutions should be considered as alternatives to using landscaped parkways for on-site retention. 75. 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 adjacent to North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela, and in only a stormwater runoff condition, pass runoff directly to the streets through parkway or under sidewalk drains. 76. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The acreage drainage fee at the present time is $6,511.00 per acre per Resolution No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit. 77. Easements for drainage purposes shall be reserved on the final map for the benefit of the Home Owners Association across the southeast corner of the property, within the area designated for Unit 7, as necessary to facilitate construction of the on-site drainage system will overflow to North Palm Canyon Drive. The building no. 7 will Resolution No.21387 Page 17 require adjustments to the landscaping and pool features in the southwest comer of the site. GENERAL 78. 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. 79. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground. 80. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading plans. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. 81. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and approved by the City Engineer shall be documented with record drawing "as-built" information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction. 82, to accordance with Chapter 8.04.401 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, all existing and proposed electrical lines of thirty-five thousand volts or less and overhead service drop conductors, and all gas, telephone, television cable service, and similar service wires or lines, which are on-site, abutting, and/or transecting, shall be installed underground awnless specific restrictions are shown in General Orders 95 and 128 of the California Public Utilities Commission, and service requirements published by the utilities. A detailed plan approved by the owner(s)of the affected utilities depicting all above ground facilities in the area of the project to be undergrounded, shall be submitted to the Engineering Division prior to approval of any grading plan. The existing overhead utilities across the west property line meet the requirement to be installed underground. 83. Contact Whitewater Mutual Water Company to determine impacts to any existing water lines and other facilities that may be located within the property. Make appropriate arrangements to protect in place or relocate any existing Whitewater Mutual Water Company facilities that are impacted by the development. A letter of approval for relocated or adjusted facilities from Whitewater Mutual Water Company shall be submitted to the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a grading permit. 84. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the comer cut-off area of any driveway which does or will exceed the height •required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02,00, D. i y�m,rn Resolution No. 21387 Page 18 85. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 904. MAP ,B6. 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 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. 87. Easements for sewer and drainage purposes shall be reserved on the final map for the benefit of the Home Owners Association, as required by these conditions. TRAFFIC 88. All damaged, destroyed, or modified pavement legends and striping associated with the proposed development shall be replaced as required by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. 89. Install a 30 inch stop sign, stop bar, and "STOP" legend for traffic exiting the development onto Via Escuela in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620-625. 90. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer. As a minimum, all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of Transportation, "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones"dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction. 91. 'This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. 92. A fair share contribution for the installation of a future traffic signal at the intersection of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela shall be made to the City. The amount has determined by the City Engineer from data provided in a traffic study prepared by George Dunn Engineering, revised December 11, 2003, and using estimated peak hour traffic volumes generated by the proposed development. The fair share contribution is $572. Payment shall be made prior to approval of a final map. n � Cly Council Minutes September7,2005 Page 3 gained, term of the agreement,parking, date to be changed on page 8 of the agreement section 5.2(a), Financial Impact Mitigation (FIM)fees. ACTION: 1) Adopt Resolution No. 21386, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WITH PALM SPRINGS MARQUIS, LLC, WHICH INCLUDES A FINANCIAL IMPACT MITIGATION FEE, AN AGREEMENT BY THE APPLICANT TO PAY CERTAIN INFRASTRUCTURE, LANDSCAPE, LIGHTING, AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, AND MEMORIALIZING PROPERTY EXPECTATIONS OF THE CITY AND DEVELOPER" amending Section 5.2(a) to reflect the correct commencement date and 2) Authorize the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. A5150. Motion Councilmember Mills,seconded by Councilmember Foat and unanimously carried on a roll call vote. I.C. CASE TTM33542 / 5.1038 PD-310 — AN APPLICATION BY VIA ESCUELA LAND PARTNERS, LLC FOR TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33542 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 310 A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP IS A ONE LOT CONDOMINIUM MAP OF APPROXIMATELY 1.57 ACRES AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT TWELVE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS IN THE RESORT OVERLAY ZONE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIA ESCUELA AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE C-1 AND R-3, SECTION 3,APN 504-310-035: Craig Ewing, Director of Planning, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated September 7, 2005. Mayor Oden opened the public hearing, and the following speakers addressed the City Council. SKIP GOODELL, Cathedral City,Architect for the Project, provided details on additional space in the courtyards, addressed sound mitigation measures and landscaping. MARK DUPONT, La Qunita, thank the Planning Staff, and requested City Council approval of the project. No further speakers coming forward, the public hearing was closed. The City Council discussed and/or commented on the following issues relating to the project: no pools or individual unit landscaping has been indicated on the landscape plan, sound mitigation measures, incorporating the Sun Line Bus Stop. ACTION: Adopt Resolution No. 21387, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 33542 AND CASE NO. 5.1033 — City Council Minutes September 7,2005 Page 4 PD310, FOR A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP FOR A ONE LOT CONDOMINIUM MAP OF APPROXIMATELY 1.57 ACRES AND A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT TO CONSTRUCT TWELVE RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS IN THE RESORT OVERLAY ZONE, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIA ESCUEIA AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE C-1 AND R-3, SECTION 3, APN 504-310-035' as amended by modifying condition 12 to include a streetscape plan, Conditions 67 and 77 by adding a sentence "The landscape and pool features associated with Unit 7 shall be adjusted to accommodate the required easement" and adding condition 82 to read as. indicated in the Memorandum dated September 7, 2005. Motion Councilmember Pougnet, seconded by Councllmember Foat and unanimously carried on a roll call vote. Councilmember Foat stated she has a conflict of interest by proximity for Item 1.D., she owns property within 500 feet of the project, will not participate in the discussion or the vote and left Council Chamber at 7:04 P.M. 1,11). CASE TTM31104 AND 5.1049 —AN APPLICATION BY NEJAT KOHAN TO SUBDIVIDE APPROXIMATELY 1.46 ACRES FOR HOTEL AND RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM USE — THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW THE CONVERSION OF HOTEL TO CONDOMINIUMS AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUMS IN THE RESORT OVERLAY, LOCATED AT 640 NORTH INDIAN CANYON DRIVE, ZONE R-3, SECTION 11, APN 507- 183-006: Craig Ewing, Director of Planning, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated September 7,2005. Mayor Oden opened the public hearing, and the following speakers addressed the City Council. NEJAT KOHAN, APPLICANT, requested City Council support of the project. ROXANN PLOSS, Palm Springs, spoke in support of the project. RANDALL ERICKSON, Palm Springs, spoke in support of the project. SKIP GOODELL, Cathedral City, stated the project is now a CUP not a PUD; commented on the street width and requested support of the project. JOE LUISI, commented on the financial viability of the project, requested City Council support. DANA STEWART, Palm Springs, stated her support for the project. IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,STATE OF CALIFORNIA \� TRACT MAP NO. 33542 FOR CONDOMINIUM PURPOSES GRAPHIC SCALE - A SUBDIVISION OF LOT 1 OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT NO, L88-05, RECORDED AUGUST J, 7990, I AS INST. NG 2882JI, BEING A PORT70N OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER (501?) OF SECTON $ TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 4 EAST OF THE SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN, w reer I 'z� CITY OF PALAA SPRINGS, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEERS INC. APRIL, 2006 �i BASIS OF BEARINGS LEGEND \ o rn-eGwlrlucsuEao m,IGs sumEr is • u/o Gla'my"°M°N6Mn+r,As 1°rz cs 11 P.N L£�2. ccvmCC.,lCNr, O J/t"�v Ix 0 ° l w✓ [ LWNM1 Cf FrvEFSmE sTA1F°r GLImFNN ¢v9L Sr MEFxiSE A'CIEc ncc�I E coi°I C I w%t(fclRl£rAc I, 9EING: NH9'SB OOW p INCIGIET sEr roPPFFNESO SrWVE➢Ls GVp.JLI?x / vEv Fs ]J/J?OCxc[ .r. 3 MB M9P BO°N /T tiO P:151.;s-, R cu_Rmos°s ,'COY (seA5e 00's)(Y56 CF B:zPl cs) IEEIJY YT � � ^p [Sesxv°E�aesseroer) <sessec°x> s" \T$. \ -r er[ssaesT I\`cpv:es..ss/N �PEeJ0a (E (Uaa iell'' slzs''o� /rF sfen°N ernE VIA ESCUELA °J- o��ssoN s ssv c e`:'A1i�1 Px<C,,w 4«s_T/m mJ°i°'aNgs `°` n°t lseA_°oat 5s'1111251) I rAL L 1131 J/aP -ie "E'�a'se; �I.e P(okJMF"s e'' °PA°x."wx EcN"wruolrNryEal r x°°usf"x=e"rEwxP A sx Slo/O.woxr M sn O Lis fl0..F'•�•i,g5 P� / ( 1 M Ra GigA P:.e WnLr xeP IX, e5. ti /z x R¢ne,Py. ouxn°f reIKRA°c ' g Ir..�' n \ [ ] Fl ICaiEs AEme g GP PER g L¢Im nC ¢ ere P�£ va v O. ^Ig s�I O'Pi` \ '� 1 ! ie°a'osslrvs�m i'ereRziERorar n"urvm of Rry�lcc- _8 LOT 7 � °`" F < G REmI o TA REcnRL LE s°F w \ \p RS eJ/JP, R L f o R.VASYc£ W 8� 1e'>Ac5211 F Fes.rJ'EV,'P_=y>H \ \ \ �. rrsvzLiajei a°RSOcouxrrPwR sa95f suRwEr 1> SURVEYOR'S NOTES O n �f l "' zx \.\ \ m.EelR %'ie."r'�x - > 111�"ai a 11ry 1°`ixc`Fc°rr"`swn E A umis°u°rnss`iv"roaul1.11r 1 Z \ snv o�6EmvrcEio Q l x+m Pus/ c sunfm us ivxusxi "I rRE°c'E" �R/w Aro AE \ .0 mevuM sfr'Elwa Rs fr N,n °v+cE mE jE °E°- )xePSR'roz n \\ / e0M]P IZP3. Z M�Nuwio/rnrwx.io°reffvexr mre mis Mna.ux NVA1B LO lmrco T PIIs 1 [I<g zr1 "s./sI-sJ \ Is mncr roxwxs I AeFes eRats u.°l h y "s,%s/-s3cL 's� — — — — — —..Ri i , P - Q EASEMENTS GJIN£TARE $ o o n o txzsr°z5'El(nl OJe I P D O 5° v r mr mF Pol£r"0 ¢ � 61NF Mb' mP IEN.TIr ( on �" 0]SynL AI N _Z bO`�l!D6LON Pog lAl I�OMOFPE[IFIc�xN/✓as°FrvAr s/OE nAo IJB165' -1 Il O£R,f PAW. 111a.,A.I wRl.H'G AY llO Is ' rJez® _z rves 5]'°oiv[x]As]'a°rol �Vscl Tmc s3'1 G 8 O �NnO OFJRrvYcelSme°srbe of°Gumnxw°LEJ]e,L A ©Ia°alcrrvs nn°°Piar oww muvm ar cw,vms. RS. 4°✓d s r d rxa reecr MM.%°seowN QO .,� \ O Ic �rcnARr r Fnnwm er owrvERa uccEEs°Fs, Jl" A.pyd� rsbexs AN°sior`"`noxrims awrmlN mrs raecr AUP,ussxowN - :h P&w.`la�4 o 0 nEa°e°aRluc unun�saan ro mE Lm of unfu snwlms°emarza a P NG, xLo� 6 A=sL, eisR P?R m /'53 r eF,us uP. me LS Es'JSE/'R] �vir'r°Ic�]ss'E`sJza"B/'s p �� o vrEFEFCNc_ ssy — s]seJve "'ILx "E — - IRS s V — S �Jfr rAC Ls es3? ' wm ow�o 5 z :[senor vl-T aw VISTA CHINO = 9Q ¶ef � VICINItt MNP �it IN THE CIN OFPALM SPRINGS COUNTY OF RIVERME,STATE OF CALIFORNIA OWNER TEK T'M MACT MAV MO. 33S42 �� f a Ft�li GE�t�AQ11i1tM1l)Mi1��„S�� ` ;�'A 2M231I$ION Cff PO 1 OF NOT LINES ADJUSTMENT N0,9JOS REL6RDEE A N 3,T 3.1990.AS LIST NO. GILVN[C sLALE ASSESSORS PnFCELNUN6EH RANGE 4 WTUNG APORTION OFiHESOU MERIDIAN,COUNT( RINT(O RIVERSIDE, iO OF CALIFORNIA aio-vv - - - RAWGE/EAOHOlc SAN AU-EYENARDINO MFRIDIAN,COUWM OFIMVERSIDE,STATE OFCALIFORNIA SIT- ADDRESS CO-ACNELU VAUEY FNGINEEtS.INC \ MwRCH.1Wa - ezn evu werw peu UTILIRE$ m�WAtEn Kuhn _ V1.5 ELOOOZONE 0 ING g numuv .� .A \ rx ixc wr Idu4 r 4*s 2 GENERALaFAN L o a,�a>�„i' \\ \\ tI `R KNOOI DISTICr mxa��mv rvufwt rt,'.�a x.ra.c,, ar R� -�,y rn,.w \ • m aw�\ `C -Nvs wns snroot crsren aOMA5GUl0ECOORDIWES TOPOGR>APW vsc vuoos vs wee g RSG_ LOT I \\ b Z v ciraw-w.tic�iMKac'r�'uw.aw> ssra •'F e��j \9 l I � B"e:AS OF BFnIW(;�Q pa >mmuiuc wgmp. m q$ i Fo"�• a .m z,e •j\ \\ N m \ TI _ T mi s i \ \ \Z,y \ .'I iRWvsS>Ax4im5a iitiM �S SURVEYORS N076 —cc— 4 ,mwa mnmw _ — •�'• 11 s>m mmtpe e�ron ��Y/az _ 1 T.Ka. M 02 room'[rm >rt cp,Sy :rtc�n/az. ol o LAP. G s/w mewx � mnm.zm_aaew -pa��• it ser - NwVISTA CHINO .z yp tq or ��',y��J\ �••," x,.P..x., w • =m o.ew.nan�nrs=Nzcnx�. nL '� - a� `0/Cou6•t4 Yell.y Eym.r a"' m . o. TENTATIVE TRACa MAP NO.33542 � - � rta lrw•�swswu n Coachella Valley Efigineers- T0: Director of Planning April 26,2006 Director of Engineering City of Palm Springs SUBJECT: Request to Change Conditions of Approval for Bus Turnout Project: "Tangerine" TM 33542 - Southwest corner of Via Escuela and North Palm Canyon We are currently in the process of designing the subject property referenced above. We have prepared this letter to request the removal of Condition 51. Condition 51 requires the construction of"a 170-foot long by 12 foot wide bus turn out at the southwest comer of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. Construction of a bus shelter shall be required, with a design compatible to project architecture as approved by Sunline Transit Agency and the Director of Planning Services. Bus stop furniture and other accessories as required by Sunline Transit Agency,shall be provided by the developer." There is currently a bus shelter at this location, but no turnout. We are requesting the removal of Condition 51 as a requirement of this project. We are basing this request on the following: 1. The Tangerine TM 33542 Site Plan as approved by the Planning Commission and City Council does not have a bus turnout, but does have a completed beautification plan for North Palm Canyon. This plan is in conformance with the city. beautification policy of North Palm Canyon's general plan. This approved Site Plan has an undisturbed project boundary that is 12 feet from the curb all along North Palm Canyon. A 12 foot bus turnout with an 8 foot sidewalk would cut 8 feet into the already approved landscaping plan, retention basin plan,and would compromise the home and pool designs. The landscaping that would be lost is very important to the Planning Commission and City Council. 2. Sunline policy does not require that there be bus turnouts on North Palm Canyon,and Sunline is also not requesting this bus turnout be added. In fact, in an attached letter from Eunice Lovi,the Director of Planning for Sunline, it is noted that "Sunline is not requiring any improvements to the existing bus stop as the current route serving this stop will be realigned." 3. This bus stop has very few patrons, and is potentially dangerous. In an attached study done by Donald Messier,a past employee of the City of Palm Springs and current project manager for this project, a 35 hour observation study was conducted, and it determined during that time that less than 10 people embarked or disembarked at that location. His observation is that this is a dangerous location for a bus terminal as there are no lights or crosswalks, and that Eunice Lovi of Sunline agrees with this assessment. Their conclusion is that this bus stop could be eliminated or left as is. 4. This issue is jeopardizing the possibility of this project ever being built. The delay from this issue is putting pressure on the loan for this project,and so it may not be extended, putting this project at a stand still,or not being built at all. This would be the loss of an exciting residential project, of tax revenue, and of beautiful new landscaping on Palm Canyon. Via Escuela Land Partners LLC believes that the removal of Condition 51 as a requirement for this project is a win-win situation for the City of Palm Springs and the future home owners at Tangerine Homes. Thank you for your prompt consideration of this issue so that we may proceed with the project. Tc e el � // 2 , David K. Rice Director of Engineering 77-899 WOLF ROAD, SUITE 102 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 TELEPHONE(760) 360-4200 FAx(760) 360-4204 rod,Aff neleEM wrrtnaspurrer rrtn8por RYnorWCNr PrrcAaWrge !lA/ill /ifiil wmuam umevvr� nano toaurau W,arndeCaat' AftkAp w January 3,2006 Mr.Mabew Feske Ground Up Planning hear Mr. Feske, This letter responds to your request for comments regarding the Tangerine residential development As d-mussed with you, the Suntlne Transit Agency(SunUne) Is currenVy Conducting a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) to evaluate eaistinng bua routes to determine how best le improve the tars system.. As part of the COA,we are evaluaft exMng bus stops to ascertain and establish better spedrg between existing bus slops, as well as ensure that now bus scope adhere to new guideline& Based on recommendations in the final report, all existing routes will be realigned io better serve SunLine's passaMers. Given the on going study, SunLine is not requiring any improvements to the e"ng bus stop as the dmeni route serving this stop will be realigned. Should you have sny questions or require additional Information, please do not heaitate to contad me. You may call meat 760-343-3460, ext.119. Sincerely. �vr Eunice IAvi Olrector of Planning cc: C.Mikel Oglesby, General Manager �29QE Haag Opwr7mr,'igr�and Palms.CelrarrYr p217i Pem,e '70444WE rm 7W� w*Wt orm.M I A E LCO N 0ul ' leiivapisaa 01a0j M C N 90H gZ idV APB'-12-2006 WED Q1.57 PM SUNLINE TRANSIT FAX N0. 760 393 3845 r, uc -- MrN1/1tx omert iMt fN%9 ialA�Mb9+ tiehi/ixl�W Mncnv rxn - - -- U 4 era f r 1 a tM g r n Pw�90Maxr April 12,20M Mr. Bobby Teaford SM55 Washington Street, Suite 204 La Quinta, CA 92253 Dear Mr.Teaford: This letter Is a follow up on our meeting on Tuesday, April 11, 2006 regarding the bus stop located In front of the proposed Tangerine residential development on Palm Canyon Drive. As discussed.the Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA)has been completed. However, as part of the recommendation in the COA, SunUne continues to evaluate but stops located throughout Its service area to determine how beet to improve and enhance transit amenities located throughout the community. Given the on-going evaluation of bus stops, SunUne has decided not to relocate, remove or consolidate any Of the existing amenities until completion of the bus stop inventory projed Upon completion of the bus stop inventory project, Sunline will determine if the existing bus slap will be removed, retocatad or consolidated wfth another bus stop. We anticipate completing the bus stop inventory project by the end of July 2006. Based on our findings, SunLine will contact you with our decision. Should you have any questions or oonc erns, please feel free to contact me at 760443-3456, 11Q. Sincerely, ��v1 Eunice Lovl Director of Planning cc: C. Mikel Oglesby, General Manager R SAS HanyONvwTAW,TANW4 POS&CoMM11W 92270 Dho 46-343.204 f4k 740-343.3"S wwwavom" Apr 25 06 09:48a Inland Empire C C 951 7696513 p.2 1 f From: Don Messier Project Manager Tangerine 760-835-9992 Subject:Bus stop#010 To whom it may concern; My name is Donald Messier,past employee of the City of Palm Springs,and currently Project Manager for a project in Palm Springs called Tangerine. During the week of April 17a'thru the 22" ,there were approximately 35 hours of observation on bus stop 010 on North Palm Canyon,just south of Via Escuela on the west side of the road.During my observations there were less than 10 passengers that either embarked or disembarked the bus at that location. One of the primary reasons that I observed is that North Palm Canyon at that location is such a busy road with posted speeds of between 45 and 50 MPH. At that location it is also sort of a blind curve,with no crosswalks nor signals at the intersection. To put a bus turnout in this location in my opinion,would promote J-Walking and thus put pedestrians and drivers in a compromising situation. Thus,it could also put both the city and the bus company Sunline,in a possible legal situation. After conferring with Eunice Lovi,Planning Director of Sunline,she is in total agreement with the situation.This is a very dangerous comer for anyone trying to cross legally or J-Walking. The stop to the south was observer to be the busiest in the area due to better crossing and location. Sunline is in the process of doing an evaluation of the area route and this stop could indeed be eliminated or left as is. Since , Don Messier Project Manager AI °. 2pOG R Bc \SPA 0 ♦ `, III. r'? A� A 7�2 i PROP 12'STORM DRAIN ! \ "\) \- 91� \\ \ �O; SEE STORM GRAIN PLIN \ �`4 ia. SHEET SJ POOL .D FS 588.Jj 79 RIM O\SPA .,% r �\s\ `i;;y Lh7�\\ -.�� . \ q / n UNT ei��s',- -. P.E.567.50 FS 587.96 I ?J I F.F.— 588.00 5H6.75 \1 r1A 16 b. , "� .` N C° �` \ y � FS 587.2I FS 586.19 UN? 7 FS 58Z21 POOL 15• r �'•� ''� \ j P.E.= 566.75 RiM91' \. �\ t:�• \ \\ FS 586.75 NI F.F.= 587.25 _ 1A8 ` �'� BD c (588.87) '. 1A . 79 S,e t�W,• S \ C"� ;,1 `\ �\ rt 590.96 p i 7N?I 11 FS 590.96 1 R�IML ,� •\`V �! A `� \ )NIT, �.-591.00 �l f 89.7 N \SPA 0.. �` , iy\ %y ii C UN,010 f5 58946 POOL P.E 5l19.00 . F.P.- 569.5p -bBB•2 FS 586.79PROP 12"STORM DRAIN \� A °'•�'3;':. )! \A \�� J �``. FS 58Z77 `� SEE STORM ORVN PLAN \ \•".:v�-�••.h..''F�• \ A A� SHEET 5) /OOCa,;+\•... \ \ \ ..� IFS d3 n UNIT 9 f5 568.79 _ �M \/ "y;3�\�'•.[l;� q� `I \ P.E.- 5W.J3 �.... V 'r .�r\u;•:: A \ �.-\.- j A F.F.- 58683 \SPAul j 150 � FS 58Z96 FS 586.94 i, \ •,,$i ` • \ VUN? 8-,S fS 58 - 6 58SW Z56 ry — FF 586.00 .-..� 586.7 \�,\a ....... !. SPA ",� C J " Ct• n — L \ \ ° FS 567.21 \ �' FS 566.19 UNIT 7 FS 567.21 POOLI 1 P.E.= 586.75 FS 586.75 N r F.F.- 587.25 o \ TPTP 565 33 _ \ •-J76.61• IW 12= 582.03 15 RIM=584.25 l � •' - PROP 15"STORM DRAW '� \ \\ _ NV = 58203 STORM DRAIN-PL.W SHT 5�)___ 15"SD=580. \ S6) TC 58B.95 - p) C 588.93) \ =20.00' L=.Id00'-514 , \ - •F''- _ TLC 6) TC (589.41) G Mo. 77) \ G (510.67) A i POOL 11 y i90.50 FS 590.96 RIM n V'S 91.00 u \SPA o :: cp. FS 599.46 A \ �\ A �' \ _ 4 UN '10 FS 589.46 POOL •"�� e RIM P.Ey'589.00 �� •\ \ �� EF.= 589.50 2 k - _ - tor_ ^ F5 588.79 •PROP 12"STORM DRAIN \ \� �• �\ \ - FS 567.77 SS EEC STORM DRAIN PLAN FS 588.J3 H UN? 9 FS 588.79 _ 56R7.5 `.•. .•\•�` ,.` '6 P.E.= 566.JJ V „ •��• F.F.— 588.83 2 FS 56796 \ UN? 8 FS 587.96 POOL;A�, \ \ �7P 58652 P.E.= 58Z50 RIM �j, FS 5BZ50 h F.F.— 55&00 96.75� %6 SPA \ °• FS 56Z21 \ \ � /\r ''�2 F5 586.19 UNIT 7 FS 567.2f ` 7P 585..75 PC.— 586.75 ' RAM aw ' N\'\ FS 586,75 k+ F.F.— 5BZ25 F�B6.00 - \ S 376.61' INN 12"= 582.03 IAN 15 582.03 PROP STORM DRAW RIM=584.25 FL 15"SD-580. ` (SEE STORM DRAIN PLAN SM 5) �1. In May 19 06 10:37a Inland Empire C C 951 769 6513 p.1 MAY--19-2006 FRI 09:31 Alt SONLINE TRANSIT FAX N0, 750 343 304b P. 02 Neutral: oven HxfprlAgf Pxlmtpingf G1h1*00CIry Aanrhomr'.gr ftW Dwvn f d•n wr,a re ar+ime Mdln [aalherk RhrrPdc Caunq roaA rY Nava r"roacomaws womp May 18, 2006 Mr, Don Messier 10263 Palm Avenue Beaumont, CA M23 Dear Mr. Messier. This letter is a follow up on my first letter to you regarding the bus stop located in front of the proposed Tangerine residential development on Palm Canyon Drive. As indicated to you during several telephone discussions concerning the existing bus stop, SunLine Transit Agency (SunLine) continues to work on the bus stop inventory project. We have completed phase one of the project and have started working on phase two. During this phase, SunLine staff will evaluate and determine which bus stop may be consolidated, eliminated, and/or relocated. Preliminary findings from the bus stop inventory indicate that a number of our bus stops are too close and as such, it impacts transit service we offer to bus riders who ride the bus. Based on our findings, SunLine will determine bus stops that may be eliminated and/or relocated, and then meet with all jurisdictions to discuss potential elimination of these bus stops. At this time, SunLine has not determined if the bus stop located in front of the project site will be eliminated as we need to look at all bus stops along Line 111 and not just at specific locations. However, SunLine will inform the property owner within six months if this particular bus stop will be eliminated or will need to be enhanced. We also are looking to ascertain the best possible locations for some of the existing bus stops. Also, please remember that this bus stop is located within the public right-of-way and was installed Ware the adjacent property was purchased for residential development. As mentioned, SunLine is the transit provider in Coachella Valley and is responsible for siting locations for bus stops, as well as determining which existing bus stops need to be enhanced to include amenities such as bus turnouts and bus shelters. Although, SunLine appreciates the collaboration between the jurisdictions, the development Community and SunLine to construct these amenities whenever possible; it is not the responsibility of the jurisdictions to determine where new bus stops should be placed, as well as which ones should be enhanced. As discussed, recommendations in the Comprehensive Operational Anatysis include evaluation of existing bus stops to help SunLine establish spacing standard between existing bus stops, and proposed new bus stops, as well. This ensures that we are able to improve on-time performance of the transit service we provide since the number of bus stops along a route directly impacts the convenience and performance of the bus service. 3.2.505 Horry Orrvrr TW,Thousand Pa0ns,Colikmia 92276 Phor 760.343-3456 Fax 760.343-3845 wwwsvntme.org May 19 06 10:38a Inland Empire C C 951 769 6513 p.2 MAY-19-2006 FRI 09.32 AM SUNLINE TRANSIT rAx No. rbU JU MO r. ua Mr. Messier Page Two Should you have any questions or concerns regarding this letter, please do not hesitate to contact me. You may reach me at 70U-343-3456, ext. 119. Sincerely, J1 Eunice Lovi Director of Planning rx; C. Mike) Oglesby,General Manager DESERT HOT vG•As°x SPRINGS SM� w.aEuw � r� 3 iawnv�ex ,a 0 Rider's Guide 24 vlsrA aixo ALMS System Ma TNpOIp x MD M U '^ MI41gY RMON °A Fg Effective September 2004 \ SPAL PRINGS F Transit Information (760) 343-3451 (800) 347-8628 so TTY/TDD Service Available CATHEDRACITY L MSAVKsrNArnA E 111 N 59 MUMY au° A RANCHO MIRAGE uERMUDA E °G 10 a iREDWMNG 3 £\ DESERT mwul IO 10, Mites Bo INDIAN REau WELLS DATE 10 LA B o� % DAYS OF SERVICE D(AS DE SERVICIO QUINTA y�� SunBus operates SunBus da servicio INDIO G R°N everyday except todos los die excepto o AVE E° Thanksgiving and Die de Accion de MF=� 90 Christmas. Gracias y Navidad. $ o - COACHELLA AW52 y U Cove MADM o m AVE sa 4 r- \� AIRP£ORT BLVD 2y I E RAL SunLine Transit Agency T "" 32-505 Harry Oliver Trail mAVEE2 Thousand Palms,CA 92276 ABBE ' 9, OASIS 2 MECCA 2 AVE 70 LINE 23 • • kFRIDAY -ONLY FIRST TRIP OF THE DAY ONLY Vista Chino Vista Chino Granada Palm Cyn Sunrise Way & & & & at Coyote Landau Sunrise Tramview Stevens Run Apts A 5:59 6:06 6:15 6:29 6:39 PALM SPRINGS - SUNRISE WAY Sunrise Way Vista Chino Workman Vista Chino Farrell Sunrise Way at Coyote & Middle & & at Coyote Run Apts Gene Autry School Gene Autry Baristo Run Apts A 6:43 -- -- 6:52 \ \ * 7:15 * :* 2:00 00 * 2:10 -- -- ? 2:45 2:55 3:05 * School days only a z TRAMVIEW COYOTE LAS VEGASO O RUN APTS A . J ❑ o Y\ w Z > w HAcouBTc�ua z CATHEDRAL —` z 3i CITY zi m VISTACHINO STEVENS w Wmr TAC VAH a/ 1 H O Z School Raymond w � ❑ Cree (7 AVE 30 a Middle School rya TAHQUITZ PS Mail O TIME POINT BARISTO 14,30 PALM RAMON w � TRANSFER SPRINGS ¢ SQ SEMOR CENTER JT 4) Pam Springs O LIBRARY 5 High School DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER HIGH SCHOOL OR MIDDLE SCHOOL LINE t 7 DAYS A WEEK TO PALM SPRINGS TO CATHEDRAL CITY San Luis Tahquitz Sunrise Palm Cyn Palm Cyn Vista Chino Tahquitz San Luis Rey &Farrell & & I & & &Sunset Rey &Ramon (PS Mall) Vista Chino Stevens I Stevens Sunrise (PS Mall) &Ramon A 6:30 6:41 6:50 7:12 7:20 7:28 7:37 7:54 8:00 8:11 8:20 8:42 8:50 8:58 9:07 9:24 9:30 9:41 9:50 10:12 10:20 10:28 10:37 10:54 11:00 11:11 11:20 11:42 11:50 11:58 12:07 12:24 P 12:30 12:41 12:50 1:12 1:20 1:28 1:37 1:54 2:00 2:11 2:20 2:42 2:50 2:58 3:07 3:24 3:30 3:41 3:50 4:12 4:20 4:28 4:37 4:54 5:00 5:11 5:20 5:42 5:50 5:58 6:07 6:24 6:30 6:41 6:50 7:12 7:20 7:28 7:37 7:54 \ 8:00 8:11 8:20 8:42 8:50 8:58 9:07 9:24 \` a O TIME POINT ZTRAMVIEW LAS VEGAS O O <= TRANSFER y O N ® DESERT REGIONAL Gp p A MEDICAL CENTER w LL CITY HALL RACQUET CLUB z < HIGH SCHOOL OR 2 — MIDDLE SCHOOL VISTA GHINO STEVENS w PALM SPRINGS l 7ACHEVAH 0 INTERNATIONAL z AIRPORT U W Raymond Cree J a Middle w w School z� > CATHEDRAL CITY I TAHQUITZ x < Z MISSION W PS Mall w z w RA MON O <N O J Palm Springs w PALM 30 High School U 3 SPRINGS J County Health w - II Department 1 ERIC J. GUINAN Attorney at Law 175 E.Mesquite Post Office Box 2103 Palm Springs,CA 92263 (760)285-5270 Fax(760)778-5710 May 18, 2006 Palau Springs Planning Cormmission May 24, 2006 Agenda RE: TTM 33542 Case 5.1038 PD-310 Applicant: Via Escuela Land Partners APN: 504-310-035 Dear Palm Springs Planning Commission: Please accept the following as Applicant Via Escuela Land Partners' position summary in favor of its request to removed Condition of Approval#51 as a requirement for the above referenced project and its response to the Planning Commission Staff report for the same. Summary Tentative Tract Map 33542 and Condition of Approval#51, which requires a 170 foot long by 12 foot wide bus turnout, cannot be read consistently. The implementation of the turnout would necessitate a complete redesign of the project due to encroachment into the project, illustrated with a red line on "Exhibit A," attached hereto. As "Exhibit A" depicts, the turnout requirement would require the movement of the prej ect's walls, retention ponds, and swimming pools, substantially altering the Tentative Tract Map approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council in September of 2005. An alternative to `Exhibit A"would be the addition of an eight foot curb in front of the turnout, necessitating only a four foot cut to meet the 12 foot requirement. The alternative was approved by Planning Staff at the April 26, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. This alternative is illustrated by"Exhibit B," attached hereto. Unfortunately, this does not appear to be a viable solution to the problem either, as city engineering has opined that CalTrans "will never approve it." A solution viable on the local level but unacceptable to CalTrans is no solution at all. Attached as "Exhibit C" is an engineering diagram of a four foot turnout with an eight foot curb encroaching into existing roadway, a which could potentially satisfy the 12 foot bus turnout requirement when added to the eight feet of existing parking space in front of the project. Discussion of that potential alternative is beyond the scope and notice of the May 24, 2006 agenda, however. Such a turnout would also require CalTrans approval. Applicant's Historical Perception of Condition#51 The planning staff report and attached proposed resolution emphasize applicant's awareness of Condition 951 "at the initial stage of its development" and notes that the subdivision design"should have accommodated sufficient landscaped parkway in and around the required bus tum out to provide the expected aesthetic enhancement along the street frontage." Condition#51 was added to the Tentative Tract Map after months of architectural design and review, almost concurrently with the Planning Commission meeting approving both the Tentative Tract Map and Conditions. At the time the Tentative Tract Map was approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council in September of 2005, the architect for the project had discussed Condition#51 with then existing Planning staff and it was agreed that the condition would be removed as long as Sunline did not require the bus turnout. The architect gave testimony to this effect at the September 7, 2005, City Council meeting, which was not contravened by Planning staff. The city council members did not take issue with the removal of the requirement at that time. Mr. Oden advised that he wished to make sure the citizen of Patin Springs all had proper shelter at their bus stops. Mr. Mills advised he desired existing shelters to conform architecturally to the proposed development. The bus turnout was not addressed. Eunice Lovi , Director of Planning for Sunline, advised that Sunline is not requiring any improvements to the bus stop in her January 3, 2006 letter submitted to staff along with the request for removal of Condition#51. Unfortunately, there has been a significant lack of staff continuity as this project has been developed, and clearly the previous understanding between applicant and Planning staff regarding Condition 951 has not survived the staff changeover. Ms. Lovi's most recent commentary is attached to this letter. Although it does not specifically provide that the bus stop in front of the project will be eliminated, it advises that it may be eliminated or consolidated. It also indicates a desire on the part of Sunline to retain control of the future enhancement of bus stops. Finally, it notes that the placement of the bus stop in front of the project was installed prior to the rezoning of the property for residential development. It is this factual and historical background that led applicant to believe Condition#51 was considerably less of an issue than it has become. It would defy all logic for Applicant to develop a Tentative Tract Map that it reasonably believed would have to be completely redesigned. 2t. Legal Requirements The second page of the Planning Commission Staff Report states "During an e-mail exchange with the City Engineers, Caltrans indicated the bus turnout would be required on the property." Later on page four of report, that e-mail from John Pagano of CalTrans was noted to state"We tend to agree with you that bus turnouts are beneficial." Applicant wishes to emphasize that CalTrans has not indicated that a bus turnout would be required, but merely agreed that such a requirement would be "beneficial." Additionally, there is no specific state statute or local ordinance requiring a turnout. Support for a turnout, as noted in the Staff Report, can be found in the General Plan Objectives. General Plan Policy 7.7.6 states: "Require the construction of bus unloading/unloading areas as a requirement of street development, as appropriate. (Emphasis added.) Applicant respectfully submits, for the entirety of the rationale contained in this letter, that the requirement of the bus loading/unloading area mandated by Condition of Approval#51 would not be appropriate in this situation. Existence of Eight Foot Parking Area/ Issues Applicant wishes to emphasize the existence of an eight foot parking strip in front of the project in addition to the two southbound 12 foot lanes of travel. A city bus is approximately 9 feet in width. Thus, under the current status quo, a loading or unloading bus only encroaches one foot into the adjacent lane of traffic, a relatively innocuous traffic situation as compared to a typical configuration where a stopped bus blocks an entire lane of traffic. Such a situation does not impede traffic or cause traffic hazards in the manner that a stop where a bus blocks the entire right lane of southbound traffic would. The safety concerns raised in the initial request to remove COA#51 have nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of a bus turnout, and would not be alleviated by the requirement for such a turnout. Rather the concerns were based upon the physical traffic situation at the corner of Highway I I I and Via Escuela,where there is a 50 mph speed limit, a comer which obstructs driver view of crossing pedestrians, and no stoplight or crosswalk across Highway 1 I 1 to the bus stop. These problems will not be alleviated by the creation of a bus turn in. Potentially, the creation of a bus stop considerably more elaborate than the other existing stops in the area could create an increased bus line patron draw to that stop as opposed to the considerably safer stop at the comer of Highway 111 and Racquet Club Drive. This stop is only .25 miles distant, has no comer on the roadway, and there is a traffic light for safe crossing at the intersection. Presently, as noted by Tangerine Project Manager Don Messler, there is a very light passenger load at the stop in front of the project. Applicant believes that encouragement of the use of this stop is not in the best safety interest of the citizens of Palm Springs, particularly the disadvantaged, elderly, and handicapped, the specific beneficiaries of General Plan Objective 7.7, General Plan Policy 7.7.1, and General Plan Policy 7.7.4. Overall Benefit Analysis General Plan Goal 7.A states: "Safe, efficient, and improved transportation facilities which will support Palm Springs goals for economic prosperity, environmental quality, and public access to jobs, housing, recreation and community services." Applicant submits that Tentative Tract Map 33542 has been universally received as a project that is good for Palm Springs. It has been supported by neighbors, and universally approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. It exceeds the R-3 requirements in every fashion, and its architecture and landscaping enhance the environment and beauty of Palm Springs. Candidly, a complete architectural redesign would necessitate a completely new architectural review and approval by planning, likely a one year process. This makes the project economically uuviable. Applicant believes the benefits of requiring the 12 foot bus turnout are miniscule and potentially negative, and do not make any significant impact towards furthering General Plan Goal 7.A, particularly when weighed against the benefits offered by the completion of the project. Conclusion Tentative Tract Map 33542 and Condition of Approval#51 cannot, as a practical matter, be read consistently. Unfortunately, the understanding between applicant and Planning Staff regarding the resolution of that inconsistency has not withstood staff changeover. For the reasons outlined above, Applicant respectfully requests the Planning Commission to approve the request to amend Tentative Tract Map 33542 and modify Development District PD-310 to remove Condition of Approval#51. Thank you. /Respectfully Su n ed, Eric . Guinan At mey for Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC Applicant Cc: Via Escula Land Partners 4 o�Q p Y.M A9 , ;N City of Palm Springs Office of the City Clerk o�' 3200 E.Tah uitz Canyon WaySprings,Palm California 92262 Tel: (760)323-8204 • Pax: (760)322-8332 • Web wwwa.palm-spnngs.ca.us q�OF®R� AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to consider an application by Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC., to amend the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development approval to modify the final development plan and eliminate Condition of Approval #51, as follows: "construct a 170-foot long by 12-feet wide bus turn out at the southwest corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. Construction of a bus stop shelter shall be required, with a design compatible to project architecture as approved by Sunline Transit Agency and the Director of Planning Services. Bus stop furniture and other accessories, as required by Sunline Transit Agency, shall be provided by the developer,"was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 25th day of May, 2006, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (117 notices mailed) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 31s1 day of May, 2006. MES THOMPSON ✓City Clerk i /kdh H:\USERS\C-CLK\Hearing Notices\Affidavit-SmoketreeCommons-2 Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Public Hearing Notice MS APRIL HILDNER MR TIM HOHMEIER Case 5.1038 PD-310 (TAHQUITZ RIVERS ESTATES) (DEEPWELL ESTATES) Tangerine 241 EAST MESQUITE AVENUE 1387 CALLE DE MARIA CC Meeting-06.07.06 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MS LAURI AYLAIAN MR JOHN HANSEN MS ROXANN PLOSS (HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB ORG) (WARM SANDS NEIGHBORHOOD) (BEL DESIERTO NEIGHBORHOOD ) 565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE PO BOX 252 930 CHIA ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MS MALLIKA ALBERT MS DIANE AHLSTROM MR BOB MAHLOWITZ (CHINO CANYON ORGANIZATION) (MOVIE COLONY NEIGHBORHOOD) (SUNMOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP) 2241 NORTH LEONARD ROAD 475 VALMONTE SUR 246 NORTH SYBIL ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MS PAULA AUBURN MR BOB DICKINSON MR BILL SCOTT (SUNRISEVISTA CHINO AREA) VISTA LAS PALMAS HOMEOWNERS (OLD LAS PALMAS NEGIBORHOOD) 1369 CAMPEON CIRCLE 755 WEST CRESCENT DRIVE 540 VIA LOLA PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MR. SEIMA MOLOI (DESERT HIGHLAND GATEWAY) MR PETE MORUZZI 359 W. SUNVIEW AVENUE MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-1459 HISTORIC SITE REP 1 1 1 PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. 5.1038 PD-310 PLANNING SERVICES DEPT MRS JOANNE BRUGGEMANS VERIFICATION NOTICE I 1 1 ATTN SECRETARY 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS INDIANS 1 II 1 1 1 1 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR MARK DUPONT MR BOB TEAFORD VIA ESCUELA LAND PARTNERS, LLC VIA ESCUELA LAND PARTNERS, LLC 50855 WASHINGTON STREET,#204 50855 WASHINGTON STREET,#204 SPONSORS 1 I I LA QUINTA, CA 92253 LA QUINTA, CA 92253 MR SKIP GOODELL MR DAVID K. RICE, DIRECTOR T.K.D.ASSOCIATES, INC. BRITTANY WEST COACHELLA VALLEY ENGINEERS 2121 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY,#1 32-220 RANCHO VISTA DR.,#206 77-899 WOLF ROAD, #102 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 CATHEDRAL.CITY, CA 92234 PALM DESERT, CA 92211 k!l YOA'U4=' /03 8 P.b 3/0 CC rr e��i it 6 . 0 '7. u Rec#: 1 APN:504-270-005 Rec#: 2 APN: 504-270-006 NORTH FIRST STREET PROP NORTH FIRST STREET PROP 1122 WILLOW ST 200 1122 WILLOW ST 200 SAN JOSE,CA 95125-3103 SAN JOSE,CA 95125-3103 Rec#: 3 APN: 504-270-007 Rec#: 4 APN: 504-270-008 NORTH FIRST STREET PROP NORTH FIRST STREET PROP 1122 WILLOW ST 200 1122 WILLOW ST 200 SAN JOSE,CA 95125-3103 SAN JOSE,CA 95125-3103 Rec#: 5 APN:504-270-009 Rec#: 6 APN: 504-270-014 JOSE GUERRERO WHITEWATER MUTUAL WATER CO 2177 N CERRITOS DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3401 Rec#: 7 APN: 504-270-015 Rec#: 8 APN: 504-270-016 MARCEL MASOUD BASSIRIAN DONALD R WARD 250 E PALM CANYON DR 133 THE MASTERS CIR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264-8824 COSTA MESA,CA 92627-4640 Rec#: 9 APN: 504-270-018 Rec#: 10 APN: 504-300-003 CALIFORNIA NURSING&REHAB CENTERS RICK PARROTT 495 LAS PALMAS DR 255 N EL CIELO 674 SANTA BARBARA,CA 93110-2104 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 Rec#: 11 APN: 504-300-004 Rec#: 12 APN: 504-300-007 RALPH E PATTERSON TOLA KORSUNSKI 1335 LONDONDERRY PL 1310 18TH ST 5 LOS ANGELES,CA 90069-1352 SANTA MONICA,CA 90404-1916 Rec#: 13 APN: 504-302-003 Rec#: 14 APN: 504-302-007 JOHN B PRINCE MOHAMMAD KARGOZAR 3289 VOSBURG ST 2045 BIRKDALE AVE PASADENA,CA 91107-1241 UPLAND,CA 91784-7987 Rec#: 15 APN: 504-302-025 Rec#: 16 APN: 504-302-026 CLARISSA RYTERBAND M LINDA PERKINS 339 W MARISCAL RD 5853 KENISTON AVE PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2907 LOS ANGELES,CA 90043-2943 Rec#: 17 APN: 504-302-027 Rec#: 18 APN: 504-302-028 CHARLES BACHS R TERRY LEMASTER 335 W MARISCAL RD 176 LOCH LOMOND RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2907 RANCHO MIRAGE,CA 92270-5600 Rec#: 19 APN: 504-302-049 Rec#: 20 APN: 504-310-027 WEST RIVIERA SHILO INN PALM SPRINGS 11600 SW SHILO LN PORTLAND,OR 97225-5919 (.�) Rec#: 21 APN: 504-310-030 Rec#: 22 APN:504-310-033 PALM COURT PALM COURT 1983 N PALM CANYON DR 1983 N PALM CANYON DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2919 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-2919 Rec#: 23 APN: 504-310-035 Rec#: 24 APN: 504-320-001 18308 HAWTHORNE BLVD EDWARDS OGDEN M TRUST PO BOX 394 1133 LOS ROBLES DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-0394 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-4123 Rec#: 25 APN: 504-320-005 Rec#: 26 APN: 504-320-021 DAE HUNG YOO WILLIAM REED GARNER 791 SAINT KATHERINE DR 1800 N PALM CANYON DR LA CANADA,CA 91011-4120 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2918 Rec#: 27 APN: 504-320-026 Rec#: 28 APN:504-320-028 PALM SPRINGS SUPER 8 LODGE LTD DAE HUNG YOO 1611 COUNTY ROAD B W 320 791 SAINT KATHERINE DR ROSEVILLE,MN 55113-4053 LA CANADA,CA 91011-4120 Rec#: 29 APN: 504-320-029 Rec#: 30 APN:504-350-001 DONALD R WARD JOHN P WAGNER 133 THE MASTERS CIR 1220 S LA JOLLA AVE COSTA MESA,CA 92627-4640 LOS ANGELES,CA 90035-2645 Rec#: 31 APN: 504-350-002 Rec#: 32 APN: 504-350-003 GEORGE B GEGENWORTH MICHAEL W FRIDAY 3836 LINDEN AVE 1872 N MIRA LOMA WAY LONG BEACH,CA 90807-3415 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-2973 Rec#: 33 APN: 504-350-004 Rec#: 34 APN:504-350-005 BRENDA CULHANE THOMASBOBAK PO BOX 5505 4312 TORRES AVE FRISCO,CO 80443-5505 FREMONT,CA 94536-4739 Rec#: 35 APN: 504-350-006 Rec#: 36 APN:504-350-007 LEONARD D BLACK ANTONI J CEMBRZYNSKI 5247 MELVIN AVE 369 S DOHENY DR 510 TARZANA,CA 91356-2945 BEVERLY HILLS,CA 90211 Rec#: 37 APN: 504-350-008 Rec#: 38 APN: 504-350-009 WILLIAMSON JOHN M TRUST T DAVID ESTES 12070 MOUND VIEW PL 206 CALLE CORTEZ STUDIO CITY,CA 91604-3632 SAN CLEMENTE,CA 92672-2238 Rec#: 39 APN: 504-350-010 Rec#: 40 APN: 350-011 PETER S DEBEAR FRANCOIS AILLEFER 280 N WESTLAKE BLVD 120 1852 RA LOMA WAY C WESTLAKE VILLAGE, CA 91362-7016 P SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 Rec#: 41 AP�j04 350-012 Rec#: 42 APN:504-350-013 RUTH ALV,,R 7 Z rp tl CHARLES H BLACK 1850 N RA LOMA WAY 1810 N MIRA LOMA WAY P SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 Rec#: 43 APN: 504-350-014 Rec#: 44 APN: 504-350-015 DONNA L ORTIZ MARK T LEE 803 S LINCOLN AVE 17969 CABELA DR MONTEREY PARK,CA 91755-4047 SAN DIEGO,CA 92127-1044 Rec#: 45 AP 4-350-016 Rec#: 46 APN: 504-350-017 TANYA SUX y M GREGORY C A ANDERSON 1818 IRA LOMA WAY !" '1550 N VIA NORTE P SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-4282 Rec#: 47 APN: 504-350-018 Rec#: 48 APN: 504-350-019 JERI L&BRADLEY C ECK RODGER D JONES 7210 MACQUARIE ST '1804 N MIRA LOMA WAY LA MESA,CA 91942-1425 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 Rec#: 49 APN: 504-350-020 Rec#: 50 APN: 504-350-021 KATHLEEN M LONGBOW J PETER POIT 1808 N MIRA LOMA WAY 1828 N MIRA LOMA WAY PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2977 Rec#: 51 APN: 504-350-022 Rec#: 52 APN:604-350-023 ROBBINS NEZHA S ROIDE 15 ROCK TOP RD PO BOX 4575 SEDONA,AZ 86351-8963 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263-4575 Rec#: 53 APN: 504-350-024 Rec#: 54 APN:504-350-025 MELVIN SCHWARTZ BRIAN D JOHNSON 1820 N MIRA LOMA WAY 1836 N MIRA LOMA WAY PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2977 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2977 Rec#: 55 APN: 504-350-026 Rec#: 56 APN:504-350-027 ANA MARIA SUAREZ ANDREW CHRISTOPHER STARKE 4106 ROUSSEAU LN 1901 E BARISTO RD PALOS VERDES PENINSULA,CA 90274-3950 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-7119 Rec#: 57 APN: 504-350-028 Rec#: 58 APN:504-350-029 MOSES BEKUNDA LAURA C ANGELL 1536 FAIRFAX AVE 8 4327 HAZELBROOK AVE LOS ANGELES,CA 90019 LONG BEACH,CA 90808-1343 Rec#: 59 APN: 504-350-030 Rec#: 60 APN:504-350-031 GLENN KENYON WILLIAM L FIELDS 858 CHENERY ST 13636 VENTURA BLVD 252 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94131-2909 SHERMAN OAKS,CA 91423 Rec#: 61 APN: 504-350-032 Rec#: 62 APN: 4-350-033 WILLIAM P HANSEY BARRY ByXSR le- 3213 W W HEETER ST 240 338 NTA ELENA RD SEATTLE,WA 98188 P M SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 Rec#: 63 APN: 504-350-034 Rec#: 64 APN: 504-350-035 DONALD L STONE LINDA L FERGUSON 5403 NEWCASTLE AVE 47 334 W SANTA ELENA RD ENCINO,CA 91316-2035 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 Rec#: 65 APN: 504-350-036 Rec#: 66 APN: 504-350-037 LOIS G PATNOU BETTY MCNEES 457 W LONGDEN AVE 68305 ENCINITAS RD ARCADIA,CA 91007-8130 CATHEDRAL CITY,CA 92234-5652 Rec#: 67 APN: 504-350-038 Rec#: 68 APN:504-350-039 NANCY J BROWN CAL VET 354 W SANTA ELENA RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 Rec#: 69 APN: 504-350-040 Rec#: 70 APN: 504-350-041 LEROY J OTWELL KEVIN R REEMS 18566 MADRONE ST 376 W SANTA ELENA RD HESPERIA,CA 92345-6624 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 Rec#: 71 APN: 504-350-042 Rec#: 72 APN:504-350-043 JOSHUA D BAIRD JANET SPIEGEL 374 W SANTA ELENA RD 372 W SANTA ELENA RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 Rec#: 73 APN: 504-350-044 Rec#: 74 APN: 504-350-045 KIM BRANDT LANGHORST WILLIAM CORRIGAN 1010 UNIVERSITY AVE 169 PO BOX 22927 SAN DIEGO,CA 92103 SANTA BARBARA,CA 93121-2927 Rec#: 75 APN: 504-350-046 Rec#: 76 APN:504-350-047 CYNTHIA DETIEGE RONDA SKLAR 100 S SUNRISE WAY 735 394 W SANTA ELENA RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-6737 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 Rec#: 77 APN: 504-350-048 Rec#: 78 APN: 504-350-049 JAMES WILLIAM WYATT LOT COMMON 5140 DIAMOND HEIGHTS A205 SAN FRANCISCO,CA 94131 Rec#: 1 APN: 504-270-009 Rec#: 2 A"4-270-015 p � RESIDENT �OO DENT 2150 N PALM CANYON DR 2 ALM CANYON DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2832 SPRINGS,CA 92262-2800 Rec#: 3 9BN: 504-270-016 Rec# 4 APN: 504-270-018 RESIDE RESIDENT 168 A ESCUELA 2299 N INDIAN CANYON DR LM SPRINGS,CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-3023 Rec#: 5 APN: 504-300-003 Rec#: 6 APN: 504-300-004 RESIDENT RESIDENT 301 W VIA ESCUELA 2020 N VIA NORTE PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2841 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2941 Rec#: 7 APN: 504-300-007 Rec#: 8 AP 04-302-003 RESIDENT RESIDENT �� 330 W MARISCAL RD 2072 IRA VISTA WAY PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2936 PAlfM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2949 Rec#: 9 AP . 04-302-007 Rec#: 10 APN: 4-302-026 RESIDENT n �„� RESIDENT 2052 IRO,VISTA WAY '` 337 W CAL RD P SPRINGS,CA 92262-2949 PAL SPRINGS,CA 92262-2907 Rec#: 11 APN: 504-302-028 Rec#: 12 APN: 504-310-027 RESIDENT RESIDENT 333 W MARISCAL RD 1875 N PALM CANYON DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2907 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2917 Rec#: 13 APN: 504-320-026 Rec#: 14 APN: 504-320-028 RESIDENT RESIDENT 1900 N PALM CANYON DR 2000 N PALM CANYON DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2920 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2922 Rec#: 15 APN: 504-320-029 Rec#: 16 AP 04-350-001 RESIDENT RESIDENT p n 2095 N INDIAN CANYON DR 1876 IRA LOMA WAY !v PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-3019 PAeM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2973 Rec#: 17 APN: 4-350-002 _ Rec#: 18 AP : 504-350-004 RESIDENT yyIItl RESIDEN 1874 N MI LOMA WAY 1" 1870 IRA LOMA WAY PALM RINGS,CA 92262-2973 P M SPRINGS,CA 92262-2973 Rec#: 19 APN: 504--005 Rec#: 20 APN: 4-350-006 RESIDENT RESIDENT p M 1868 N MIRA MA WAY I'� 1 1866 N A LOMA WAY 1' PALM SPAGS,CA 92262-2972 PAL SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 Rec#: 21 APN: Si -350-007 Rec#: 22 APN: 504-350-008 RESIDENT RESIDENT 1864 N AyF LOMA WAY ►�' 1 1860 N MIRA LOMA WAY PAL PRINGS,CA 92262-2972 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 Rec#: 23 A 504-350-009 Rec#: 24 AP 04-350-010 RESIDEN P : RESIDENT RESIDENT N 1856 IRA LOMA WAY A 1854 N RA LOMA WAY P M SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 P SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 Rec#: 25 AEltl: 504-350-014 Rec#: 26 APN' 04-350-015 RESIDEN RESIDENT 1812 IRA LOMA WAY K,M 1816 N LOMA WAY P M SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 PAL SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 Rec#: 27 APN: 504-350-017 Rec#: 28 APN: 504-350-018 RESIDENT RESIDENT 1800 N MIRA LOMA WAY A '1802 N MIRA LOMA WAY PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2972 Rec#: 29 APN: 504-350-022 Rec#: 30 A :504-350-023 RESIDE / RESIDEN 1826 MIRA LOMA WAYPi 1824 IRA LOMA WAY P M SPRINGS,CA 92262-2977 P SPRINGS,CA 92262-2977 Rec#: 31 APN: 504-350-024 Rec#: 32 APN: 504-350-026 RESIDENT RESIDENT 1820 N MIRA LOMA WAY D 1834 N MIRA LOMA WAY PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2977 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2977 Rec#: 33 APN: 504-350-027 Rec#: 34 APN: 504-350-028 RESIDENT RESIDENT 1832 N MIRA LOMA WAY 1830 N MIRA LOMA WAY PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2977 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2977 Rec#: 35 APN: 504-350-029 Rec#: 36 APN: 504-350-030 RESIDENT RESIDENT 326 W SANTA ELEIVA RD 324 W SANTA ELENA RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2974 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2974 Rec#: 37 APN: 504-350-031 Rec#: 38 APN: 504-350-032 RESIDENT RESIDENT 322 W SANTA ELEIVA RD 320 W SANTA ELENA RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2974 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2974 Rec#: 39 APy1:504-350-034 Z�ANTA : 504-350-036 RESIDEN 336 ANiA ELENA RD ENA RD P M SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 CA 92262-2975 Rec#: 41 APN: 504-350-037 Rec#: 42 APN: 504-350-040 RESIDENT RESIDENT 356 W SANTA ELENA RD 350 W SANTA ELENA RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 Rec#: 43 A -350-044 Rec#: 44 : 504-350-045 RESIDENT,,," RESIDE M 370 W NTA ELENA RD 398 SANTA ELENA RD P SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 ALM SPRINGS, CA 92262-2975 Rec#: 45 APN: 504-350-046 Rec#: 46 APN: -350-048 RESIDENT RESIDENT 396 W SANTA ELENA RD 390 W TA ELENA RD / PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 PA SPRINGS,CA 92262-2975 !'I I 1 ,fir ,' �i F A L I`1 2G��< PUBLICATION < ,,., I fR0 OF PUB ION €, : h2, L 0 • (201 rJ C.C•P` 1 his 1ti'Pace for County Clerk's Pllutg Stamp CL No. 171G NO710E OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL STATL OF CALIFORNIA CITY OF PALM SPRINGS County of Riverside CASE:SAWS PD-310,TTM 33542 AMENDMENT TO TTM 33542 AND THE OUT14WFST CORNED ER OOF V A TESCUELA AND NORTH PALM CANYON ORIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Ciry Council of the Clry of palm sprinqn California,will hold a public hearing at Its meeting of June 7,2006.The I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of City Council mer atq begin,. at s:oo p.m in the Council Chamber in L'be , t 6: Gast Tatiquitz the the County aforeSslidq -Canycn:Way. Palm Spurigs, 1 am over life age of eighteen The purpose of thin.hoaridg is,',a consider a re• years,and note art qu eel nyy VIC E•,Cuieln•Land Partners, LLO„ to ameh t'he Tentative 'rq,ct Map and Plannoa pe- p y to Or interested in the valopment approval to modify the final develop- abOYe-entitled matter.1 alp the merit plan and oliminate Condition of Approval f printer of the,A Principal cl�''Sft,RT SUN PUBLISHING Clerk or if51 is follows. "construct a 1T0-Iool long y 12- sect wide bus turn out at the southwest comer of COMPANY 9 newspaper Norlh Palm Canyon Drive and via Escueln. Con- p per of general circulation, struglon of a bus stop shelter ah¢il be rshwred, Printed and published in the city s with a design pompauble to project architecture Count of Patin prings, as approve by SuNlns Transit Agency and the y of Riverside,and which newspaper has been Director of Planning Services Sus-toy Turn are adjudged a newt' and other accussonos, as fa ulred b Sunlme paper of general circulation b Transit Agency,shall be provided by the develop• Superior Court of the County of Riverside,Stair of or California under the dale pf March 24, Tea site is located In Zone PD-310, Suction 3. Number 191236;that the notice, 19til Case annexed is a print of which khe rv` �,„^,;,��^ P riled copy(set in type not smaller - than non panel,has been published in each regular and entire issue of acid newspaper and not in any - • ' —� '- supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: �•� - -�` 7 r : - - ji All in the year 2006 I certify(or declare)under penalty of Perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. y ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION;T he Tcn- Aated at Palm Springs, tative-i Map 33542 is Categorlc:dly exempt California this from environmental ass8s-=Cnt par Section --day 1G33R11n-F�II Developmeof the Celifomiu Enw, ranmentel OOFtity Act(CAA);-- - - - _ / y '—~"-• —,ZQ(J( REVIEW of P60JELTINFORMATION:The staff report and other supporting documennt::rcgartling project are available for ppublic rimov,it Clty Hall between the hovers of 8:00 a.m. and S'e p.nt„ Mends through Fn*ay, Pleats contact the r Office o1 the City Clerk at {Me) 323-9204 If you 1 would like to schedule nn appointment to review M -•—" ` ..—.—.T_ these documents. Sign:�dtrc _ COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Revponso to this gaud/may rt made verore tale Ac the PIN I Hearing and/or in writing made t the hCityg�Wnl- ten co it(for m ry he made v the City Ceunetl by loiter(for mall or hand dahvary) to. James Thompson City Clerk 3200 E.Tahqultz banyyan Way Palm Spring::, CA 92262 4 \f Any ch:dlenqu or the proposed project in court m%,be limited to raising only thou;e ,'sues raked .,t the public hearing described In this notice or in wrlttcn porrespondencc dallvered to the t:Iry Clerk at, or pprior, to the ppublic hearing. (Govern- ment Code Section 650091b[21).An opportunity wal be given at slid hearing tior all interested per- sons to be heard Qoeallpne regarding this, case may be directed to Diane A. f3uliock, Planning Services, al 760-323-8245 SI riecosita ayuda Con estu carts,porfavor llama a Is Ciudad de Palm Spnnne y poede hablar can Nadine Fleger ielcibno (760) 3?,3-8245. James Thompson City Clark i Pubilaii 5/27/2006 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE: 5.1038 PD-310, TTM 33542 AMENDMENT TO TTM 33542 AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 310 THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF VIA ESCUELA AND NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE 140TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of June 7, 2006. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of this hearing is to consider a request by Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC., to amend the Tentative Tract Map and Planned Development approval to modify the final development plan and eliminate Condition of Approval #51, as follows: "construct a 170-foot long by 12-feet wide bus turn out at the southwest corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. Construction of a bus stop shelter shall be required, with a design compatible to project architecture as approved by Sunline Transit Agency and the Director of Planning Services. Bus stop furniture and other accessories, as required by Sunline Transit Agency, shall be provided by the developer." The site is located in Zone PD-310, Section 3. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The Tentative Tract Map 33542 is categorically Exempt from environmental assessment per Section 15332 (In-Fill Development) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding this project are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding-this case may be directed to Diane A. Bullock, Planning Services, at 760-323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. es Thompson, City Clerk N Department of Planning Services W E Vicinity Map ------------ ti iK ESCUE NTA a - z 4 V z M =Y O Z LIF2I O C '- Legend rc ® site w 500'R adws VISTA CHINO H-119 R CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5.1038 PD-310 DESCRIPTION: To consider a request by Via Escuela Land Partners to amend the Tentative Tract Map and modify the final development plan to eliminate Condition of APPLICANT: Via Escuela Land Partners Approval #51 at the southwest corner of Via Escuela and "Tangerine" Project North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone PD-310, Section 3. APN: 504-310-035. ERIC J. GUINAN Attorney at Law e; 175 E.Mesquite 2D@G��>i P 2R 1 Apo �� Post Office Box 2103 Palm Springs,CA 92263 760 285-5270 Fax 760 778-5710 ' ' ' 1 1"i Y C 1_"`„ May 25, 2006 Palm Springs City Council c/o Palm Springs City Cleric's Office 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 RE: Notice of Appeal of Palm Springs Planning Commission Action of May 24, 2006 TTM 33542 Case 5.1038 PD-310 Dear City Cleric Pursuant to Palm Springs Municipal Code Sections 9.63.090 and 2.05.030 et seq., please accept the following as Applicant/Appellant Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC's Notice of Appeal of the Palm Springs Planning Commission's May 24, 2006 decision regarding the above referenced Case Number, specifically their denial of Applicant/Appellant's request to amend Tentative Tract Map 33542 and modify Development District PD-310 to remove condition of approval 451, which reads as follows: "Construct a 170-foot long by 12-feet wide bus turnout at the southwest corner of North Palm Canyon Drive and Via Escuela. Construction of a bus stop shelter shall be required, with a design compatible to project architecture as approved by Srmline Transit Agency and the Director ofPlamling Services. Bus stop fim itu e and other accessories, as required by Sunline Transit Agency, shall be provided by the developer." Relief Sought: Approval of Applicant/Appellant's request to remove Condition #51. Address of Applicant/Appellant: Mark A. Dupont Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC 50-855 Washington St. #204 La Quinta, CA 92253 Appellant would additionally request this appeal he scheduled on the June 7, 2006 City Council Agenda. Tharlc you. Sincerely, / Eric J/ uinan Attdiney for Applicant/Appellant Cc: Via Escuela Land Partners, LLC Palm Springs City Plam7ing Patin Springs City Engineering