Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
3/12/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A.
To Planning Commission Re. Case No. 3.2999, 350 El Portal Analysis of Density and Scale Data taken from public records for those properties on El Portal and W. Overlook Road west of .Mesa Drive, the immediate impact area affected by the new house proposed at 350 El Portal. N is building size divided by lot size, an objective way to compare the relative amount of house on land for a collection of properties of various sizes and types of houses. Address Lot size a" Ftrs °L Zoned CQInMM 1885 Mesa 16,988 2724 1 16 Ric 1907 " 18,731 2456 1 13 RI 235 El Portal 10,454 1580 1 15 Ric 240 16,553 3330 1 20 Ric 245 16,117 1511 2 9 Ric 1 room on 2nd Fl 266 " 15,246 4689 1 31 Ric New courtyard house 277 18,295 4746 2 26 Ric Italianate on double lot 288 14,375 2313 1 16 RI 302 11,326 2208 1 19 Ric 305 10,119 2628 2 26 RIc Redone 2006 325 10,454 3348 1 32 Ric 3,M 9,583 1912 1 20 RI 345 27,007 5113 (1) 19 R1/Rlb Spanish Colonial estate 355 10,019 3074 2 31 R1 Cubist contemporary 356 34,859 2618 1 8 RI To be subdivided for 350* -368 " - - - 14,810 2850 1 19 Ric 375 " 59,677 2304 1 4 Ric 382 " 21,780 2965 2 14 Ric Garage under 1 tloor- 386 16,117 1750 1 11 Ric 390 54,450 1296 1 2 Ric 223 W avrlk 24,394 3054 1 13 Ric 226 32,234 1647 1 5 7 232 14,375 3391 1 24 7 241 17,424 5606 1 32 7 In 3 separate bldgs 254 13,939 3813 1 27 7 267 13,503 2340 1 17 Rlc 279 8,276 1822 1 22 Ric 290 10,454 1536 1 15 7 291 9,712 2136 1 25 Ric 299 8,276 1229 1 15 Ric 300 12,632 1566 1 12 Ric 301 8,712 2253 1 26 Rlc 319 " 11,760 1484 1 13 RI 324 10,018 740 1 7 7 Portion of Gillette Estate 325 16.800 2300 1 14 Rl 333 11.326 2222 1 20 Ric 303 Crstview26,136 5003 1 19 R1 Wouk Estate * If you divide this property into 2 lots, 356 becomes a 19,759 lot with 2619 hse (or 13% coverage) and 350, a 15,100 lot with 6355 hse(or 42%) nearly two-and-a-half times the average in the impact area which is 17.5%for El Portal and 18%for Overlook Road,,.. le h 14i 22 iliii RC4." 'vG Jay Thompson _ CIfY 141-17 S�� �. T From: Martha Edgmon ... 12 P'l 3: 2E Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 3:16 PM JA i'iES <• To: Jay Thompson Clfyi CLZ21, Viv Subject: FW: requesting you consider re-opening the public hearing r!ji— I'll give a coP�) to ,5tcvc and Craig r. lyart�a Ed,Y on [xccutiveAssistant Mayor Fr Council City o>r�alm,Springs Tel(76a)3z3.ezoo Fax.(J6o)323.9292 martl�a.cd,�monC�Palmspringsca;�o v From: Daniel in the Desert [mailto:danielitd@earthlink.net] Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2008 2:52 PM To: martha.edgmon@palmsprings-ca.gov Subject: requesting you consider re-opening the public hearing Wednesday March 12, 2008 Palm Springs City Council Re: Case No.: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 Dear Mayor Pouguet& Council Members, We are requesting you consider re-opening the public hearing for this case or schedule the public comment segment of tonight's meeting sometime before the vote on this issue. Some of my neighbors and I were not able to attend last weeks hearing and others would like to rebut statements made by the developer. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Marjorie Conley Aikens 760.327.3059 3/12/2008 oItpAI.MsA? iy c�`'F° CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 5 2008 ����VLt4 ���� PUBLIC HEARING V d') SUBJECT: STEVEN VAN, OWNER — CASE NOS. 3.2999 - SFR & 7.1215 - AMM FOR ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION FOR AN INCREASE IN BUILDING HEIGHT FOR APPROXIMATELY 6,172 SQUARE FEET TWO STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ON A HILLSIDE LOT LOCATED AT 350 EL PORTAL. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: The Planning Department SUMMARY The City Council will consider a proposed redesigned two-story single-family residence by Steven Van on approximately 15,116 square feet hillside lot located at 350 El Portal. The Planning Commission denied the project at its hearing on December 12, 2007. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a) (New Single-family residence).A hearing has been noticed on this item. RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt RESOLUTION NO. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, DENYING A PROPOSED TWO-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE BY STEVEN VAN BY UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE NOS. 3.2999 SFR AND 7.1215 AMM". BACKGROUND: On December 21, 2006 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project and voted 6-0-1 (Donald Wexler was absent) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission. ITEM NO. City Council Staff Report March 5, 2008 Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 Page 2 of 4 On February 14, 2007 the Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on and voted to continue the item to the February 28, 2007 meeting. On February 28, 2007 the Planning Commission held a second Public Hearing and voted to refer the project back to the Architectural Committee to review building height, roof lines, ridge lines, window locations and consideration of the project architecture and its fit into the neighborhood character. The Commission continued its hearing on the project to March 28, 2007 to allow for the AAC review. On March 26, 2007 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project based on the Planning Commission's direction. The AAC asked the applicant to consider a redesign of the second story and the applicant agreed. On March 28, 2007, the Planning Commission held a third public hearing, wherein staff, based on the recommendation of the Architectural Advisory Committee and the agreement of the applicant, moved to continue the item to an indefinite date, to allow redesign of the proposed project. Subsequently the applicant asked staff to seek AAC review of the original project, with no revisions. Staff declined to return to AAC without project revisions, but would instead forward the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial. On May 23, 2007 the Planning Commission held its fourth public hearing on the project. The applicant presented the original project as submitted to the Planning Commission at previous hearings. At this meeting the applicant asked for a continuance in order to submit redesigned plans. The Planning Commission determined that the continuance was not warranted and then voted to deny the project by a vote of 6-0-1 (Caffery recused). On June 4, 2007 the applicant, Steve Van appealed the May 23, 2007 decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. On July 11, 2007 the City Council voted 3-0 to continue this item to the July 18, 2007 meeting with no public testimony given. On July 18, 2007 the City Council voted 4 -1 (McColloch opposed) to overturn the Planning Commission's decision with the following directions: • The applicant to conduct a neighborhood outreach • The applicant to revise the project design to address privacy concerns • Resubmit the revised project to AAC and the Planning Commission. On November 13, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the redesign of the project and voted 5-2 (O'Donnell & Hudson opposed) to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission with the following recommendations: Mon City Council Staff Report March 5, 2008 Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 Page 3 of 4 • That the applicant reduces the proposed parking space area and replace them with landscaping. • That the final landscape plan be brought back to the AAC for final approval. On December 12, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed the project and by a vote of 5-1 (Vice Chair Hochanadel opposed), denied the project for the following reasons: • The height of the proposed building was too tall • The proposed building is out of character with the neighborhood • The size of the proposed building was too massive STAFF ANALYSIS: On July 18, 2007, the City Council held a hearing to consider an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny an application by Steven Van for a new single-family residence on a hillside lot at 350 El Portal, west of South Palm Canyon Drive. The project description and analysis are contained in the attached Planning Commission staff reports. Planning Commission meeting minutes related to the application are also attached. At the hearing of July 18, 2007, the City Council in overturning the Planning Commission's decision and directed the applicant to meet with the neighbors, make appropriate changes to the design, address privacy issues and resubmit the proposal for architectural review. The applicant, with guidance from city staff conducted a meeting in which only four residents of the neighborhood attended. The applicant made revisions to the proposed building by eliminating the windows and balconies from the second floor. (The initial submittal called for a two-story dwelling with two open balconies; the first balcony was located off of the master bedroom and oriented northeast; the second balcony was located on the north portion of the site connected to a fitness room and oriented northwest.) The revised design places the upstairs guest rooms on the first floor, reducing the second floor by approximately 890 square feet. Both balconies have been removed. RECOMMENDATION Based on the fact that the applicant satisfied the City Council's directions from July 18, 2007, staff recommended approval to the Planning Commission. However, the Commission looked at other issues relating to the height, scale and size of the proposed building on a lot that barely meet the criteria of a hillside lot. The Commission concluded that the proposed building does not fit the character of the neighborhood and recommended denial to the City Council. This is a close call for staff for all the reasons stated above; however, since the recommendation of the Commission is, for denial, staff supports this recommendation. City Council Staff Report March 5, 2008 Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 Page 4 of 4 FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. ra' A. ing, !MTE Thomas J. Wiln Di �c of Pla ervices Assistant City'Manager, Dev't Svcs David H. Ready ` City Manager Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 7089 4. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated December 12, 2007 5. Planning Commission Staff report dated December 12, 2007, with exhibits Department of Planning Services N N Vicinity Map WE + S EL CAMINO oz- A O G1 m Co U O-F �O OVERLOOK RO J ¢400xR0 O —- EL-PORTAI __ GPM\NO P KVRPS Legend Project Area �- 400' Buffer CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DESCRIPTION: Application for architectural review CASE NO: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 and administraive minor modificatio for a6.355 s.f. SFR APPLICANT: Steven J. Van located at 350 El Portal Zoned R-1-13 Section 27. APN:513-380-059 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA DENYING CASE NO. 3.2999-SFR AND 7.1215-AMM LOCATED AT 350 EL PORTAL —A SFR, ,ZONE R-1-13, SECTION 27. WHEREAS, Steven J. Van ("Applicant') has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code for a single-family dwelling unit located at 350 El Portal, Zone R-1 6, Section 27; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2007, the City Council directed the applicant to revise the project design to address privacy issues, conduct a neighborhood outreach and submit the revised project to AAC and the Planning Commission for review, and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the redesign of the project, and by a vote of 5-2, recommended approval to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2007, a public meeting on the application for architectural approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on March 5, 2008, a public meeting on the application for architectural approval was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project' pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (single-family residence) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; 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 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is Categorically Exempt, Class III, per Section 15303(a), new construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. Section 2: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.04.00(E) and Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 94.04.00(D), the Planning Commission has reviewed the following: The required findings for the Administrative Minor Modification (Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code) are as follows: City Council Resolution March 5,2008 Case 3.2999,7.1215 Page 2 of 4 1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance. The Administrative Minor Modification meets all the requirements of General Plan Policy 3.4.4. There are no Specific Plans associated with this parcel, and the manner of the modification is specifically allowed by Section 94.04.01(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code- 2- The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification. Due to site topography of the neighboring residential properties, the height, mass and scale of the proposed project do not fit the well established character of the neighborhood. As a result, the neighboring properties will be adversely affected by the proposed dwelling. 3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. All construction will be built to the Uniform Building Code, Palm Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and Fire Code. 4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood. The modification is warranted due to topography of the site which has an undulating surface with slopes of 10% or more. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL The Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development projects conformance is evaluated, based on consideration of the following: 1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and to open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas; i.e., sidewalks as distinct from parking areas; Access to the proposed project is designed according to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and within the development standards of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance. The structure is centrally massed with a secondary garage located in the rear of the property, and the primary garage facing the primary street. The recreation area is located to the north eastern corner of the parcel. . • C7�I�� 'I � City Council Resolution March 5,2008 Case 3 2999,7 1215 Page 3 of 4 2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted; The surrounding properties are single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The size and mass of surrounding residences are smaller than the proposed project. The project does not create a harmonious relationship with the surrounding properties within the context of the immediate area. The proposed pad does not compliment the neighborhood's historic development patterns for massing and second stories, thus presenting an overwhelming fagade to the street. The proposed project is excessive in height, size and mass, and does not follow the historic development of the neighborhood. 3. Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall mass, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, screens towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical equipment; The building is proposed on a hillside lot that minimally qualifies based on pre- graded topography, allowing for the most discretion in building height to a maximum height of 30 feet. The project proposes a height of 26 feet. The yards meet or exceed minimum requirements and a masonry wall will conceal any mechanical equipment. 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; AND 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, The building configuration uses the available space to create a large central mass. Door and window architectural features and overhangs are designed in a Mediterranean style. The proposed color palette is muted and reflects colors found in the mountains and desert vegetation. 7. Location and type of planting, with regard for desert climate conditions. preservation of specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with proper irrigation to insure maintenance of all plant materials; The site contains a number of mature trees and plants that will be removed, The majority of the specimen trees will be preserved and relocated throughout the proposed landscape. The landscape design proposes drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover with an emitter irrigation system. QQQ�Q1a City Council Resolution March 5,2008 Case 3.2999,7 1215 Page 4 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby denies Case No. 32999 — SFR and 7.1216 AMM. ADOPTED this _day of , 2008. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk 000009 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2007 6. Case 07-043�LU,P�_ �ppLioatiow ir=L4 Ie a o une e ` associated^ sociated displays located at 115 South Palm you Drive,Zone CBD, Section 15, APN: 513-143-009. (Projec tanner: istopher Ison, Planning Technician) Craig A. Ewl rovided background information as outlined ' e staff report dated December 12, . Mr. Ewing noted an e-mail was receiv om the applicant stating she is unable to att the meeting. Commissioner Scott corn ed that he drov the site and noted many cluttered items displayed outdoors, S spond at only the approved items would be authorized to be displayed outdoors. Chair Marantz also expressed tern wit o many items cluttering outdoors. Staff noted there are several di ent ways to app this if this becomes an on-going problem. M/SIC (Caffery Chair Hochanadel, ") TO approve, ct to Conditions of Approval, a ended: i Revis Condition #8: The displays shall be maintained in a first class cc ' 'on and ke ree from rust and 0I#�ee ove rom view until such time as they are repaired. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7. Case 3.2999 5FR 17.1218 AMM - A request by Steven Van to consider a re- designed single-family residence on a hillside lot located at 350 El Portal Road, Zone 11-1-13, APN: 513-380-078. (Project Planner: Christopher Ison, Planning Technician) Edward Robertson, Principal Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated December 12, 2007, Mr_ Robertson noted two sets of plans are displayed consisting of the original plan and the revised plan. Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing: -Steven Van, applicant, provided further details on the redesign of the project; including removal of the two balconies (addressing the privacy concerns) and reduction of the second floor (addressing massing concerns), Mr. Van noted he has tried to accommodate the neighbors as much as possible and addressed the gate in the rear of the property. 4 oa�a �� City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of December 12,2007 i -Daniel Hogan, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project, concerned with the height and mass for the neighborhood. -Dan Valentino, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project, concerned with mass and the hillside designation given to this property. -Tom Warrick, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project, concerned with mass and hillside designation for this property. -John Harrell, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project, addressed rear access road and voiced concern with the hillside designation, mass, compatibility and preservation. -Steve Van, addressed testimony, addressed the hillside ordinance and the right to build on this property. Mr_ Van requested approval of the project. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Caffery stated this parcel has been determined as a hillside lot and the argument is if the project meets the intent of the hillside ordinance. Mr. Caffery felt it should be respectful of the surrounding area and conform to the land. Chair Marantz indicated that she drove by the property and none of the surrounding homes are 26 feet in height. Vice Chair Hochanadel noted if this project was built with a flat roof(18 feet) it would only be limited to the criteria of the architectural guidelines within the Zoning Code. Commissioner Caffery stated he is in opposition of the project because he felt it is inconsistent with the intent of the hillside ordinance - the additional height was not used in conformance with the slope of the land, and the project design is not respectful of the surroundings and of an inappropriately large scale. MISIC (Caffery/Scott, 5-1Nice Chair Hochanadel) To deny. Mr. Ewing noted this is a recommendation to the City Council and would be scheduled for a City Council hearing_ Case 5.1171 PD 351 / TTM 35544 - An application b c son of i to create one lot for pose of converting the existing 13 uni into 12 condominium units with covered parking, a six to w along San Lorenzo Road on approximately 0. s located at 588 San Lo Zone R-3, Section 23 . 508-191-013 and 031. (Project Planner er Bro tract Planner) 5 RESOLUTION NO. 7089 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA FOR THE DENIAL OF CASE NO. 3.2999 (350 EL PORTAL) —A SFR, ZONE R-1-13, SECTION 27. WHEREAS, Steven J. Van ("Applicant') has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.04.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Code for a single-family dwelling unit located at 350 El Portal, Zone R-1-B, Section 27; and WHEREAS, on July 18, 2007, the City Council directed the applicant to revise the project design to address privacy issues, conduct a neighborhood outreach and submit the revised project to AAC and the Planning Commission for review, and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the redesign of the project, and by a vote of 5-2, recommended approval to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2007, a public meeting on the application for architectural approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'), and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (single-family residence) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS.- Section 1: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is Categorically Exempt, Class III, per Section 15303(a), new construction of a single-family residence in a residential zone. Section 2: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.04.00(E) and Section 94,06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 94.04.00(D), the Planning Commission has reviewed the following: The required findings for the Administrative Minor Modification (Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code) are as follows: 1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance. 000912 a Planning Commission Resolution January 9,2008 Case 32999,7.1215 Page 2 of 4 The Administrative Minor Modification meets all the requirements of General Plan Policy 3.4.4. There are no Specific Plans associated with this parcel, and the manner of the modification is specifically allowed by Section 94.04.01(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code, 2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification_ Due to site topography of the neighboring residential properties, the height, mass and scale of the proposed project do not fit the well established character of the neighborhood. As a result, the neighboring properties will be adversely affected by the proposed dwelling_ 3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity. All construction will be built to the Uniform Building Code, Palm Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and Fire Code. 4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood. The modification is warranted due to topography of the site which has an undulating surface with slopes of 10% or more. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: The Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development projects conformance is evaluated based on consideration of the following: 1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and to open spaces and topography, definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas; Le_, sidewalks as distinct from parking areas; Access to the proposed project is designed according to the requirements of the Uniform Building Code, and within the development standards of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance_ The structure is centrally massed with a secondary garage located in the rear of the property, and the primary garage facing the primary street. The recreation area is located to the north eastern corner of the parcel- 2 Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in 000013 Planning Commission Resolution January 9,2008 Case 32999,7.1215 Page 3 of 4 the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted; The surrounding properties are single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The size and mass of surrounding residences are smaller than the proposed project. The project does not create a harmonious relationship with the surrounding properties within the context of the immediate area. The proposed pad does not compliment the neighborhood's historic development patterns for massing and second stories, thus presenting an overwhelming fagade to the street. The proposed project is excessive in height, size and mass, and does not follow the historic development of the neighborhood. 3_ Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall mass, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, screens towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical equipment; The building is proposed on a hillside lot that minimally qualifies based on pre- graded topography, allowing for the most discretion in building height to a maximum height of 30 feet. The project proposes a height of 26 feet. The yards meet or exceed minimum requirements and a masonry wall will conceal any mechanical equipment_ 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; AND 5_ Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, The building configuration uses the available space to create a large central mass. Door and window architectural features and overhangs are designed in a Mediterranean style. The proposed color palette is muted and reflects colors found in the mountains and desert vegetation. 7. Location and type of planting, with regard for desert climate conditions. Preservation of specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with proper irrigation to insure maintenance of all plant materials; The site contains a number of mature trees and plants that will be removed. The majority of the specimen trees will be preserved and relocated throughout the proposed landscape. The landscape design proposes drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover with an emitter irrigation system. Planning Commission Resolution Januaty 9,2006 Casa 3.2999,7.1215 Page 4 of 4 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Case No. 32999 — SFR and 7.1215 AMM. ADOPTED this 91h day of January, 2008. AYES: 6, Cohen, Caffery, Marantz, Hochanadel, Ringlein and Scott NOES: None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN. None. ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA ;ai . E ing, AICP Dire of Planni ervices . • QQQQ1� OF PALM S A� {J N ie t �VTRRR9�,�• Y Planning Commission Staff Repori Date: December 12, 2007 Case No's: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM Type: Single Family Residence Location: 350 El Portal APN: 513-380-078 Applicant: Steven Van General Plan: L-2 (Low Density Residential) Zone: R-1-13 (Single-family Residential) From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services Project Planner: Edward O. Robertson, Principal Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The proposal is a request by Steven J. Van, owner, for architectural approval and Administrative Minor Modification for an increase in building height in order to construct an approximately 6,172 square foot two story single-family residence on a parcel approximately 0.435 acres or 15,116 square feet, located at 350 El Portal. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Case No 3.2999 SFR and 7,1215 AMM, a two story single-family residence located at 350 El Portal. 0000]6 Planning Commission Staff Report December 12, 2007 Case 3,2999, 7.1215 Page 2 of 7 PRIOR ACTIONS: On December 21, 2006 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project and voted 6-0-1 (Wexler was absent) to recommend approval to the Planning Commission. On February 14, 2007 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to continue the item to the February 28, 2007 meeting. On February 28, 2007 the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to refer the project back to the Architectural Committee to review the building height, roof lines, ridge lines, window locations and consideration of the project architecture and its fit into the neighborhood character. The Commission continued its hearing on the project to March 28, 2007 to allow for the AAC review. On March 26, 2007 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the project based on the Planning Commission's direction. The Architectural Advisory Committee asked the applicant to consider a redesign of the second story and the applicant agreed. On March 28, 2007 Planning Commission held a third public hearing, wherein staff, based on the recommendation of the Architectural Advisory Committee and the agreement of the applicant, moved to continue the item to an indefinite date, to allow the applicant time to revise the proposed project. However, the applicant later asked staff to seek AAC review of the original project, with no revisions. Staff declined to return to AAC without project revisions, but instead forwarded the project to the Planning Commission with a recommendation for denial. On May 23, 2007 the Planning Commission held its fourth public hearing on the project. The applicant presented the original project as submitted to the Planning Commission at previous hearings. At this meeting the applicant asked for a continuance in order to submit redesigned plans. The Planning Commission determined that the continuance was not warranted and then voted to deny the project by a vote of 6-0-1 (Caffery recused). On June 4, 2007 the applicant, Steve Van appealed the May 23, 2007 decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council. On July 11, 2007 the City Council voted 3-0 to continue this item to the July 18, 2007 meeting with no public testimony given. On July 18, 2007 the City Council voted 4 -1 (McCulloch opposed) to overturn the Planning Commission's decision with the following directions: • The applicant to conduct a neighborhood outreach • The applicant to revise the project design to address privacy concerns Planning Commission Staff Report December 12, 2007 Case 3.2999, 7.1215 Page 3 of 7 • Return the revised project to AAC and the Planning Commission. On November 13, 2007 the Architectural Advisory Committee reviewed the redesign of the project and voted 5-2 to approve the project to the Planning Commission with the following recommendations: • That the applicant reduce proposed parking spaces and replace them with landscaping. • That the final landscape plan be brought back to the AAC for final approval. BACKGROUND AND SETTING: The project has been redesigned based upon the comments and conditions of the City Council. The initial submittal called for a two story dwelling with two open balconies; the first balcony was located off of the master bedroom and oriented northeast; the second balcony was located on the north portion of the site connected to a fitness room and oriented northwest. Based upon the City Council requirement to address the concerns of the neighborhood including privacy and massing, the current submittal places the upstairs guest rooms on the first floor, reducing the second floor by approximately 890 square feet. Both balconies have been removed. The proposed residence will be located on an interior hillside lot bounded by single family residences. The subject parcel is a hillside lot with an approximate average depth of 120 feet and an approximate average width of 110 feet. Access to the proposed site will be provided from El Portal off of South Palm Canyon Drive. The surrounding Land Uses are tabled below: Table 1 Surrounding land uses: General Plan Zone Land Use North L2 R-1-B Single-Family Residence South L2 R-1-B Sin le-Famil Residence [fast L2 R-1-B Single-Family Residence West L2 I R-1-13 Single-Family Residence ANALYSIS: GENERAL PLAN The General Plan Designation of the subject site is L2 (Low Density Residential). Low Density Residential allows for single and multiple family dwellings to a maximum density of 2 dwelling units per acre. Based on the L-2 Designation the subject site may be Planning Commission Staff Report December 12, 2007 Case 3.2999, 7 1215 Page 4 of 7 developed with one dwelling unit, and is consistent with the General Plan. Also, General Plan Policy 3.4.4 allows for an increase in building height to a maximum height of 30 feet, on hillside lots. ZONING ORDINANCE The proposed project is a single-family residence within the R-1-B Zone. Pursuant to the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code, Section 92.01.01(A) (1), permanent single-family dwellings are permitted within the R-1-B Zone, and may exceed the 18 foot height limit on hillside lots with an Administrative Minor Modification. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.06.00 (29) (a.) requires all single- family homes to provide two covered parking spaces per dwelling unit, and this requirement is met by the two proposed two car garages. Details of the property development standards for the proposed project in relation to the requirements of the R-1-B zone are shown in Table 2. Table 2 Development Standards: R-1-13 Proposed Pro'ect a rox. Lot Area 15,000 square feet 15,116 Lot Width 130 feet 110 feet Lot Depth 120 feet 120 feet Front Yard 20 feet 23 feet Interior Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet Rear Yard 15 feet 15 feet Building Height 12 feet at setback 12 feet at setbacks 18 feet maximum 26 feet maximum by AMM Building Coverage 35% 32% Dwelling size 1440 square feet 6,172 square feet minimum The proposed development conforms to the R-1-B development standards, as modified by Administrative Minor Modification. ARCHITECTURE: The proposed residence is styled as Spanish Colonial architecture with a Mediterranean influence and includes a pool and spa. The proposed structure incorporates a variety of Planning Commission Staff Report December 12, 2007 Case 3.2999, 7.1215 Page 5 of 7 architectural features such as clay tile roofs, columns, a cantilevered second floor, and a stucco exterior. The color palette is brown with desert hues and red brick accents. REQUIRED FINDINGS: The only required findings for this project is for the Administrative Minor Modification, Pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code: 1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance. The AAM meets all the requirements of General Plan Policy 3.4.4, there are no Specific Plans associated with this parcel, and the manner of modification is specifically allowed by Section 94.04.01(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. 2. The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification. Staff has determined there will be no detrimental effect to the surrounding properties as the structure is a multi-level pad incorporating the proposed residence into the hillside without a significant impact to the scenic corridor. All windows of the second floor are oriented away from private property where possible, and the home is less then the maximum height of 30'. 3. The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site orin the vicinity. All construction will be built to the Uniform Building Code, Palm Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and Fire Code. 4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood. The modification to height is warranted due to topography of the site which has an undulating surface with slopes of 10% or more, in accordance with Section 94.06.01(A)(8), which requires approval be based on the finding that such minor modification will not have detrimental effect upon adjacent properties; which is covered in finding number two above. 000020 Planning Commission Staff Report December 12, 2007 Case 3.2999, 7.1215 Page 6 of 7 ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL: The Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 94.04.00(D)(1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development projects to determine that the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants as well as being compatible with the character of adjacent and surrounding developments, and whether aesthetically it is of good composition, materials, textures and colors. Conformance is evaluated, based on consideration of the following: 1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and to open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas i.e., sidewalks as distinct from parking areas; The building is centrally massed with a secondary garage located in the rear of the property, and the primary garage facing the street. The recreation area is located to the north eastern corner of the parcel. 2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted; The surrounding properties are single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The project creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood through use of a desert palette and Spanish architecture which is in keeping with the historic development of the neighborhood. 3. Maximum height area, setbacks and overall mass, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, screens towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical equipment; The building is proposed on a hillside lot with a tri-level pad and proposing a building height up to 26 feet. The yards meet or exceed minimum requirements and a masonry wall will conceal any mechanical equipment- 4- Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; AND 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, The building is a square shaped mass. This configuration uses the available space adequately to balance living space with open space. Door and window architectural 609021 Planning Commission Staff Report December 12, 2007 Case 3.2999, 7.1215 Page 7 of 7 features and overhangs are designed in a Mediterranean style. The proposed color palette is muted and reflects colors found in the mountains and desert vegetation. 7. Location and type of planting, with regard for desert climate conditions. Preservation of specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with proper irrigation to insure maintenance of all plant materials; The site contains a number of the specimen trees that will be preserved and relocated throughout the proposed landscape. The landscape design proposes drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover with an emitter irrigation system. CONCLUSION: The proposed project is allowed by right-of-zone and is consistent with the land use policies of the General Plan and the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code, as modified by Administrative Minor Modification. The Architectural Advisory Committee recommended approval of the project to the Planning Commission as well. Therefore, staff is recommending approval of Case No. 3.2999 and Case No. 7.1215, subject to the conditions of approval attached herein as Exhibit A. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is Categorically Exempt per Section 15303(a)(New Single-family residence). NOTIFICATION: A public hearing notice was advertised and mailed to property owners within 400 feet of the subject property. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any comment. �k J Idtard 0. ertson i wing, AICP Principal Planner Dir o ar of Planning ices Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Reduced copies of site plan and elevations 5. Letters from neighbors Department of Planning Services W+E 'r Vicinity Map 5 of �ii WOU I I II Ob RLO 0KR0 I l r 1 l w I � I yy !I I I - EL PORigL � 1 I I i I o w _ I y Legend , i - Q 400 Foot Radius Esc � Projecl.Site - rSurrounding Parcels CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 3.2999 SFR & DESCRIPTION: To consider a re-designed Single- 7.1215 AMM Family Residence by Steven Van on a hillside lot located at 350 El Portal Road, zoned R-1-13• APPLICANT. Steven J. Van APN: 513-380-078, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA FOR THE APPROVAL OF CASE NO. 3.2999 (350 EL PORTAL) — A SFR, ZONE R-1-B,-SECTION 27. WHEREAS, Steven J. Van ("Applicant°) has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94-04-00 of the Zoning Ordinance fora single-family dwelling unit located at 350 El Portal, Zone R-1-13, Section 27; and WHEREAS, on November 13, 2007, the Architectural Advisory Committee met and voted to recommend approval of the project to the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, on December 12, 2007, a public hearing meeting on the application for architectural approval was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project' pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (single-family residence) pursuant to Section 15303(a) of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission 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 PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the project is Categorically Exempt, Class III, per Section 15303(a), new construction of a single-family residence, or a second dwelling unit in a residential zone- Section 2: Pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.04.00(E) and Section 94.06.01(A)(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, in accordance with the guidelines established in Section 94.04.00(D), the Planning Commission has reviewed the following: The only required findings for this project is for the Administrative Minor Modification, Pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8)of the Palm Springs Zoning Code: 1. The requested minor modification is consistent with the General Plan, applicable Specific Plan(s) and overall objectives of the zoning ordinance. The AAM meets all the requirements of General Plan Policy 3.4.4, there are no Specific Plans associated with this parcel, and the manner of the modification is specifically allowed by Section 94.04.01(8) of the Palm Springs Zoning Code. 000024 Planning Commission Resolution December 12, 2007 Case 3.2999 Page 2 of 3 2- The neighboring properties will not be adversely affected as a result of the approval or conditional approval of the minor modification. There will be no detrimental effect to the surrounding properties as the structure is a multi-level pad incorporating- the- proposed residence into the hillside without a significant impact to the scenic corridor- All windows of the second floor are oriented away from private property where possible, and the home is less then the maximum height of 30'. The Architectural Review process guarantees the architectural character of the dwelling is of high quality- 3- The approval or conditional approval of the minor modification will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or general welfare of persons residing or working on the site or in the vicinity- All construction will be built to the Uniform Building Code, Palm Springs Zoning Code as modified by this Administrative Minor Modification, and Fire Code- 4. The approval of the minor modification is justified by environmental features, site conditions, location of existing improvements, or historic development patterns of the property or neighborhood. The modification is warranted due to topography of the site which has an undulating surface with slopes of 10% or more. ARCHITECTURAL APPROVAL The Palm Springs Zoning Cade Section 94.04.00(D) (1-9) provides guidelines for the architectural review of development projects conformance is evaluated, based on consideration of the following-, 1. Site layout, orientation, location of structures and relationship to one another and to open spaces and topography. Definition of pedestrian and vehicular areas; i.e., sidewalks as distinct from parking areas; The building is centrally massed with a secondary garage located in the rear of the property, and the primary garage facing the street- The recreation area is located to the north eastern corner of the parcel. 2. Harmonious relationship with existing and proposed adjoining developments and in the context of the immediate neighborhood community, avoiding both excessive variety and monotonous repetition, but allowing similarity of style, if warranted; The surrounding properties are single-family residences, with a mix of one and two stories. The project creates a visual harmony within the neighborhood through use of a desert palette and Spanish architecture which is in keeping with the historic development of the neighborhood. 060025 Planning Commission Resolution December 12, 2007 Case 3.2999 Page 3 of 3 3. Maximum height, area, setbacks and overall mass, as well as parts of any structure (buildings, walls, screens towers or signs) and effective concealment of all mechanical equipment, The building is proposed-on-a-hillside lot with a tri-level pad allowing for the most discretion in building height to a maximum height of 26 feet. The yards meet or exceed minimum requirements and a masonry wall will conceal any mechanical equipment. 4. Building design, materials and colors to be sympathetic with desert surroundings; AND 5. Harmony of materials, colors and composition of those elements of a structure, including overhangs, roofs, and substructures which are visible simultaneously, AND 6. Consistency of composition and treatment, The building is a square shaped mass. This configuration uses the available space adequately to balance living space with open space. Door and window architectural features and overhangs are designed in a Mediterranean style. The proposed color palette is muted and reflects colors found in the mountains and desert vegetation. 7. Location and type of planting, with regard for desert climate conditions. Preservation of specimen and landmark trees upon a site, with proper irrigation to insure maintenance of all plant materials; The site contains a number of the specimen trees that will be preserved and relocated throughout the proposed landscape. The landscape design proposes drought tolerant trees, shrubs and groundcover with an emitter irrigation system. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Case No. 3.2999 — SFR and Case No, 7A215. ADOPTED this day of , 2007. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services I) EXHIBIT A CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE 32999 SFR AND 7.1215 AMM LOCATION 350 EL PORTAL DECEMBER 12, 2007 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. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ADMINISTRATIVE 1_ The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations- 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 32999 and/or 7.1215. 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 000027 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 owners) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations - of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 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 feeing 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 to 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 development 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. Cultural Resources 6. 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. 7. 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 Monitor(s) shall be 000OG'8 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 8. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning Services prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. GENERAL CONDITIONS/CODE REQUIREMENTS 9. Commencement of use or construction under this Architectural Approval shall be within two (2) years from the effective date of approval. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause. 10. The appeal period for Case No. 3.2999 or 7.1215 is 15 calendar days from the date of project approval. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has concluded_ 11. 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. 12. 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. 13. All materials on the flat portions of the roof shall be earth tone in color. 000029 14_ 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. 15. 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. 16. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 17. Submit plans meeting City standard for approval on the proposed trash and recyclable materials enclosure prior to issuance of a building permit. 18. Details of pool fencing (material and color) and equipment area shall be submitted with final landscape plan. 19, No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except approved alarm systems. 20. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan. 21_ 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. POLICE DEPARTMENT 22. Developer shall comply with Section 11 of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 23. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured_ FIRE 24. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible From the street or road fronting the property. (901.4.4 CFC) Show location of address on plan elevation view. Show requirement and dimensions of numbers in plan notes. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches, and of contrasting color to the background- - 000030 25. Residential Smoke Detector Installation With Fire Sprinklers: Provide Residential Smoke Detectors (FIRFX # 0498 accessory module connected to multi-station FIRFX smoke detectors or equal per dwelling and fire sprinkler flow switch). Detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring, and shall be equipped with a battery backup. (310.9-1.3 CBC) In new construction, detectors shall be interconnected so that operation of any smoke detector causes the alarm in all smoke detectors within the dwelling to sound. (2-2.2-1 NFPA 72) Provide a note on the plans showing this requirement- 26. Access: Fire department access roads shall be provided so that no portion of the exterior wall of the first floor of any building will be more than 150' from such roads. CFC 902.2.1 27- Water Systems and Hydrants= Underground water mains and fire hydrants shall be installed, completed, tested and in service prior to the time when combustible materials are delivered to the construction site. (903 CFC). Installation, testing, and inspection will meet the requirements of NFPA 24 1995 edition. Prior to final approval of the installation, contractor shall submit a completed Contractor's Material and Test Certificate to the Fire Department- (9-2.1 NFPA 24 1995 edition) 28- Operational Fire Hydrant(s): Operational fire hydrant(s) shall be installed within 250 feet of all combustible construction. No landscape planting, walls, or fencing is permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants, except groundcover plantings. (1001-7-2 CFC) 29- Fire Sprinklers Required: An automatic fire sprinkler system is required by local ordinance and will include the proposed guesthouse. Only a C-16 licensed fire sprinkler contractor shall perform system design and installation. System to be designed and installed in accordance with NFPA standard 13D, 1999 edition, as modified by local ordinance. The contractor should submit fire sprinkler plans when the building plans are submitted- This allows concurrent review of the fire sprinkler and building plans- 30. Fire Flow: Fire flow will be 1125 gallons per minute with fire sprinklers. Construction site Security and Protection: 0000311 31. Fencing Required: Construction site fencing with 20 foot wide access gates is required for all combustible construction over 5,000 square feet. Fencing shall remain intact until buildings are stuccoed or covered and secured with lockable doors and windows. (8.04.260 PSMC) 32. Fire Apparatus Access Gates: Entrance gates shall have a clear width of at least 15 feet and be equipped with a frangible chain and padlock. (8.04.260 PSMC) 33, Access Gate Obstructions: Entrances to roads, trails or other access ways, which have been closed with gates and barriers, shall be maintained clear at all times. (902.2.4.1 CFC). ENGINEERING STREETS 34, Engineering Division recommends deferral of off-site improvement items 39, 41, 42, 44, 45, and 46 at this time due to lack of full improvements in the immediate area. The owner shall execute a street improvement covenant agreeing to construct all required street improvements upon the request of the City of Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed necessary. The covenant shall be submitted with the Grading Plan, and shall be executed prior to approval of the Grading Plan or issuance of grading or building permits. A covenant preparation fee of $135 shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. 35. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. 36. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a registered California civil engineer to the Engineering Division. The plan(s) shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building permits. EL PORTAL 37_ Dedicate an additional 5 feet to provide the ultimate half street right-of-way width of 25 feet along the entire frontage. 38. Dedicate an easement 2 feet wide along the back of the driveway approach for sidewalk purposes. 39_ Construct a 6 inch curb and gutter, 18 feet north of centerline along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200. 090032 40. Construct a 6 inch concrete driveway, unless otherwise approved by the City Engineer, from the property line to the existing back of curb. 41. Construct a driveway approach(es) in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 201. 42. Construct a 5 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. 43. Construct pavement with a minimum pavement section of 21/2 inches asphalt concrete pavement over 4 inches crushed miscellaneous base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal, from edge of proposed gutter to clean sawcut edge of pavement along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 110_ (Additional pavement removal and replacement may be required upon review of existing pavement cross-sections, and to ensure grade breaks of the pavement cross-section do not occur within a travel lane.) If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. 44. Construct 2 inch asphalt concrete pavement over compacted native subgrade or install appropriate landscaping and ground cover to provide adequate dust control measures, meeting the approval of the Director of Planning Services and City Engineer, from edge of pavement to property line along the entire frontage, excluding approved driveway locations. 45. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. SANITARY SEWER 46. All sanitary facilities shall be connected to the public sewer system. New laterals shall not be connected at manholes. GRADING 47. Submit cut and fill quantities to City Engineer to determine if a Grading Plan is required. If required, the Grading Plan shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit. If the earthwork quantity is less than 50 cubic yards, a formal grading plan is not required. To qualify for the exemption, a signed original written statement of design earthwork quantities from the owner (or design professional, prepared on company letterhead) shall be provided to the Engineering Division. Exemption of a formal Grading Plan reviewed and approved by the City Engineer does not exempt the applicant from a site 7 grading plan that may be required from the Building Department, or any other requirement that may be necessary to satisfy the Uniform Building Code. a. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and/or its grading contractor and submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall be required to comply with Chapter 8.50 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, and shall be required to utilize one or more "Coachella Valley Best Available Control Measures' as identified in the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook for each fugitive dust source such that the applicable performance standards are met. The applicant's or its contractor's Fugitive Dust Control Plan shall be prepared by staff that has completed the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Class. The applicant and/or its grading contractor shall provide the Engineering Division with current and valid Certificate(s) of Completion from AQMD for staff that have completed the required training. For information on attending a Fugitive Dust Control Class and information on the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook and related "PM10" Dust Control issues, please contact AQMD at (909) 396-3752, or at www.AQMD.gov. A Fugitive Dust Control Plan, in conformance with the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Handbook, shall be submitted to and approved by the Engineering Division prior to approval of the Grading plan- b- The first submittal of the Grading Plan shall include the following information: a copy of final approved conformed copy of Conditions of 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. 48. Prior to approval of a Grading Plan, the application shall obtain written approval to proceed with construction from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist. The applicant shall contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Richard Begay (760-883-1940), or the Tribal Archaeologist, Patty Tuck (700-883-1926), to determine their requirements, if any, associated with grading or other construction- The applicant is advised to contact the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist as early as possible. If required, it Is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate scheduling of Tribal monitors during grading or other construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees associated with Tribal monitoring. 49. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters. 50. A Geotechnical/Soils Report prepared by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and incorporated as an integral part of the 8 Of11��W�s grading plan for the proposed development. A copy of the Geotechnical/Soils Report shall be submitted to the Engineering Division with the first submittal of a grading plan. 51. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties" (RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan (if required). The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208). DRAINAGE 52. All storm water runoff passing through the site shall be accepted and conveyed across the property in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. For all storm water runoff falling on the site, on-site retention or other facilities approved by the City Engineer shall be required to contain the increased storm water runoff generated by the development of the property. Provide a hydrology study to determine the volume of increased storm water runoff due to development of the site, and to determine required storm water runoff mitigation measures for the proposed development. Final retention basin sizing and other storm water 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 solutions should be considered as alternatives to using landscaped parkways for on-site retention- 53. The applicant shall accept and convey all storm water runoff across the property and conduct the runoff to an approved drainage system. On-site retention may be allowed on that portion of the property where historically, storm water runoff is conveyed. The incremental increase of storm water runoff due to development of the property shall be retained on-site to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, 54. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees. The acreage drainage fee at the present time is $ 7271-00 per acre per Resolution No- 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a building permit- 9 - O00035 ON-SITE 55. The applicant shall provide a copy of an executed and recorded reciprocal access agreement for the joint use of the common driveway located on Parcel - B of Lot Line Adjustment No. 05-16, recorded 2/14/2006 prior to approval of a grading plan. GENERAL 66. Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be backfilled and repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. The developer shall be responsible for removing, grinding, paving and/or overlaying existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets as required by and at the discretion of the City Engineer, including additional pavement repairs to pavement repairs made by utility companies for utilities installed for the benefit of the proposed development (i.e. Desert Water Agency, Southern California Edison, Southern California Gas Company, Time Warner, Verizon, etc_)_ Multiple excavations, trenches, and other street cuts within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development may require complete grinding and asphalt concrete overlay of the affected off-site streets, at the discretion of the City Engineer. The pavement condition of the existing off-site streets shall be returned to a condition equal to or better than existed prior to construction of the proposed development. 57. On phases or elements of construction following initial site grading (e.g., sewer, storm drain, or other utility work requiring trenching) associated with this project, the applicant shall be responsible for coordinating the scheduled construction with the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians, Tribal Historic Preservation Officer or Tribal Archaeologist. Unless the project site has previously been waived from any requirements for Tribal monitoring, it is the applicant's responsibility to notify the Tribal Historic Preservation Officer, Richard Begay (760-883-1940), or the Tribal Archaeologist, Patty Tuck (760- 883-1926) for any subsequent phases or elements of construction that might require Tribal monitoring. If required, it is the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate scheduling of Tribal monitors during construction, and to arrange payment of any required fees associated with Tribal monitoring. Tribal monitoring requirements may extend to off-site construction performed by utility companies on behalf of the applicant(e.g. utility line extensions in off-site streets), which shall be the responsibility of the applicant to coordinate and arrange payment of any required fees for the utility companies. 58. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground. 10 000036 59. All existing utilities shall be shown on the improvement plans required for the project- The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. % Upon approval of any improvement plan by the City Engineer, the improvement plan shall be provided to the City in digital format, consisting of a DWG (Auto CAD 2004 drawing file), DXF (AutoCAD ASCII drawing exchange file), and PDF (Adobe Acrobat 6.0 or greater) formats. Variation of the type and format of the digital data to be submitted to the City may be authorized, upon prior approval of the City Engineer. 61. The original improvement plans prepared for the proposed development and approved by the City Engineer (if required) shall be documented with record drawing "as-built" information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a final certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to construction. 62. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D. TRAFFIC 63. 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. 64. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. tt 000037 I --------------------------------- -------------- \ dy]w •_�•f'� i gill NJ c � 7 �I•_ 5•v S: aiPcS L�� Yr• TM1n VAN Residence 550 El Portal P-w;-- PalmSprings, Uifomla v VESIGH,LIE rtqsr_- Al,n=n moll 2091 0. ..... . .... ....... ............ ..... 2-,i CV FM- MfM @ ATM MEW== L is ;RECEIVED i GV DESIM,M 2091 A... .e-oz .. i mom— ram— rt�x n,ce ram— O Q cz QQ+n7 A 0 R A rov AV All, AdANIC 6............... ... ne z Z13 cm 39-ECEIVED NOV i 5 2996 MINNING SERVICES :��a= e '( ��� �r4aojrlpJ ,,fiuraA �� ��(1� I�#rcidl��SA rsa�y Nb,�s # . ' ` ��a�. ��.;. i 4 v�• '''� ��_f 1 ,S`'Y llr± rf{,N{J:rt �� � n15 VDU � p �7 - 14' /� t ' ` �� � � e� � r- � ���`�z � � , . � �� ft I --,�-- ,j � � .� ,. � � � 1 �� G _ b �k P � � � � c t � , • � xxr � a r / � ° � u �' �� MAN_31NIIIIINVId uol> v ue.n 2N19N41� CD wr+/�� K� vYl.m �lui ,enn CD n« 1 ra®.ar�lil i�nvN5361 ra, 1 •V=.:III 3hTi u n`l nt l 4+imi Y]enmau t _,�ii 1 ------------- r rmxnxenmovbrat,szuYe.,Amm�lm.e � Vt '� �� T�-GI EMI 1t l`� L1TillY/1 — rb !7 � R � 1 II 11 ( �� • .. rD rb El I , 1 —J mom ONE _.... .. .. ....� 5 -------------------- .. .. . .......8 ------------------------- IV1 1 i I I 770000 UNA w a 5 o-Q RECEIVED OCT 20 zoos PLANNING SERVICES 7 2 '� 99 Ll iVAN Resi ence mm I E PaI�mESpr�ngsl, California # IN" " a •..:' KARVELIS AND ASSOCIATES IM130M THE JERK 0C ❑ONALD S. KARVELIE, ED.d. n ` e y A y December 3, 2007 ox M o;1U CA A rn Mr. James Thompson, City Clerk a ^^' 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way xo " O Pc,Iri Spiings, CA 92262 v Re: 3.2999 SFR & 7.1215 AMM Dear Mr, Thompson, As owner of the property at 1870 S Crestview Drive, I support Mr. Van's application for approval of his plans at 350 El Portal Road. My land is near his property and overlooks it. .Ilncefely, , _ ~~ Donald S. KarveGs;`Ed.D. 0000 2990 ARAvv CIRMLL, PALM PPRiuc., CA 9ZZ66 HOm Vo�neB: 960/322-2377. FA%:960/322-3329. E.AIL: �KAR�'�uo@vlRIZ�N.NET wC591TE:WWw-u NICITY.NEVINTHEPINK WCMMITE;wWW.KARVcuoTR EL.G0M rk,N en Tom and Gayle DeWitt 259 West Crestview Drive Palm Springs,CA 92264 December 05,2007 The Palm Springs Planning Commission Mr.Craig Ewing 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Concerning:Case 3.2999 SFR-350 El Portal Road-Re-designed single-family residence on a hillside lot Dear Mr. Ewing, My wife and I live in The Mesa and built our home there with special care to compliment the unique character of one of the oldest established neighborhoods in Palm Springs. The scale of the homes in The Mesa is from another era that had respect for the balance between a home and its surroundings. Please make sure the home at 350 El Portal Road with its footprint at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains is well within the maximum percentage of building that can be on a lot In this unique area known for its country feeling and larger lots. Please also carefully consider the scale of the adjoining homes in your decision. Two story homes are rare in The Mesa. Views of the San Jacinto Mountains and privacy issues demand special consideration of the homes that currently enjoying views that are a very important part of the joy of the morning and evening skies. Please do not let the home at 350 West El Portal be designed to restrict the mountain and valley views of neighboring homes by allowing excessive building height that will invade the privacy and the priceless views of homes in the area. The Mesa has so much history to enjoy and protect. Large overbuilt newer homes detract from the scale of the neighborhood and reduce the enjoyment of the history and country feeling of our community. Thank you for considering these issues before allowing the construction of a new home that is pushing the allowable height and size limits for the planned new construction project to allow for the new owners personal satisfaction, but diminish the enjoyment and value of the established surrounding homes. Best regards, Tom DeWitt 259 West Crestview Drive The Mesa Subdivision Palm Springs, CA 92264 760.406.1506 REIC"EIVED DEC 0 61 2907 Donald and Marjorie Conley Aikens 368 El Portal Palm Springs, CA 92264 December 6,2007 Palm Springs Planning Commission City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case No.: 3.2999SFR and 7.1215 (350 El Portal) Dear Commissioners: We request that you deny approval of the revised plan of the above cited case. Our major concern has been the massive size of this two story structure on a 15,000 square foot parcel. The developer's revised plan now has even more structure mass facing El Portal. The building is WAY out of scale for the lot! In our opinion the parcel is not truly a hillside lot and we hope this issue will be reexamined. We are 48 years residents of Palm Springs and have lived in the Mesa for 36 years. We care deeply about our City and our beautiful and unique neighborhood. Thank you for your continued attention to this matter_ Sincerely, Donald T_ Aikens cam_ Marjorie Conley Aik-ens. RECEIVED DEC 0 6 20Q7 Daniel Hogan 344 West FI Portal Palm Springs, CA 92264 December 6, 2007 Palm Springs Planning Commission Re: Case No.: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 Dear Commissioners: Again I thank you for your time. As I have mentioned in the past, this is a serious matter for me, my father and our Mesa neighbors. We are the residents and homeowners of the abutting property to the east of the parcel in question. My Father has lived in this home for over 30 years. I am writing to urge you to NOT approve the current plans submitted by the developer. These new plans are a slight redesign of the same plans you unanimously voted down back in May. We are not activists and a confrontation with a neighbor is not something we go looking for. We are not in the position to hire lawyers or public relations people. We do however feel an absolute need to fight this. This project, if built, would be way out of scale for that parcel of land and it would adversely affect the neighboring properties. A second story is not a right of zone and the developer has still not provided any facts as to a physical need to build a two story home on that parcel. The plans do not utilize the hillside ordinance in a responsible manner. They are in fact trying to take advantage of a poorly worded hillside code to make a much larger house than would normally be permitted on a parcel of those dimensions. We believe the Planning Staff incorrectly charged the AAC members regarding their discretionary power to address the hillside issue, the second story and again regarding the intent of the City Council during the appeal of this case. They were told they only were allowed to address the balcony and privacy issues. That is simply not what happened at the City Council hearing on July 18. Once again staff did not refer to the minutes from the City Council hearing on this matter. On the following pages I will describe our arguments in more depth. Il IKEI,l EJy DEC 0 6 2007 We have been fighting these obtrusive plans since last February. We've argued against this oversized home at several Planning Commission hearings, two AAC hearings and one City Council meeting. We are thankful that the developer had the neighborhood meeting in October. 4 neighbors representing 3 households attended along with Mr. & Mrs. Van (the developers). No existing neighbors showed up in favor of the plans. It did feel as if some progress was made but the developer was steadfast that he will have a two story house on that parcel. The Monday before Thanksgiving the developer submitted a slight redesign and the AAC meeting was the following Monday. I realize the AAC meetings are not necessarily designed for public testimony but we were given almost no time to view the plans before the meeting and the schedules for AAC hearing are not posted on the City's web site until after the meetings! As you will notice, the new plans have scaled down the rear of the second story and added more mass to the ground floor. It also moves more of the second story and massing to the front of the house. This does offer some minor relief with the privacy issue for us right next door. It had been suggested at a previous AAC hearing that privacy was our only objection. Neighbor after neighbor got up and talked at three Planning Commission hearings about it being too big for the parcel and an affront to the neighborhood but somehow the argument gets boiled down to privacy for the abutting neighbors. Again we are thankful that the developer made some changes to address the privacy issue but that is only a small part of the collective objections to this project. Once again I need to bring up the AMM or variance for height. As you know, an AMM or variance is granted to allow development of an unusual parcel of land but there needs to be something about that parcel that makes the normal rules unrealistic or impossible to obey. In this case the developer wants to build a 26 foot tall home in our historically significant neighborhood where the normal height limit for a single family residence is 19 feet. He is asking you to allow him to not follow the very same rules that we (right next door) would have to obey. The justification for an AMM or variance is that the owner would suffer unique physical hardship under the general zoning regulations because of the shape, size, topography, or location of that parcel. We believe this brings up two simple questions. Please consider the following; 000,349 I - Would the developer experience special physical hardship without an AMM or variance for height? NO! Building a home that did not exceed the normal height restriction of 19 feet would, in no way, inflict a physical hardship on anyone who wanted to develop that parcel. If you have visited the proposed building site you would know for sure that there is no physical need to build beyond the normal height restriction of 19 feet. 2 - Do the plans submitted adversely affect neighboring properties? We believe the answer is "yes". There are no two story houses on that side of El Portal until one gets west of the proposed building site and those homes are listed with the county as one story homes with a garage/utility area underneath (because they are built on a real hillside). This 26 foot tall home, if built, would tower over its neighbor to the east which is 13 feet tall at the highest point. If you have seen the parcel you know there would be no physical hardship if the applicant followed the normal building code rules like everyone else. In addition we believe the new plans would still adversely affect the neighboring properties and the entire neighborhood. The result of these circumstances should spell "No AMM or variance for height" for the plans the applicant has submitted. The Planning Staff may feel otherwise but you have the discretionary power to make the right decision for the entire neighborhood, not one developer. Hillside or no hillside? Obviously there are problems with the wording of the current hillside lot code. We, the homeowners in this neighborhood, should not be the ones to suffer because of a poorly written code. We need you to make up for the exceedingly vague wording regarding how this city determines whether a parcel is a hillside lot or not. The Planning Commission and AAC had a joint study session this year that covered this very subject. We are confident that those Planning Commissioners who have seen the parcel In question will come to the same conclusion many of our neighbors have. That is not a hillside lot and the new plans are still inappropriate for that parcel in that neighborhood. That brings me to my final point. The intent of the hillside variance. Even if you decide that the developer would experience a special hardship by following the normal height limit of 19' (and we believe he would not) and if you feel the parcel is a true hillside lot (which we believe it isn't) then we ask you, again, to please consider the "intent of the hillside variance". Do the new plans for 350 El Portal use the variance responsibly? We believe the answer is "no". Do the plans create a harmonious relationship with the rest of the immediate neighborhood? We believe the answer is "no". 000050 The new plans the developer submitted do not use the slope of the land nor do they remotely resemble a home built on a hillside so is that using the hillside variance responsibly? We feel confident you will agree the answer is Once again I need to reiterate ours is not a "zero growth" argument. It's a size, scope, height and fitting into the neighborhood argument. We are thankful the developer met with us and made some changed to the plans. However, it is still not the proper development for that parcel in the Mesa neighborhood. We are asking you to deny the new plans the applicant has submitted for 350 El Portal. If however you decide to restudy we ask you to please consider requiring the developer to put up "story poles" showing the height at significant parts of the proposed home. That would give the entire neighborhood a chance to see just how big it will be. Also if you decide to approve the plans (and of course we hope you do not do that) we ask you impose a height limit measured from the lowest part of the parcel so this project does not grow during construction. Sincerely, Daniel Hogan www.danielhogan.com O00051 Pm John Harrell, 325 W Overlook Road To Craig Ewing, Planning Director, Palm Springs Dt 4 December 2007 Ref Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 AMM The attached commentary is addressed to members of the Planning Commission and should be presented to them for consideration, regarding the proposed single family residence at 350 W El Portal, which they will review on Wednesday, 12 December 2007. Commissioners, My name is John Harrell and I am an owner of 325 W Overlook Road, which abuts the property on which Steven Van plans to build a single family residence. You have heard my objections before and I plan to attend the hearing. However, the concerns are too complex to address in three minutes so I am presenting them to you, for your review and consideration in advance. PRIVACY I am not personally motivated to protect my privacy. That has been a legitimate concern of other abutters and seems to be addressed in the current proposal. Had the applicant provided a site plan showing abutting properties as was suggested, I could make a more definitive statement. Mr. Van has not done that. As stated in a petition presented to City Council last July, The Mesa is an "eclectic landscape with a diversity of homes scaling the hillside and overlooking other properties."Planting a few new trees will protect my back yard. The Planning Staff has repeatedly focused on this issue, stressing to the AAC on two occasions that it is the major concern, ignoring the complexity of the objections by the neighborhood and the other issues raised during public debate. The petition presented Q at the City Council hearing reduces the concerns to ONLY the privacy complaint, calling DEC 0 6 2007 it elitist, "an illogical and discriminatory claim." I appreciate that the Commission has rallied behind this issue at earlier hearings but satisfying the privacy issue does not address the basic problem. HILLSIDE/AMM The real culprit is an ill-advised presumption that the proposal qualifies for an AMM as a"hillside lot."1 am told that this issue is no longer on the table although I can find no real justification for that contention. The wording in the code is vague and the facts are arguable but staff continues to reaffirm its initial stance - a decision which established a more lenient set of restrictions on what is allowed. Because the reality of the land does not provide an opportunity to benefit from the relaxed criteria, you are being asked to approve a house that is too big for its lot, will be out of scale with its surroundings and doubles the density of the neighborhood [see analysis presented at PC hearing on 28 February 2007]. CONTEXT There are larger existing houses in The Mesa, all of them are sited on considerably more land. The lot at 350 El Portal barely satisfies the minimum square footage, achieved with a dogleg portion that has no legal access and a shared driveway which is not buildable. The original division of 356 El Portal resulted in a substandard parcel. Using legitimate estate properties, such as 345 and 277 El Portal, as precedent for a project such as 350 is not a logical argument_ There are several houses on El Portal that are "two story" according to the Planning Staff criteria, although the tax records list all of them as single story. In fact, they are single story with garage and utility spaces underneath. [Photographs of these are part of the record.] Ironically, by manipulating the mass of the proposal in response to the privacy issue, Mr. Van has increased its impact of the proposal on El Portal. It will be the ONLY two- story house on the north side of El Portal until the legitimate hillside allows a garage to slip under the end of 382 W El Portal. [Photo on file]. The proposed house would be next door to the most modest house on the street [344], intensifying the impact. 2 Five out of seven members of the Architectural Advisory Committee had harsh criticism of the plans, saying it is "a bad compromise," "unfair to The Mesa," and "fails to fit in." The Committee says "its hands are tied" on the hillside issue and, therefore, many other issues. Planning staff asserts the proposal meets all City requirements and AAC votes [5 to 2] for approval. My neighborhood will feel the effects of this for a very long time. NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING In July, the City Council instructed the applicant to meet with his neighbors to search for a solution that would satisfy. This meeting happened on 10 October 2007. Four of the abutters attended. I was one. The applicant presented no new plans and repeated his intention to build the second floor. The abutters discussed all the issues and I had the feeling it was the first time Mr. Van had really heard some of them. He promised to provide a copy of the deed to dispel an assumption that he had purchased the entire original parcel and therefore might change the access to 356 El Portal. The depressed value of that purchase, shown in public tax record, has fueled some hostility to the project. That deed has NOT been produced to date. The planning staff has expressed disappointment in the poor turnout and stated that the applicant has "fulfilled the Council's condition." I suggest the applicant has once again taken the minimum step to comply and never intended to respond to neighbors' concerns. CONDITIONS I hope you will see that the proposal is detrimental to the character of The Mesa, even though it meets a set of gerrymandered code requirements. There is still room for a lot of improvement and only by exercising your discretionary and interpretive power can you make that happen. If you decide to approve there are specific items I urge you to consider A. The "service yard" in the north west comer assumes access which is not an option. The road is owned by the abutters and occupies an easement for access only to 219 and 221 Overlook[and 303 by traditional use]. Some other use must be shown. 3 ©���lD4 B. The profile of the new driveway exerts a strong negative force on the proposed house which could be relieved by raising the pads and the resultant height of the mass. Place an objective and absolute limit on the height. C. Several comments by AAC members referred to the poor landscaping plan and how it could be improved. These should be spelled out and require your approval. Excessive parking is one of the items mentioned. If the new driveway is to be shared, the lower garage can be eliminated, reducing the mass on El Portal. Substantial planting can lessen the impact, as it has with other new houses and should be required. Thank you for your consistent efforts to protect the quality and character of The Mesa. A conscientious developer with a participating architect would have responded to your input and submitted a plan that reflected them. Instead, there is a mediocre compromise that reduces the quality of the interior and maximizes its impact on the street. If you cannot stop it, ensure that what is built is in fact what is approved. Harrell 325 Overlook R Palm Springs CA 4 0aaJ5 NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Case 3.2999 SFR 8,7.1215 AMM MR PETE MORUZZI Steven Van MODCOM AND PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PHN for CC Meeting 03.05.08 HISTORIC SITE REP I I I PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT CASE 3.2999 SFR VERIFICATION NOTICE I I I ATTN SECRETARY MRS.JOANNE BRUGGEMANS PO BOX 2743 506 W.SANTA CATALINA ROAD PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS INDIANS 11 I I 1 1 5401 DINAH SHORE DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MR STEVEN J.VAN MR GREGORY A.VAN 471 AVENIDA HOKONA 102 S. ONEIDA SPONSORS PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 PUEBLO, CO 81003 MR ESSI SHAH EH, P.E. MR HAL HALL 45-175 PAN MA DRIVE, STE. E HJH CONSTRUCTION PALM SP GS, CA 92264 68-895 PEREZ ROAD, STE.9 CATHEDRAL CITY, CA 92234 MR WILLIAM K. BECK INTERESTED PERSON 356 WEST EL PORTAL PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 1� - ")r7 "� 6 513362002 513362007 / 513362012 KUN,RICI-IARD C&JENNIFER L ROYER,RENEE FERNANDEZ,HENRY AL PO BOX 77 290 W OVERLOOK RD PO BOX 5015 BIG BEAR LAKE, CA 92315 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263 513362013 513363007 FERNANDEZ,HENRY 513362015 PURCELL,JOY D PO BOX 5015 389 W CRESTVIEW DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 513363008 513363009 513363010 PURCELL,FRANCIS A&JOY D SCHILLING,TIMOTHY C&LYNDA II DAMITIO,MURRAY A 1850 W CRESTVIEW DR 345 W CRESTVIEW DR 2 MARINE WAY PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 JUNEAU,AK 99801 513363016 513363017 513363020 MCFEE,JANE WEYERHAEUSER TRUST DUNN,RONALD&BEATRICE IIARRELL,JOHN A&ROSE EARL PO BOX 1278 319 W OVERLOOK RD TRUST TACOMA, WA 98401 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 325 W OVERLOOK RD PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 513363021 513363022 513363023 BYRNE,WILLIAM &MARLENE HUBBERT,GARY R&VICTORIA E THOMPSON,JAMES 1 &DORIS H 301 W OVERLOOK RD 299 W OVERLOOK RD PO BOX 3016 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 CARMEL, CA 93921 513363024 513363031 513363033 KEIL,MARY WOUK,HERMAN&BLTTY S TRUST WOUK,IIERMAN&BETTY S TRUST 279 W OVERLOOK RD 303 W CRESTVIEW DR 303 W CRESTVIEW DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 513363035 513363036 513371001 WILSON,PETER H KARVELIS,DONALD S CICERO 20 BLUERIDGE RD 2990 ARABY CIR 267 W OVERLOOK RD KENTFIFLD,CA 94904 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 513380002 513380003 513380004 BRACY,STEVEN WADE VALF,NTINO,DAN M AIKENS,DONALD THOMAS & 386 W EL PORTAL 382 W EL PORTAL MA.RJORIE CONLEY TRUST PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 368 W EL PORTAL PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 513380007 513380008 513380009 PERRY,WINIFRED W TRUST PERRY,W W SURVIVORS TRUST CALLAHAN,JAMES 302 W EL PORTAL 4 MONIQUE CT 555 S PALM CANYON DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 SAN ANTONIO,TX 78257 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 513380010 513380014 513380015 MCCAIN,FIROOZA M LIVING TRUST AIKENS,DONALD THOMAS& SHAW,EUGENE L 325 W EL PORTAL MARJORIE CONLEY TRUST PO BOX 975 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 368 W EL PORTAL YARNELL,AZ 85362 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 513380016 513380020 513380021 WILLIAMS,GEORGIA WALKER,RTCHARD J JOANIDES,THOMAS NICHOLAS PO BOX 9434 1935 S CAMINO MONTE 5811 OAKDALE AVE PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 WOODLAND HILLS,CA 91367 513380022 513380026 513390028 BERNZWFIG,RAYMOND EDDY,CONSTANCE M&MICHAEL DOUGLAS,GULBRANDSEN MD 2675 BRENTWOOD RD 74122 SANTA ROSA C1R TRUST CLEVELAND, OH 44122 PALM DESERT,CA 92260 180 N LURING DR 2 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 513380035 513380036 513380044 DOUGLAS,GULBRANDSEN TRUST TRFJO,LAURA HARRISON,KENNETH E 180 N LURING DR 2 1245 EUCLID AVE 355 EL PORTAL PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 BEAUMONT, CA 92223 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 513380057 313380069 513380070 I•IOGAN,A MICHAEL LANGMAN,DAVID&ARLINE LANGMAN,DAVID 344 EL PORTAL 249 S ROBERTSON BLVD 249 S ROBERTSON BLVD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 BEVERLY HILLS, CA 90211 513380071 513380072 513380074 GHARGI•IOURY,AYAD M&GIHAN WALKERSHARYL PALERMO,SCOTT R 380 W CAMINO ALTURAS 366 W CAMINO ALTURAS 341 W CAMINO ALTURAS PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 513380075 513380077 513380078 BENEDFTTI,MARK&CANDICE TRUST BECK,WILLIAM K&DONNA MARIE VAN STEVEN,J 301 W CAMINO ALTURAS 356 W EL PORTAL 471 F AVENIDA PIOKONA PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 513390001 513390002 513390015 TRAHEY,THOMAS R GREENBERGER,JOHN LAFRANCE,EUGENIA M TRUST 288 W EL PORTAL 266 W EL PORTAL 286 W CAMINO ALTURAS PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 513390016 513390030 KUPERMAN,ROBERT L CARNEGIS,NICK 277 W EL PORTAL 2090 BRENTWOOD DR PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 HOUSTON,TX 77019 513362007 RETURNEDMAILROYPR,RENEE 611 S.PALM CANYON DRIVE,STE.7 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION a. v CITY CLERK'S DEPARTMENT James Thompson, City Clerk City Council Meeting Date: March 5, 2008 Subject: CONSIDER AN APPEAL BY STEVEN VAN TO OVERTURN A DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENYING A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING ON A HILLSIDE SITE LOCATED AT 350 EL PORTAL ROAD AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING I, Kathie Hart, CMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on or before February 22, 2008, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (58 notices) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. U4MXb Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION I, Kathie Hart, CMC, Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was published in the Desert Sun on February 23, 2008. 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. UA Kathie Hart, CMC Chief Deputy City Clerk AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING I, Dolores Strickstein, Secretary, of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting board and in the Office of the City Clerk on or before February 21, 2008. d�eclarre under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. IAI Dolores Stricksfein, Secretary NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NOS. 3-2999 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE (ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW) AND 7.1215 ADMINISTRATIVE MINOR MODIFICATION 350 EL PORTAL ROAD NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of March 5, 2008. 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 the hearing is to consider an appeal by Steven Van to overturn a decision of the Planning Commission denying a new single-family dwelling on a hillside site located at 350 El Portal Road. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: This project is categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15303(A) (Class 3 — Single Family Residence) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed application, site plan and related documents 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 Edward O. Robertson, Principal Planner, Planning Services Department at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor [lame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245- es Thompson, City Clerk = 000057 Department of Planning Services w N E Vicinity Map -, - OW-RLO OIC RO 1 •- - - ^I ELPORTAL - III S . .-• � .... I I _ I I i Legend II 400 Foot Radius ® ProjeaSite Surrounding Parcels _ CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 3.2999 SFR & DESCRIPTION: To consider an appeal by Steven 7.1215 AMM Van to overturn a decision of the Planning Commission denying a new single-family dwelling on APPLICANT: Steven J. Van a hillside site located at 350 El Portal Road. APN: 513-380-078. 000058 CI,Y Or PALM SPRINGS Palm Springs City Council 2908 FEB 27 Pli 1: 32 City Hall JAMES TIICKPSo11-1 CITY CLERIC Palm Springs California Ref. 350 El Portal - Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 AMM My name is John Harrell and I am an owner of 325 VJ Overlook Road, which abuts the property on which Steven Van proposes to build a very large single family residence. You and the Planning Commission have heard my objections before and I plan to attend the hearing on 20 February. The issues are too complex to address in three minutes, so I am presenting them to you, for your review and consideration in advance. PRIVACY I am not personally motivated to protect my privacy. That has been a legitimate concern of other abutters and has been partially addressed in the proposal.Had the applicant provided a site plan showing abutting properties as was suggested, I could make a definitive statement. Mr. Van has not done that. As stated in a petition presented to City Council last July, The Mesa is an "eclectic landscape with a diversity of homes scaling the hillside and overlooking other properties."Planting new trees will protect the privacy of my back yard. _____.The_Planning.Staff has..repeatedly focused on this issue, stressing to the AAC on two- occasions that it is the major concern, ignoring the complexity of the objections by the neighborhood and the other issues raised during public debate. The petition in support of the proposal [noted above] raises ONLY the privacy complaint, calling it elitist, "an illogical and discriminatory claim." I appreciate that The Council has rallied behind this issue earlier but satisfying the privacy issue does not address the basic problem. HILLSIDE/AMM The real culprit is an ill-advised presumption that the proposal qualifies for an AMM as 0600a2 a "hillside lot."I am told that this issue is no longer on the table although I can .find no real justification for that contention. The wording in the code is vague and the facts are arguable but staff continues to reaffirm its initial stance - a decision which established a more lenient set of restrictions on what is allowed. Because the reality of the land does not provide an opportunity to benefit from these relaxed criteria, the proposal is a house that is too big for its lot, would be out of scale with its surroundings and is twice the density of the neighborhood [analysis presented at PC hearing on 28 February 20071. CONTEXT There are larger existing houses in The Mesa, all of them built on considerably larger lots. The lot at 350 El Portal barely meets the minimum square footage, achieved with a dogleg portion that has no legal access and a shared driveway which is not buildable. The original division of 356 El Portal resulted in a substandard parcel. Siting legitimate estate properties, such as 345 and 277 El Portal, as precedent for a project such as 350 is not a compelling argument. There are several houses on El Portal that are "two story" according to stated Planning Staff criteria, although tax records list all of them as single story. In fact, they are single story with only garage and utility spaces underneath. [Photographs of these are part of the record.] Ironically, by manipulating the mass of the proposal in response to the privacy issue, Mr. Van.has increased its impact on El Portal. It will be the ONLY two-story house.on the north side of El Portal until the legitimate hillside allows a garage to slip under the end of 382 W El Portal. [Photo on file]. The proposed house would be next door to the most modest house on the street [344], therefore intensifying the impact. At its last review , five out of seven members of the Architectural Advisory Committee had harsh criticism of the plans, saying it is "a bad compromise,""unfair to The Mesa," and "fails to fit in." The Committee noted "its hands are tied" on the hillside question— and,therefore, many other issues--- and recommended approval. 2 Odd0�0 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING In July 2007, the City Council instructed the applicant to meet with his neighbors to search for a solution that would satisfy. This meeting was held on 10 October 2007. 1 was one of the attendees. The applicant presented no new plans and repeated his intention to build the second floor. Discussion covered all the issues and I had the feeling it was the first time Mr. Van had really heard some of them. He promised to provide a copy of the deed to dispel an assumption that he had purchased the entire original parcel and therefore might change the access to 356 El Portal. The depressed value of that purchase, shown in public tax record, has fueled some hostility to the project. That deed has NOT been produced to date. The planning staff expressed disappointment in the poor turnout and stated that the applicant has "fulfilled the Council's condition."I suggest the applicant only took the minimum step to comply and never intended to respond to neighbors' concerns. I hope you will agree that the proposal, which the Planning Commission has denied, is detrimental to the character of The Mesa, even if it meets a set of gerrymandered code requirements. A conscientious developer with an involved architect would have heard the issues raised in public debate and submitted a plan that reflected.them. Instead, we are offered only a mediocre compromise that reduces the quality of the house while it maximizes the negative impact on the neighborhood. Thank you_fmy-our_consistent efforts to protect_the quality and character of The Mesa,---- the newest[but one of the oldest]Neighborhood Organization in the City. Jo arrell Palm Springs CA 3 F' ECE! ED CITY CP PALM SPR;NC S Daniel Hogan 20UB FED 27 PN 1= 31 Palm Springs, CA 92264 JA'1191-5 THM PCON CITY CLEPCI{ February 25, 2008 Palm Springs City Council Re: Case No.: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 Dear Mayor Pougnet, Mayor Pro Tern Foat and Councilmembers Hutcheson, Mills and Weigel, I thank you for your time to read this and your service to our community. As I have mentioned in the past, this is a serious matter for me, my father and our Mesa neighbors. We are the residents and homeowners of the abutting property to the east of the parcel in question on El Portal. My Father has lived in this home for over 30 years. We have been fighting these obtrusive plans for over a year. We, and many of our fellow Mesa neighbors, have argued against this oversized home at several Planning Commission hearings, three AAC reviews and the July 18, 2007 City Council meeting. Neighbor after neighbor have written letters or spoken at the public comments or hearing portions in opposition to these plans. I am writing to urge you to NOT approve the current plans submitted by the developer. These plans are a slight redesign of the same plans the Planning Commission unanimously voted down in May 2007. And again on December 12th, 2007 the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of these plans. We are not activists and a confrontation with developer is not something we go looking for. We do however feel an absolute need to fight this. This project, if built, would be way out of scale for that parcel of land and it would adversely affect the neighboring properties. A second story is not a right of zone and the developer has still not provided any facts as to a physical need to build a two story home on that parcel. The plans do not utilize the hillside ordinance in a responsible manner. They are in fact trying to take advantage of a poorly worded hillside code to make a much larger house than would normally be permitted on a parcel of those dimensions. Once again we urge you to deny these plans. On the following pages I will describe our objections in more depth. 0��0B2 Our arguments have not changed much because the plans have not changed much. Once again I need to bring up the AMM or variance for height. As you know, an AMM or variance is granted to allow development of an unusual parcel of land but there needs to be something about that parcel that makes the normal rules unrealistic or impossible to obey. In this case the developer wants to build a 26 foot tall home in our historically significant Mesa neighborhood where the normal height limit for a single family residence is 19 feet. He is asking you to allow him to not follow the very same rules that we (right next door) would have to obey. The justification for an AMM or variance is that the owner would suffer unique physical hardship under the general zoning regulations because of the shape, size, topography, or location of that parcel. We believe this brings up two simple questions. Please consider the following; 1 - Would the developer experience special physical hardship without an AMM or variance for height? NO! Building a home that did not exceed the normal height restriction of 19 feet would, in no way, inflict a physical hardship on anyone who wanted to develop that parcel. If you have visited the proposed building site you would know for sure that there is no physical need to build beyond the normal height restriction. 2 - Do the plans submitted adversely affect neighboring properties? We believe the answer is "yes". There are no two story houses on that side of El Portal until one gets west of the proposed building site and those homes are listed with the county as one story homes with a garage/utility area underneath (because they are built on a real hillside). This 26 foot tall home, if built, would tower over its neighbor to the east which is 13 feet tall at the highest point. If you have seen the parcel you know there would be no physical hardship if the applicant followed the normal building code rules like everyone else. In addition we believe the new plans would still adversely affect the neighboring properties and the entire neighborhood. The result of these circumstances should spell "No AMM or variance for height" for the plans the applicant has submitted. The Planning Staff may feel otherwise but you have the discretionary power to make the right decision for the entire neighborhood, not.one developer. Hillside or no hillside? Obviously there are problems with the wording of the current hillside lot code. We, the homeowners in this neighborhood, should not be the ones to suffer because of a poorly written code. We need you to make up for the exceedingly vague wording regarding how this city determines whether a parcel is a hillside lot or not. The Planning Commission UOOU63 and AAC had a joint study session last year that covered this very subject. We are confident that those City Council members who have seen the parcel in question will come to the same conclusion many of our neighbors have. That is not a hillside lot and the new plans are still inappropriate for that parcel in that neighborhood. That brings me to my final point. The intent of the hillside variance. Even if you decide that the developer would experience a special hardship by following the normal height limit (and we believe he would not) and if you feel the parcel is a true hillside lot (which we believe it isn't) then we ask you, again, to please consider the "intent of the hillside variance". Do the new plans for 350 El Portal use the hillside variance responsibly? We believe the answer is "no". Do the plans create a harmonious relationship with the rest of the immediate neighborhood? We believe the answer is "no". The new plans the developer submitted do not use the slope of the land nor do they remotely resemble a home built on a hillside so is that using the hillside variance responsibly? We feel confident you will agree the answer is "no". We are very thankful that the developer had the neighborhood meeting in October. 4 neighbors representing 3 households attended along with Mr. & Mrs. Van (the developers). No existing neighbors attended that were in favor of the plans. It did feel as if some progress was made but the developer was steadfast that he will have a two story house on that parcel. We are also thankful the developer took the time, effort and financial expenditure to do a slight redesign of the project. As you will notice, the new plans have scaled down the rear of the second story and added more mass to the ground floor. It also moves some of the second story and massing to the front of the house. This does offer some minor relief with the privacy issue for us right next door and our neighbors to the north. Again we are thankful that the developer made some changes to address the privacy issue but that is only a small part of the collective objections to this project. once again I need to reiterate ours is not a "zero growth" argument. It's a size, scope, height and fitting into the neighborhood argument. We are thankful. the developer met with us.and made some changes.to the-plans.. _.... . However, it is still not the proper development for that parcel in the Mesa neighborhood. We are asking you to deny the new plans the applicant has submitted for 350 El Portal. If however you decide to restudy we ask you to please consider requiring the developer to put up "story poles" showing the height at 6Jlj'®��S significant parts of the proposed home. That would give the entire neighborhood a chance to see just how big it will be. Also if you decide to approve the plans (and of course we hope you do not do that) we ask you im-pbse a height limit measured from the lowest part of the parcel so this project does not grow during construction. Sincerely, Daniel Hogan www.danielhogan.com RECEPVED CITY OF PAL?; SPRNG': Lon& Firooza McCain ZOOS FEB 27 N 1: 32 Palm Springs, CA 92264 JAI�1F5 TrlDhirSC�`+ CITY CLERK February 11, 2008 Re: 350 W. El Portal To Whom It May Concern: We live at 325 W. El Portal, across the street and down one home from the proposed house. We oppose the construction of this house as currently designed for the following reasons: • The size of the house is out of proportion to its surrounding neighbors, • The size of the house is out of proportion to the size of the lot, • The increased height will adversely affect mountain views from the surrounding homes, and • The increased height of the house is unwarranted given the virtually ,flat lot. In short, the proposed design is not consistent with the character and scale of the neighborhood. We strongly urge you to not approve this project as currently proposed. Sincerely, �yy� Lon &Firooza McCain PEMEIV'M Tom and Gayle DeWitt CITY OF PALM SF7;NO'5 Palm Springs, CA 92264 2000 ttB 27 PN 1, 32 JGahfES THOo -i-SON January 05, 2008 CITY CLERK The Palm Springs City Council Steve Pougnet, Mayor Ginny Foat, Mayor pro tem Rick Hutcheson, Councilmember Chris Mills, Councilmember Lee Weigel, Councilmember Concerning: Case 3.2999 SFR 171215 AMM- 350 El Portal Road -Re-designed single-family residence on a hillside lot Dear Mr. Mayor, Ms. Mayor pro tern and Councilmembers, My wife and I were drawn to The Mesa as a place to build our home because of its unique quiet country atmosphere and wonderful mountain views- We left high paced corporate positions in San Diego and admired the ability to enjoy the rural flavor of The Mesa. We escaped the high density buildings of the California coast and moved to The Mesa where we built our dream home by taking special care to compliment the unique character of one of the oldest established neighborhoods in Palm Springs- We wanted to be respectful of the reason our new neighbors originally invested in The Mesa- The scale of the homes in The Mesa is from another era that had respect for the balance between a home and its surroundings. Please make sure the home at 350 El Portal Road with its footprint at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains is well within the maximum percentage of building that can be on a lot in this unique area known for its country feeling and larger lots- Please also Carefully considerthe scale of the adjoining homes in your decision to increase the desirability of living in The Mesa. Two story homes are rare in The Mesa- Views of the San Jacinto Mountains and privacy issues demand special consideration when new construction is considered. Enjoying established views are a very important part of the joy of the morning and evening skies. Please do not let the home at 350 West El Portal be designed to restrict the mountain and valley views of neighboring homes by allowing excessive building height that will invade the privacy and the priceless views of homes in the area. The Mesa has so much history to enjoy and protect. Large overbuilt newer construction can severely detract from the scale of the neighborhood and reduce the enjoyment of the history and country feeling of our community. Thank you for considering these issues before allowing the construction of a home that is pushing the allowable height and size limits for the planned new construction project to allow for the new - owners personal satisfaction, but diminish the enjoyment and value of the established surrounding homes- Best regards, Tom DeWitt The Mesa Subdivision Palm Springs, CA 92264 �U®h�� RECEIVED C3TY OFPA EM SF't2IIgG'S 2000 FEE 27 Pik 1: 32 AXES THC,1F'S0iI CITY CLERK Donald and Marjorie Conley Aikens Palm Springs, CA 92264 January 10,2008 Palm Springs City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 Re: Case No.: 32999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM(350 West El Portal) Dear Council Members: We have been residents of Palm Springs for 48 years and have lived in our present home in the Mesa for 36 years. Our property is the second house above and just west of the subject property. We also own the vacant lot across the street from our home. Our major concerns regarding this project are as follows: -proposed building way out of scale for the lot, -proposed project does not"fit"the neighborhood, -proposed project is a misuse of the hillside ordinance. We request that you support the SECOND denial by the Planning Commission of the above cited case. Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. Sincerely, Donald T. Aikens Marjorie Conley Aikens— CITY OF PAIN SPRINGS Mike Slattery and Gene Branum 20OB FEB 27 PM 132 Palm Springs, CA 92264 JA"IE5 THOI,PS0N, CITY CLERK February 05, 2008 The Palm Springs City Council Steve Pougnet, Mayor Ginny Foat, Mayor pro tem Rick Hutcheson, Councilmember Chris Mills, Councilmember Lee Weigel, Councilmember Reason: Case 3 .2999 SFR / 71215 AMM - 350 E1 Portal Road - New construction single-family residence on a hillside lot Dear Mr. Mayor, Ms. Mayor pro Lem and Councilmembers, Mr. Branum and I have been residents of the Mesa since 2002 and we are here primarily because it is a quite and secluded enclave even though it is very close to downtown Palm Springs . Although we have a variety of architectural sizes and styles in the Mesa, homes that are so big and so imposing that they no longer fit into the neighborhood diminish the entire neighborhood. It is my understanding that the proposed new construction at 350 E1 Portal Road would absolutely Lower over the existing homes obliterating any size and scale relationships necessary to respect existing homes and fit into our neighborhood. This proposed structure is to large and to tall for the lot size and I would like to register our opposition to 1L-s construction as it is currently designed.- Best regards, Michael Slattery nislatterv@dc. rr. com ECEIVE? G 1 T Y 0 F P A L t-1 S P f;!N G BERNAItri SHERVVYN 2009FE8 27 Pi. 1, 32 Real Estate Broker Attorney at Law c �6H E5 7 iUfsP ;. CITY C L E R i{ rAi M SPRINGS,CA 92264 sherwyn esa(a�aal.com February l 1,2008 The Palm Springs City Council Steve Pougnet,Mayor Ginny Foat,Mayor pro tem Rick Hutcheson, Councihnember Chris Mills,Councihnember Lee Weigel,Councilmember Re: Case 32999 SFR/71215 AMM-350 El Portal Road-Re-designed single-family residence on a hillside lot Dear Mayor Pougnet,Mayor pro tem Foat and Councihnembers Hutcheson,Mills and Weigel: While,I make a good portion of my living representing builders within our fair city,I take exception to the proposed home at 350 El Portal, i live nearby and cherish the openness and diversity and quaintness, the unique character, quiet country atmosphere and wonderful mountain views of the Mesa.It is one of the jewels of Palm Springs and should be treasured and guarded. My wife and I moved from Los Angeles in 1994 because we lived in a quiet neighborhood Filled with homes of character which was being decimated by proliferation of"the very big house."They have become a bligbt and we must not allow them to overrun our city and to turn the charm and character of our neighborhoods into a bunch of barracks. A 6,200 square foot house on a 15,000 square foot lot with a height of 26 feet is an eyesore. To allow hillside standards to be used is a perversion of law. Hillside height limits are appropriate to true hillside lots,where vertical terrain necessitates the allowance of such height and where vertical terrain also prevents such homes from interfering with views from nearby homes. It would be a travesty to allow poor architecture and selfish land use to run rough shod over our fellow citizens' expectations of manners, civility,balance,view corridors and, dare I say,taste. Such very big houses are nothing but rudeness and selfishness_i hope that you will use this opportunity to maintain our unique neighborhoods and foster good neighborly concern for each other. Best regards, Bernard Sherwyn 0000 f°9' Doug Hudson CiT v �PAlrl SP; 2��8 FE8 27 PFi 1= 32 Palm Springs, CA 92262 February 14, 2008 }� uCiTY CLEO, Palm Springs City Council Mayor Steve Pougnet Mayor pro tem Ginny Foat Councilmember Rick Hutcheson Councilmember Chris Mills Councilmember Lee Weigel Re: Case No.: 3.2999 SFR and 7.125 Dear Council: As you all know,this project has been one of great controversy in the City. As with any issue of such contentiousness,the decision that you make sets precedent, and speaks volumes as to the goals and vision of the City Council, and hopefully, its leadership. I am a member of the Planning Commission's Architectural Advisory Committee, and have seen this project in its various permutations as it has moved (glacially)through the approval process. As a member of the AAC, I have had two major objections. First,there is the whole issue of the definition of a hillside lot, and, in this case,the obvious disregard for the intent of the hillside ordinance. Many people have spoken at previous public meetings regarding this issue; I will not belabor it My second objection has been the amount of hardscape and off-street parking, particularly along El Portal. Indeed, with its numerous garage spaces and the aforementioned exterior parking areas,the developer seems more concerned about storing cars than fitting into the neighborhood. However, my major focus in this letter, and speaking against this proposed house, is one of scale and appropriateness. I am speaking on behalf of the Board of the Palm Springs Preservation Foundation, of which I am Secretary. Historic preservation in Palm Springs has always been an important issue in the City. With a rich mixture of traditional and modem architectural styles,the area also has the added allure of the'Hollywood connection'. I know that each of you shares with me an interest in what is unique about Palm Springs. And the protection of that special quality must extend beyond specific structures to include neighborhoods and, indeed, entire districts. Palm Springs Preservation Foundation believes that the Mesa neighborhood,with its spectacular location at the base of the mountain, its eclectic range of architectural styles, and most importantly, its low-density nature with abundant open space, is as important a preservation topic as saving any one building. Across the country, other unique neighborhoods have been lost when the"tipping point"of .over—McMansionization'was reached. Please act now to avoid such a fate for the Mesa neighborhood. Sincerely, Doug Hudson 000071 R7CFIVED CITY Or PALM SPRINGS 2900 FE5 27 PH 1* 32 January7,2008 JdhhF5 THONP5ON CITY CLERK Honorable Mayor Steve Pougnet Honorable Mayor pro tem Ginny Foat Council Members Rick Hutcheson, Chris Mills and Lee Weigel City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 Subject:Case No.3,2999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM 350 El Portal, Palm Springs,Ca. Dear City Officials, I write to you as a concerned Mesa district homeowner regarding the Mesa planning battle. We too are affected by the plans for 350 El Portal as residents at 333 Overlook. The proposed structure will undoubtedly obstruct our current mountain view as has a red barn recently constructed at that address. We are sincerely opposed to anyone in the area losing a view corridor and hope that you can empathize with our reactions to the plans. We searched over a year to find this home offering a quiet,small-scale neighborhood with privacy and views. It would be quite a precedent to allow such a dwellingto be constructed, and I am hopeful that the current plans can be modified to protect the interests of others. Sincerely, THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY Loren anborn Senior Vice President 138E Sutrcr Strcct•I1d1 Floor-San Francisco,CA 94109 Tel(415)345- 400•Fax(415)614.9175•TDD(415)345-4470•yiww.isco_n San Fraum=•Sacramento•South Bay•Los Angeles•San Diego 000072 RECEIVED Feb 12',2008 CITY Cc PA MA 5PR!NGS Rc: proposed structure at 350 W El Portal 2006 FEB 23 FM 1= 32 To: members of the Palm Springs City Council CITY CLERK We live at , three houses up the street from the subject property. While the proposed house will not have a direct impact on our property, it will affect our neighbors and our neighborhood- We are writing to express our sincere and total opposition to the building of this new structure This fight to save the integrity of our neighborhood has been going on for a year- During all that time, going back and forth from various city commissions and councils, Mr. Van has adjusted his building plans only once- And that resulted in a structure that looked even larger and more overwhelming than before! The proposed house at 350 W El Portal is simply too big and overpowering for the small lot on which it will sit. There are only two properties in our neighborhood that come close to the proposed structure in square footage. Both are just under 5000 sq ft (remember Mr Van is proposing a 6200 sq ft) and both sit on considerably larger pieces of property which are between %z and a full acre- We are concerned with the precedent you will be setting in our neighborhood if you approve a structure this massive for a parcel of land this size. Sincerely, Tom Warrick and Dan Valentino 1 C1TY0rPnLMSF I1' S Palm Springs City Council MUD 27 PF, 9= 32 City Hall It1t':.S TIICH-i 7SCN C IT Y CD_E'XC Palm Springs California Ref. 350 El Portal - Case 3.2999 and 7.1215 AMM My name is John Harrell and I am an owner of 325 W Overlook Road, which abuts the property on which Steven Van proposes to build a very large single family residence. You and the Planning Commission have heard my objections before and I plan to attend the hearing on 20 February. The issues are too complex to address in three minutes, so I am presenting them to you, for your review and consideration in advance. PRIVACY I am not personally motivated to protect my privacy. That has been a legitimate concern of other abutters and has been partially addressed in the proposal. Had the applicant provided a site plan showing abutting properties as was suggested, .l could make a definitive statement. Mr. Van has not done that. As stated in a petition presented to City Council last July, The Mesa is an "eclectic landscape with a diversity of homes scaling the hillside and overlooking other properties."Planting new trees will protect the privacy of my back yard. The Planning Staff has repeatedly focused on this issue, stressing to the AAC on two occasions that it is the major concern, ignoring the complexity of the objections by the neighborhood and the other issues raised during public debate. The petition in support of the proposal [noted above] raises ONLY the privacy complaint, calling it elitist, "an illogical and discriminatory claim." I appreciate that The Council has rallied behind this issue earlier but satisfying the privacy issue does not address the basic problem. HILLSIDE/AMM The real culprit is an ill-advised presumption that the proposal qualifies for an AMM as 000074 a "hillside lot."I am told that this issue is no longer on the table although I can find no real justification for that contention. The wording in the code is vague and the facts are arguable but staff continues to reaffirm its initial stance - a decision which established a more lenient set of restrictions on what is allowed. Because the reality of the land does not provide an opportunity to benefit from these relaxed criteria, the proposal is a house that is too big for its lot, would be out of scale with its surroundings and is twice the density of the neighborhood [analysis presented at PC hearing on 28 February 2007). CONTEXT There are larger existing houses in The Mesa, all of them built on considerably larger lots. The lot at 350 El Portal barely meets the minimum square footage, achieved with a dogleg portion that has no legal access and a shared driveway which is not buildable. The original division of 356 El Portal resulted in a substandard parcel. Siting legitimate estate properties, such as 345 and 277 El Portal, as precedent for a project such as 350 is not a compelling argument. There are several houses on El Portal that are "two story" according to stated Planning Staff criteria, although tax records list all of them as single story. In fact, they are single story with only garage and utility spaces underneath. [Photographs of these are part of the record.] Ironically, by manipulating the mass of the proposal in response to the privacy issue, Mr. Van has increased its impact on El Portal. It will be the ONLY two-story house on the north side of El Portal until the legitimate hillside allows a garage to slip under the end of 382 W El Portal. [Photo on file]. The proposed house would be next door to the most modest house on the street [3441, therefore intensifying the impact. At its last review , five out of seven members of the ,Architectural Advisory Committee had harsh criticism of the plans, saying it is "a bad compromise," "unfair to The Mesa," and "fails to fit in." The Committee noted "its hands are tied" on the hillside question— and, therefore, many other issues— and recommended approval. 2 000075 NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING In July 2007, the City Council instructed the applicant to meet with his neighbors to search for a solution that would satisfy. This meeting was held on 10 October 2007. I was one of the attendees. The applicant presented no new plans and repeated his intention to build the second floor. Discussion covered all the issues and I had the feeling it was the first time Mr. Van had really heard some of them. He promised to provide a copy of the deed to dispel an assumption that he had purchased the entire original parcel and therefore might change the access to 356 El Portal. The depressed value of that purchase, shown in public tax record, has fueled some hostility to the project. That deed has NOT been produced to date. The planning staff expressed disappointment in the poor turnout and stated that the applicant has "fulfilled the Council's condition." I suggest the applicant only took the minimum step to comply and never intended to respond to neighbors' concerns. I hope you will agree that the proposal, which the Planning Commission has denied, is detrimental to the character of The Mesa, even if it meets a set of gerrymandered code requirements. A conscientious developer with an involved architect would have heard the issues raised in public debate and submitted a plan that reflected them. Instead, we are offered only a mediocre compromise that reduces the quality of the house while it maximizes the negative impact on the neighborhood. Thank you for your consistent efforts to protect the quality and character of The Mesa, the newest/but one of the oldest]Neighborhood Organization in the City. Jo arrell 325 W Overlook Rd Palm Springs CA 3 CITY OF PALE SPPP[,tCS Daniel Hogan MS FED 27 N 1. 31 344 West El Portal Palm Springs, CA 92264 Jr ;E'Z TX CXFSON CITY CLEPK February 25, 2008 Palm Springs City Council Re: Case No.: 3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 Dear Mayor Pougnet, Mayor Pro Tem Foat and Councilmembers Hutcheson, Mills and Weigel, I thank you for your time to read this and your service to our community. As I have mentioned in the past, this is a serious matter for me, my father and our Mesa neighbors. We are the residents and homeowners of the abutting property to the east of the parcel in question on El Portal. My Father has lived in this home for over 30 years. We have been fighting these obtrusive plans for over a year. We, and many of our fellow Mesa neighbors, have argued against this oversized home at several Planning Commission hearings, three AAC reviews and the July 18, 2007 City Council meeting. Neighbor after neighbor have written letters or spoken at the public comments or hearing portions in opposition to these plans. I am writing to urge you to NOT approve the current plans submitted by the developer. These plans are a slight redesign of the same plans the Planning Commission unanimously voted down in May 2007. And again on December 12", 2007 the Planning Commission voted to recommend denial of these plans. We are not activists and a confrontation with developer is not something we go looking for. We do however feel an absolute need to fight this. This project, if built, would be way out of scale for that parcel of land and it would adversely affect the neighboring properties. A second story is not a right of zone and the developer has still not provided any facts as to a physical need to build a two story home on that parcel. The plans do not utilize the hillside ordinance in a responsible manner. They are in fact trying to take advantage of a poorly worded hillside code to make a much larger house than would normally be permitted on a parcel of those dimensions. Once again we urge you to deny these plans. On the following pages I will describe our objections in more depth. QQaQ ?:7 Our arguments have not changed much because the plans have not changed much. Once again I need to bring up the AMM or variance for height. As you know, an AMM or variance is granted to allow development of an unusual parcel of land but there needs to be something about that parcel that makes the normal rules unrealistic or impossible to obey. In this case the developer wants to build a 26 foot tall home in our historically significant Mesa neighborhood where the normal height limit for a single family residence is 19 feet. He is asking you to allow him to not follow the very same rules that we (right next door) would have to obey. The justification for an AMM or variance is that the owner would suffer unique physical hardship under the general zoning regulations because of the shape, size, topography, or location of that parcel. We believe this brings up two simple questions. Please consider the following; 1 - Would the developer experience special physical hardship without an AMM or variance for height? NO[ Building a home that did not exceed the normal height restriction of 19 feet would, in no way, inflict a physical hardship on anyone who wanted to develop that parcel. If you have visited the proposed building site you would know for sure that there is no physical need to build beyond the normal height restriction. 2 - Do the plans submitted adversely affect neighboring properties? We believe the answer is "yes". There are no two story houses on that side of El Portal until one gets west of the proposed building site and those homes are listed with the county as one story homes with a garage/utility area underneath (because they are built on a real hillside). This 26 foot tall home, if built, would tower over its neighbor to the east which is 13 feet tall at the highest point. If you have seen the parcel you know there would be no physical hardship if the applicant followed the normal building code rules like everyone else. In addition we believe the new plans would still adversely affect the neighboring properties and the entire neighborhood. The result of these circumstances should spell "No AMM or variance for height" for the plans the applicant has submitted. The Planning Staff may feel otherwise but you have the discretionary power to make the right decision for the entire neighborhood, not one developer. Hillside or no hillside? Obviously there are problems with the wording of the current hillside lot code. We, the homeowners in this neighborhood, should not be the ones to suffer because of a poorly written code. We need you to make up for the exceedingly vague wording regarding how this city determines whether a parcel is a hillside lot or not. The Planning Commission 00007S and AAC had a joint study session last year that covered this very subject. We are confident that those City Council members who have seen the parcel in question will come to the same conclusion many of our neighbors have. That is not a hillside lot and the new plans are still inappropriate for that parcel in that neighborhood. That brings me to my final point. The intent of the hillside variance. Even if you decide that the developer would experience a special hardship by following the normal height limit (and we believe he would not) and if you feel the parcel is a true hillside lot (which we believe it isn't) then we ask you, again, to please consider the "intent of the hillside variance". Do the new plans for 350 El Portal use the hillside variance responsibly? We believe the answer is "no". Do the plans create a harmonious relationship with the rest of the immediate neighborhood? We believe the answer is "no". The new plans the developer submitted do not use the slope of the land nor do they remotely resemble a home built on a hillside so is that using the hillside variance responsibly? We feel confident you will agree the answer is "no". We are very thankful that the developer had the neighborhood meeting in October. 4 neighbors representing 3 households attended along with Mr. & Mrs. Van (the developers). No existing neighbors attended that were in favor of the plans. It did feel as if some progress was made but the developer was steadfast that he will have a two story house on that parcel. We are also thankful the developer took the time, effort and financial expenditure to do a slight redesign of the project. As you will notice, the new plans have scaled down the rear of the second story and added more mass to the ground floor. It also moves some of the second story and massing to the front of the house. This does offer some minor relief with the privacy issue for us right next door and our neighbors to the north. Again we are thankful that the developer made some changes to address the privacy issue but that is only a small part of the collective objections to this project. Once again I need to reiterate ours is not a "zero growth" argument. It's a size, scope, height and fitting into the neighborhood argument. We are thankful the developer met with us and made some changes to the plans. However, it is still not the proper development for that parcel in the Mesa neighborhood. We are asking you to deny the new plans the applicant has submitted for 350 El Portal. If however you decide to restudy we ask you to please consider requiring the developer to put up "story poles" showing the height at 003079 significant parts of the proposed home. That would give the entire neighborhood a chance to see just how big it will be. Also if you decide to approve the plans (and of course we hope you do not do that) we ask you impose a height limit measured from the lowest part of the parcel so this project does not grow during construction. Sincerely, Daniel Hogan www.danielhogan.com 00©fi�i� R Zi I'll ED CITY OF PAL. SP^IPIG.. Lon & Firooza McCain 325 W. El Portal 2099 FEB 27 PH 1: 32 Palm Springs, CA JA;i_ST>iOliPSOH 92264 c1TY CLERK February 11, 2008 Re: 350 W. El Portal To Whom It May Concern: We live at 325 W. El Portal, across the street and down one home from the proposed house. We oppose the construction of this house as currently designed for the following reasons: • The size of the house is out of proportion to its surrounding neighbors, • The size of the house is out of proportion to the size of the lot, • The increased height will adversely affect mountain views from the surrounding homes, and • The increased height of the house is unwarranted given the virtually flat lot. In short, the proposed design is not consistent with the character and scale of the neighborhood. We strongly urge you to not approve this project as currently proposed. Sincerely, ' 0 `Ll�on & Firooza McCain MOM R ECEI V'ED Tom and Gayle DeWitt CITY OF P A LL H S P R;N 0 6 259 West Crestview Drive H35 FEB 27 Pil 9; 312 Palm Springs, CA 92264 ytal'i' 5 Ti�l7,-'1PS0 S ClTV CLERK January 05, 2008 The Palm Springs City Council Steve Pougnet, Mayor Ginny Foat, Mayor pro tern Rick Hutcheson, Councilmember Chris Mills, Councilmember Lee Weigel, Councilmember Concerning: Case 3.2999 SFR/71215 AMM-350 El Portal Road -Re-designed single-family residence on a hillside lot Dear Mr. Mayor, Ms. Mayor pro tem and Councilmembers, My wife and I were drawn to The Mesa as a place to build our home because of its unique quiet country atmosphere and wonderful mountain views. We left high paced corporate positions in San Diego and admired the ability to enjoy the rural flavor of The Mesa. We escaped the high density buildings of the California coast and moved to The Mesa where we built our dream home by taking special care to compliment the unique character of one of the oldest established neighborhoods in Palm Springs. We wanted to be respectful of the reason our new neighbors originally invested In The Mesa. The scale of the homes in The Mesa is from another era that had respect forthe balance between a home and its surroundings. Please make sure the home at 350 El Portal Road with its footprint at the base of the San Jacinto Mountains is well within the maximum percentage of building that can be on a lot in this unique area known for its country feeling and larger lots. Please also carefully considerthe scale of the adjoining homes in your decision to increase the desirability of living in The Mesa. Two story homes are rare in The Mesa. Views of the San Jacinto Mountains and privacy issues demand special consideration when new construction is considered. Enjoying established views area very important part of the joy of the morning and evening skies. Please do not let the home at 350 West EI Portal be designed to restrict the mountain and valley views of neighboring homes by allowing excessive building height that will invade the privacy and the priceless views of homes in the area. The Mesa has so much history to enjoy and protect. Large overbuilt newer construction can severely detract from the scale of the neighborhood and reduce the enjoyment of the history and country feeling of our community. Thank you for considering these issues before allowing the construction of a home that is pushing the allowable height and size limits for the planned new construction project to allow for the new owners personal satisfaction, but diminish the enjoyment and value of the established surrounding homes. Best regards, Tom DeWitt 259 West Crestview Drive The Mesa Subdivision Palm Springs, CA 92264 760,406,1506 OO� �s , R S C E§V E D CITY OF PALM S FIR EHGS 200E FEB 27 PH l= 32 24117S T Oc`iF 0-4 CITY CLERK Donald and Marjorie Conley Aikens 368 West El Portal Palm Springs, CA 92264 January 10, 2008 Palm Springs City Council City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 Re: Case No.: 32999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM(350 West El Portal) Dear Council Members: We have been residents of Palm Springs for 48 years and have lived in our present home in the Mesa for 36 years. Our property is the second house above and just west of the subject property. We also own the vacant lot across the street from our home. Our major concerns regarding this project are as follows: -proposed building way out of scale for the lot, -proposed project does not"fit"the neighborhood, -proposed project is a misuse of the hillside ordinance. We request that you support the SECOND denial by the Planning Commission of the above cited case. Thank you for your continued attention to this matter. Sincerely, Donald T. Aikens Marjorie Conley Aikens RECEI £C CITY OF PALI-1 S0,7, NG'S Mike Slattery and Gene Branum C00�u YtB 27 P11 1' 32 233 W. E1 Camino Way Palm Springs, CA 92264 JArlE5 THCHPSC1",i CITY CLERK February 05, 2008 The Palm Springs City Council Steve Pougnet, Mayor Ginny Foat, Mayor pro ten Rick Hutcheson, Councilmember Chris Mills, Councilmember Lee Weigel, Councilmember Reason; Case 3 .2999 SFR / 71215 AM - 350 E1 Portal Road -- New construction single-family residence on a hillside lot Dear Mr. Mayor, Ms . Mayor pro ten and Councilmembers, Mr. Branum and I have been residents of the Mesa since 2002 and we are here primarily because it is a quite and secluded enclave even though it is very close to downtown Palm Springs . Although we have a variety of architectural sizes and styles in the Mesa, homes that are so big and so imposing that they no longer fit into the neighborhood diminish the entire neighborhood. It is my understanding that the proposed new construction at 350 El Portal Road would absolutely tower over the existing homes obliterating any size and scale relationships necessary to respect existing homes and fit into our neighborhood. This proposed structure is to large and to tall for the lot size and I would like to register our opposition to its construction as it is currently designed. Best regards, Michael Slattery mslattery@dc . rr. coni (760) 272-5845 r ECEIVED C= P A 1.H S P P!14 G BERNARD SHERWXN 2RO8FEB 27 P-41 1= 32 Real.Estate Broker Attorney at Law J;k HZS Tf 1988 SOUTIi MESA DRIVE CITY CLEr+i, PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 CELL(760)831-4037 FAX(760)416.7551 sherwvnesauna not.eom February 11,2008 The Palm Springs City Council Steve Pougnet,Mayor Ginny Foat, Mayor pro tern Rick Hutcheson, Councilmember Chris Mills, Councilmember Lee Weigel, Councilmember Re: Case 3.2999 SFR/71215 AMM-350 El Portal Road - Re-designed single-family residence on a hillside lot Dear Mayor Pougnet, Mayor pro tem Foat and Councilmembers Hutcheson, Mills and Weigel: While, i make a good portion of my living representing builders within our fair city, I take exception to the proposed home at 350 El Portal. I live nearby and cherish the openness and diversity and quaintness, the unique character,quiet country atmosphere and wonderful mountain views of the Mesa. It is one of the jewels of Palm Springs and should be treasured and guarded. My wife and I moved from Los Angeles in 1994 because we lived in a quiet neighborhood filled with homes of character which was being decimated by proliferation of"the very big house."They have become a blight and we must not allow them to overrun our city and to turn the charm and character of our neighborhoods into a bunch of barracks. A 6,200 square foot house on a 15,000 square foot lot with a height of 26 feet is an eyesore. To allow hillside standards to be used is a perversion of law. i-iillside height limits are appropriate to true hillside lots,where vertical terrain necessitates the allowance of such height and where vertical terrain also prevents such homes from interfering with views from nearby homes_ It would be a travesty to allow poor architecture and selfish land use to run rough shod over our fellow citizens' expectations of manners, civility,balance,view corridors and, dare I say,taste. Such very big houses are nothing but rudeness and selfishness. 1 hope that you will use this opportunity to maintain our unique neighborhoods and foster good neighborly concern for each other. Best regards, Bernard Sherwyn M V �'rj ll 111 T �)�i Doug Hudson r} ` 07 F C,t 1325 Camino del Mirasol 2��5�Ca 21 Palm Springs, CA 92262 liaf sT )in, 3 4 February 14, 200$ CITY CL Palm Springs City Council Mayor Steve Pougnet Mayor pro tern Ginny Foat Councilmember Rick Hutcheson Councilmember Chris Mills Councilmember Lee Weigel Re: Case No.: 3.2999 SFR and 7.125 Dear Council.- As you all know,this project has been one of great controversy in the City. As with any issue of such contentiousness,the decision that you make sets precedent, and speaks volumes as to the goals and vision of the City Council, and hopefully, its leadership. I am a member of the Planning Commission's Architectural Advisory Committee, and have seen this project in its various permutations as it has moved (glacially)through the approval process. As a member of the AAC, I have had two major objections. First,there is the whole issue of the definition of a hillside lot, and, in this case,the obvious disregard for the intent of the hillside ordinance. Many people have spoken at previous public meetings regarding this issue; I will not belabor it. My second objection has been the amount of hardscape and off-street parking, particularly along El Portal. Indeed, with its numerous garage spaces and the aforementioned exterior parking areas,the developer seems more concerned about storing cars than fitting into the neighborhood. However, my major focus in this letter, and speaking against this proposed house, is one of scale and appropriateness. I am speaking on behalf of the Board of the Palm Springs Preservation Foundation,of which I am Secretary. Historic preservation in Palm Springs has always been an important issue in the City. With a rich mixture of traditional and modern architectural styles,the area also has the added allure of the"Hollywood connection". I know that each of you shares with me an interest in what is unique about Palm Springs. And the protection of that special quality must extend beyond specific structures to include neighborhoods and, indeed,entire districts. Palm Springs Preservation Foundation believes that the Mesa neighborhood,with its spectacular location at the base of the mountain, its eclectic range of architectural styles, and most importantly, its low-density nature with abundant open space, is as important a preservation topic as saving any one building. Across the country, other unique neighborhoods have been lost when the`tipping point"of over—McMansionization"was reached. Please act now to avoid such a fate for the Mesa neighborhood. Sincerely, Doug Hudson Dfli�DD \\ C1MI'a'r� D rJTY O Ft Li^1 SPRi�',,IG,S COMPANY 20N FLB 27 Pi1 1, 32 January7,Z008 Ji'�FIGS TNCI PSON CITY Y CLERK Honorable Mayor Steve Pougnet Honorable Mayor pro tem Ginny Foat Council Members Rick Hutcheson, Chris Mills and Lee Weigel City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 Subject.Case No.3.2999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM 350 El Portal, Palm Springs, Ca. Dear City Officials, I write to you as a concerned Mesa district homeowner regarding the Mesa planning battle. We too are affected by the plans for 350 El Portal as residents at 333 Overlook. The proposed structure will undoubtedly obstruct our current mountain view as has a red barn recently constructed at that address. We are sincerely opposed to anyone in the area losing a view corridor and hope that you can empathize with our reactions to the plans. We searched over a year to find this home offering a quiet,small-scale neighborhood with privacy and views. It would be quite a precedent to allow such a dwelling to be constructed, and I am hopeful that the current plans can be modified to protect the interests of others_ Sincerely, THE JOHN STEWART COMPANY Loren Sanborn Senior Vice President 1389 Sutter Street• I 1 th Floor-San Francisco,CA 94109 Tel(415)345-4400-F• (415)614.9175•TDD(415)345�170•www.iscn.net 0'r San['rmcisco-Sacra neato•South Bay-Los Angeles•San Aicgo y r E C E 1 E:1) Sh !;II Y Dr ?`iL[i 5Iawi1i'i Feb 12 , 2008 Re: proposed structure at 350 W El Portal 2905 1-ES' 21 Fil 1: 32 J,:TIES TV.0HPS0:. To: members of the Palm Springs City Council CITY CLERK We live at 382 W El Portal, three houses up the street from the subject property. While the proposed house will not have a direct impact on our property, it will affect our neighbors and our neighborhood. We are writing to express our sincere and total opposition to the building of this new structure This fight to save the integrity of our neighborhood has been going on for a year. During all that time, going back and forth from various city commissions and councils, Mr. Van has adjusted his building plans only once- And that resulted in a structure that looked even larger and more overwhelming than before! The proposed house at 350 W El Portal is simply too big and overpowering for the small lot on which it will sit. There are only two properties in our neighborhood that come close to the proposed structure in square footage. Both are just under 5000 sq ft (remember Mr Van is proposing a 6200 sq ft) and both sit on considerably larger pieces of property which are between ''/z and a full acre. We are concerned with the precedent you will be setting in our neighborhood if you approve a structure this massive for a parcel of land this size. Sincerely, Tom Warrick and Dan Valentino OF PALM SA U n o ah Office of the City Clerk R°�nn.ev' 3200 F T1hqu1rz Cnnynn %V/ly e Pnlm Springs, Califntni.t 922(2 C'q( FO RN�P Tel (760) 12j-S20=, • Fix (760)322-83,2 • Wn6 www.palmspttngs-cei.guv NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of March 5, 2008, Public Hearing Item No. 1.B. APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON A HILLSIDE SITE AT 350 EL PORTAL ROAD, BY STEVEN VAN, CASE NOS. 3,2999 AND 7.1215 By a majority vote of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs the public testimony portion of the hearing was closed, and the item was continued to Wednesday, March 12, 2008, Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. n AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING State of California ) County of Riverside ) ss. City of Palm Springs ) I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this.Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 5:30 p.m., March G, 2008, as required by established policies and procedures. mes Thompson Cify Clerk NOTICE OF CONT- S Van 03.05.08.doe Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, Calil-ornia 92263-2743