Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/17/2002 - STAFF REPORTS (16) DATE: July 17, 2002 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD (PD 254) APPLICATION BY TAHQUITZ VENTURE, LLC. AND CT REALTY CORPORATION, FORMERLY BERGHEER,CALIFORNIA INC., FORA PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 48 LOTS AND A SEVEN COMMON AREA LOTS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GATED 48-UNIT MULTI FAMILY CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. RECOMMENDATION: The City Council has a range of options: • The City Council may adopt the resolution of denial which was presented to the Council on June 19, 2002; • The City Council may reconsider the project based upon the revised plan; or • The City Council may act upon the Planning Commission's recommendation and approve Case No. 5.0804-PD-254 for Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29077)for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 48 residential lots and seven common area lots, for development as a gated 48-unit multi-family cluster residential development. SUMMARY: At its meeting on June 5, 2002, the City Council voted to direct staff to prepare a resolution of denial for this project, for consideration at its June 19, 2002 meeting. On June 19, 2002, the City Council voted to schedule a public hearing on this matter,following revisions to the project in which the applicant eliminated two units, for a total of 48 units. The applicant has submitted a revised the preliminary site plan and revised Tentative Tract Map, eliminating two units from the project. Five units,two duplex buildings and detached unit, had been proposed along the project's northern perimeter. In their place, the applicant proposes three large lots, upon which single story, single family residences would be constructed. These three units would serve as a buffer between the existing single family residences located to the north and the remainder of the project site. BACKGROUND: Following the June 5, 2002 meeting of the City Council, the applicant submitted a revision to the project to eliminate the duplexes from the projects boundary with the R-1-A zone to the north. The revised map includes three single family lots along the project's northern boundary. The revised project includes: • A second swimming pool and spa area has been added to the project, with the larger pool area located in the center of the project. A formal walkway leading to the center pool area is proposed. In addition, the retention area has been redesigned to include additional passive recreation amenities; • Three single family lots featuring larger lot sizes, which more closely approximate the size of lots in the R-1-A zone, for increased compatibility with existing development located to the north of the site. Each of the three single family lots would be developed with a custom single family residence. Each residence would be designed to be architecturally compatible with the residences to the north. The maximum building height would be 18 feet. The minimum setback would be 25' from the north property line. Side yard setbacks would be a minimum of 10 feet. The setbacks for the three single family residences would be equivalent to those commonly found in the R-1-A zone, again for increased compatibility with existing development located to the north of the site. These newly created lots would be accessed through the project and would be included as part of the homeowners association; The proposed on-site retention basins would be redesigned to minimize the area adjacent to West Tahquitz Canyon Way. The retention areas would be fully landscaped and designed for passive and active recreation uses; • Expanded view corridors for residences located to the north of the site, between the three single family lots located on the project, which occur as a result of the reduction in the number of units along the northern perimeter of the project and as a result in the increase in setbacks between units; • The applicant is also working on a revised street improvement program. As of this date the plans are not available.The revised plans address a number of City Council and community concerns; • The applicant will submit a revised statistical analysis calculation showing site and percentages of the total site including retention areas, decorative paving onsite; tribal dedication site; building coverage and parking and drives; • The relocation of La Vallauris trash facilities to the south and adjacent to the kitchen door; and • A limitation of construction hours from January through April to Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm and no construction activity permitted on weekends or holidays. Additionally, the developer will prepare, publish and deliver to adjacent property owners a construction phasing and construction activity schedule. 114Z, Staff will prepare a resolution approving the revised site plan and Tentative Tract Map, if the City Council so desires. A draft resolution will be available at the July 17, 2002 City Council meeting. Director of R1 nning and Building City Manager ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Revised site plan 3. City Council Staff Reports, October 17, 2001, June 5, 2002 and June 19, 2002 4. Planning Commission Staff Reports, September 12 and 26, 2001, January 9, 2002 and April 24, 2002 5. Initial Study 6. Correspondence 7. General Plan Policy 3.4.7, W. Tahquitz Canyon Way 8. Planning Commission minutes, September 12 and 26, 2001, January 9, 2002 and April 24, 2002 9. Resolution (to be provided) Il � ICINITYMP N.T,S. Tahquitr Canyon Way SIT E BARISTO ROAD #q CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO, Case No.5.0804-PD-267 DE CRIPTION Tentative Tract Map 29077 APPLICANT A Preliminary Planned Development District and the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel Into 50 parcels, located to the south west of the intersection of _ TAHQUITZ VENTURE,LLC.AND Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, CT REALTY CORPORATION Zone R-31R-2,Section 15. . - �` «c:sf•�r ./�. ..,�'�..?�.py mN - 6f sYi9Ari 1 ., .:."yam,. -1 /. � Z "e. e ' I••'N ; -pi� .ems "�i "!. . �y.�. .�1�1?. - � � 1�� ry��i :'��� •� �- =�,"% .�,y � srmr':c oa4 �fs. Ibl 9�� S�wc/�L � A A• •• �- �� � � ` „'u 1�� �iv ~� ���6�"x .yam �♦fC4` (I w.� APR � �i '� S 'I�� ai{i + 4• S:` a -> '9y'' -i h � `�� a ga�Gx�i�ek 9't - � � /a ►a a \�ax 4!/A 6 Ph ela aa} a � ,•:� . � ..,, .�'•,.o. ,�. e ern, d� _ tdPF ��.i -u !-3 r ■■■ �;�S,��S�` Aa MEM I� r DATE: June 19, 2002 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD (PD 254) APPLICATION BY TAHQUITZ VENTURE, LLC. AND CT REALTY CORPORATION, FORMERLY BERGHEER,CALIFORNIA INC., FORA PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 50 LOTS AND A SEVEN COMMON AREA LOTS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GATED 50-UNIT MULTI FAMILY CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. SUMMARY: On June 5, 20D2, the City Council voted 4-1 to recommend denial of the project. A resolution denying the project is attached to this report. The City Council may wish to reconsiderthis item, direct staff, the developer and neighboring land owners to work towards a resolution of the remaining items and continue this item to its meeting of July 3, 2002. There has been discussion with the developer, key neighbors and the City to resolve and address the issues raised by the City Council. BACKGROUND: Staff has discussed and evaluated the actions taken by the City Council. The following items are submitted to the City Council for its consideration. Based on meetings with the developer, certain neighbors, and staff,the developeragrees to these conditions and several of surrounding property owners have indicated that they will support the project with these revisions. Revisions are as follows: 1A. That the area designated for units 1-5 shall be approved forthree single family residences. The lot configuration shall be shown on the Final Planned Development District and approved by the Planning Commission prior to Final Tentative Tract Map approval. 1 B. Each lot shall be developed with a custom single family residence. Approval of each custom single family residence shall be processed in accordance with Section 94.04.00, (Architectural Approval) of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance. Each custom home shall be designed to be compatible architecturally with the existing single family homes located to the north. Architectural compatibility shall include building design/style,windows, plaster, roof tile, and landscaping. The maximum building height shall be 18 feet and single story. The minimum setback from the north property line shall be 25 feet. The minimum front yard setback shall be 20 feet to the garage, unless side loaded and two parking spaces provided in front of the garage, and 10 feet to the rest of the house. Side yard setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet. No modifications are permitted I/ 1C. The newly created lots — 1, 2, and 3 — shall be provided access through the project and shall be included in the homeowners association. 2. The proposed onsite retention basins shall be redesigned to minimize the area adjacent to West Tahquitz Canyon Way. The retention areas shall be fully landscaped and designed for and available for passive and active recreation. 3. The applicant will submit a revised statistical analysis calculation showing site and percentage of total site: Retention areas Decorative Paving onsite only Tribal Dedication Site Building Coverage Parking and Drives 4. The Tahquitz Flume and existing rock wall adjacent to Tahquitz Drive and along east property line shall be protected in place. Any damage to this wall shall be fully restored and repaired by the developer. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the entire wall shall be photographed and its condition docuinented by the project architect. Photographs and field notes shall be provided which fully document the wall's existing condition. 5. Construction hours shall be limited from January through April to Monday through Friday from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and no construction activity permitted on weekends or holidays. Additionally, the developer will prepare, publish, and deliver to adjacent property owners a construction phasing and construction activity schedule. 6. That the Le Vallauris trash facilities shall be relocated to the south and adjacent to the kitchen exit door. If the City Council is supportive of an alternative action, the City Council should continue the item to its July 03, 2002 meeting. Staff is asking adjacent property owners who support this proposal to do so in writing so that City Council sees community support. 1 erector of I Tanning and wilding I ' �— City Manager ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution of Denial ��� DATE: June 5, 2002 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD (PD 254) APPLICATION BY TAHQUITZ VENTURE, LLC. AND CT REALTY CORPORATION, FORMERLY BERGHEER,CALIFORNIA INC., FORA PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO 50 LOTS AND A SEVEN COMMON AREA LOTS, FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A GATED 50-UNIT MULTI FAMILY CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve Case No. 5.0804-PD-254 for Preliminary Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29077) for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 50 residential lots and seven common area lots, for development as a gated 50-unit multi-family cluster residential development, located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of Museum Drive (APNs 513-121-035 and 513-141-012), subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution. SUMMARY: On April 24, 2002, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item. At the hearing, a number of issues were discussed including density, site design, vehicular circulation, parking, street improvements, the relationship to adjacent uses, architectural quality, public safety, and building materials. The Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the project and impose conditions requiring the applicant to: • Utilize the highest quality building materials possible, including mudded two-piece clay roof tiles, smooth finished hand-troweled stucco, wood garage doors, iron grillwork, wood shutters, metal awnings, Milgard Craftsman grid true divided light windows, and decorative color paving in the project entry, driveways and parking courts; • Provide a sample panel of roof tile, 10'x 10' minimum size for review by the Design Review Committee, prior to approval of a Final Planned Development District; • Restrict revisions of the CC&R's to those approved by the City; • Incorporate a provision into the CC&R's assigning guest parking spaces in front of garages to those individual units. • Restudy the terminus of the Tahquitz Canyon Way. The restudy is to include the relocation of the Le Vallauris trash area, provide additional parking and augment the landscaping, paving and monumentation. it" , BACKGROUND: The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on this item at its meetings September 12, 2002 and September 26. 2001, when the Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the project. On October 17, 2001, the City Council voted to refer the case back to the Planning Commission and directed the Commission to review the setback of two-story units to the R-1-A zone, Tahquitz Canyon Way street and off-site improvements, guest parking, building separation and open space. The applicant subsequently revised the plans to address these issues. On January 9, 2002, the Planning Commission reviewed the revised application, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the project. The City Attorney later determined that a quorum of the Planning Commission was not present during that vote. Subsequently, revised applications were filed with the City, substituting Tahquitz Venture, LLC and CT Realty, Inc. as the applicants and removing the former applicant from the project. On April 24, 2002, the Planning Commission voted, following a public hearing on the matter, to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project. The Planning Commission staff report of April 24, 2002 is attached for additional background. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Planning Commission staff reports, September 12 and 26, 2001, January 9, 2002 and April 24, 2002 (to be presented) 3. City Council staff report, October 17, 2001 4. Initial Study 5. Correspondence 6. General Plan Policy 3.4.7, W. Tahquitz Canyon Way 7. Planning Commission minutes, September 12 and 26, 2001, January 9, 2002 and April 24, 2002 8. City Council minutes, October 17, 2001 9. Resolution 10. Conditions of Approval 1116 Date: October 17, 2001 To: City Council From: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD(PD 254)APPLICATION BY BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 52 UNIT GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council consider filing a mitigated negative declaration and approval of Case No. 5.0804- PD for a Planned Development District (No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29077)for a 52-unit gated community located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of Museum Drive (APNs 513-121-35 and 513-141-12), subject to the conditions outlined in the Resolution. The applicant is Bergheer, California, Inc. and its officers are Carl Bergheer, President and James White, Director of Sales and Marketing. BACKGROUND: At its September 24, 2001 meeting the Planning Commission voted 3-2, with 2 abstentions, to recommend approval of the proposed project bythe City Council. Atthat meeting,community concerns were focused on the proposed treatment of the project's northern boundary, which abuts the R-1-A zoned hillside, single family residential development and proposed minimum distance between buildings. Section 94.03.00 of the Municipal Code states that the intent of Planned Development District (PD) is to insure compliance with the general plan and good zoning practices while allowing certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of specific zoning classifications. The R-3 zone requires that two story units be located 200' from R-1 zoned properties. The zone also requires a minimum distance between buildings of 15 feet. The applicant seeks relief from these standards. As proposed, the minimum setback from a two story residence to R-1 zoned property would be 53'for the first and fourth units. A portion of these units would have a 58' setback to the roof line of the one story portion, with a 72' setback to the top of the roof. The second and third units would feature a 60' setback to the single story roof line,with an 76'setback to the top of the roof.The fifth unit would feature a 58' setback to the two -story building elevation. The applicant has also reduced maximum building height from 26' to 24', in response to neighbors concerns. The applicant is also proposing a minimum distance between buildings of 8', with some chimney locations resulting in a building separation of 6'. In granting relief from the strict provisions of the zoning ordinance,the Planning Commission found that the proposed project was consistent with existing development patterns in the vicinity, particularly the two and three story hillside residences located directly to the north of the project site across Tahquitz Canyon Way and also with the multi-story, multi-family residential uses located directly to the south and east of the project site. A detailed overviewof the project,zoning,land use and environmental issues is provided in the attached Planning Commission staff report and Environmental Assessment. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Planning Commission September 12 and 26, 2001 staff reports and Environmental Assessment 2. Planning Commission minutes of September 12 and 26, 2001 3. Correspondence 4. Resolution 5. Conditions of Approval / 11411 Date: April 24, 2002 To: Planning Commission From: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD (PD 254) APPLICATION BY TAHQUITZ VENTURE, LLC. AND CT REALTY CORPORATION, FORMERLY BERGHEER, CALIFORNIA INC., FORA PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, RELATED ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO FOR A GATED 50-UNIT MULTI FAMILY CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY, LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Case No.5.0804-PD-254 for Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29077)for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 50 residential lots and seven common area lots for development as a gated 50-unit multi- family cluster residential community, located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of Museum Drive(APNs 513-121-035 and 513-141-012),subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND: A revised application by Tahquitz Venture, LLC. and CT Realty Corporation has been received for the Tahquitz Villas, a Planned Development District, to allow a 50-unit multi-family gated development. A Tentative Tract Map application has also been submitted to subdivide the 6.8 acre (gross), 6.54 acre (net) parcel into 50 lots, ranging in size from 2,267 square feet to 6,500 square feet. The map also includes a number of lettered lots which will be used for common area improvements and amenities such as driveways, guest parking, a swimming pool, spa area with accompanying restrooms, pool building, project roadways, sidewalks and an on-site retention area. On September 26, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project. On October 17, 2001, the City Council voted to refer the case back to the Planning Commission and directed the Commission to review the setback of two-story units to the R-1- C zone, Tahquitz Canyon Way bay parking, guest parking and proposed open space. The applicant subsequently revised the plans to address these issues.On January 9,2002,the Planning Commission reviewed the revised application, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the project. The City Attorney later determined that a quorum of the Planning Commission was not present during that vote. This item has been returned for the Planning Commission's reconsideration. The applicant has proposed revisions to the exterior materials. It was staff's understanding that the project would include wood frame windows and colored textured paving in the driveways and parking courts. The applicant has stated their intent to utilize wood garage doors, deep colored vinyl windows, hand troweled,smooth stucco,wood shutters,detailed ornamental iron railings,metal awnings,and two- piece clay roof tile. Revised project plans depict colored paving at the project entry area but do not include colored paving in the driveway and parking court areas. 11)1103 On March 25, 2002 and April 8, 2002, the Design Review Committee met to review this project. The Design Review Committee recommended that the project design include: 1. Wood garage doors; 2. Hand troweled, smooth stucco; 3. Two-piece clay tile roof; 4. Wood shutters; 5. Detailed ornamental iron railings; 6. Metal awnings; and 7. Color textured paving in the project entry, driveways and parking court areas. The Design Review Committee did not have a consensus on the proposed window material. Staff recommends the use of wood windows. The Design Review Committee will meet to review this project again on April 22, 2002, and will be asked to vote to for a recommended window material. The Planning Commission will be briefed on their recommendation at the hearing. The Planning Commission staff report of January 9, 2002 is attached for your review. No other conditions have changed. I Date: September 26, 2001 To: Planning Commission From: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD(PD 254)APPLICATION BY BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. FORA PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD) AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 52 UNIT GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAYAND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission recommend approval of 5.0804-PD fora Planned Development District (No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29077) for a 52-unit gated community located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way,west of Museum Drive (APNs 513-121-35 and 513-141-12), subject to the conditions outlined in the Resolution. BACKGROUND: This item was continued from the September 12, 2001 meeting of the Planning Commission. At that meeting, much of the discussion focused on the proposed treatment of the project's northern boundary, which abuts the R-1-A zoned hillside, single family residential development.Adjacent property owners expressed serious concern about the location of two story residences located adjacent to the R-1-A zoned properties. The applicant had proposed locating seven two-story residences along the northern project boundary. The units were proposed to be setback 17' to 22'from the property line. Section 94.03.00 of the Municipal Code states that the intent of Planned Development District(PD)are to insure compliance with the general plan and good zoning practices while allowing certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of specific zoning classifications. The R-3 zone requires that two story units be located 200' from R-1 zoned properties. The applicant seeks relief from this standard. On September 17,2001,the applicant submitted a revised site plan, in which the primary retention area has been relocated to provide an enhanced buffer between the proposed project and adjacent residences to the north.The applicant has reduced the number of units bordering the northern property line from seven to five. The pool area has been relocated to a site directly to the west of the entry.The northern most residences would be located to the south of the primary retention area. The minimum setback from a two story residence to R-1 zoned property would be 58'for the first and fourth units.A portion of these units would have a 64' setback to the roof line of the one story portion, with a 78' setback to the top of the roof. The second and third units would feature a 65'setback to the single story roof line, with an 85' setback to the top of the roof. The fifth unit would feature a 64'setback to the two -story building elevation. The applicant has also reduced maximum building height from 26' to 24'. I if/S000 Since the previous staff report was prepared additional correspondence has been received regarding this case. A letter was received from the Tribe. The letter recommends the imposition of additional conditions related to the historic resources. Staff has reviewed these concerns and has revised the conditions to incorporate the tribes recommendations.A revised set of condiions of approval is attached for your review. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Revised site plan 2. September 12, 2001 Staff Report 3. Revised Conditions of Approval (see City Council report) 4. Correspondence IIA /69 i f Date: September 12, 2001 To: Planning Commission From: Director of Planning & Building CASE 5.0804-PD (PD 254) APPLICATION BY BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PD)AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP (TTM 29077), FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF A 6.8 ACRE PARCEL INTO A 52 UNIT GATED RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED TO THE SOUTHWEST OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15. RECOMMENDATION: Thatthe Planning Commission recommend approval of 5.0804-PDfora Planned Development District (No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map (TTM 29077) for a 52-unit single family residential gated community located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of Museum Drive (APNs 513-121-35 and 513-141-12), subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution. BACKGROUND: Bergheer California, Inc. has submitted an application for a Planned Development District to allow a 52-unit gated condominium development. A Tentative Tract Map application has also been submitted to subdivide the 6.8 acre(gross), 6.54 acre(net)parcel into 52 lots, ranging in size from 2,267 square feet to 4,670 square feet.The map also includes ten lettered lots which will be used for common area improvements and amenities such as guest parking, a swimming pool, spa area with accompanying restrooms, pool building, project roadways, sidewalks and an on-site retention area. The project site is currently vacant.The site is generally level(1-2%slope)and contains sparse vegetation primarily consisting of scattered shrubs, palms and other trees.An existing earthen swale bordering the Tahquitz Ditch crosses the northwest corner of the property. The 52 proposed condominium units are proposed to be 2 bedroom units ranging in size from 1,615 square feet to 2,100 square feet in detached two-story structures. Three models are proposed which all feature variations of a great room and kitchen on the first floor and bedroom areas located on the second floor. Proposed on-site recreational facilities for the project consist of a single pool, spa, and accompanying restrooms/pool building. This Planned Development District application proposes to provide specific development standards for the project as well as a preliminary development plan as provided for by Zoning Code Section 9403.00, Approval by the Planning Commission and City Council of the preliminary development will constitute approval of the Preliminary Planned Development District, and the preliminary development plan shall, by reference, be incorporated into and become a part of the Planned Development District. If a Preliminary Planned Development is granted, at a later date, the applicant will submit final development plans for review and approval by the Planning Commission.Planning Commission will review the final plan for substantial conformance with the approved preliminary plan. With this application, approval of the development plan as both a preliminary and final plan is 1 /# 17 rt . requested. A Final Development Plan may be processed concurrent with the Preliminary Development Plan. However, the application is not complete for consideration of a Final Planned Development District. Additional exhibits including complete building plans with floor and roof plans, site plan,final grading plan, landscape plans, irrigation plans and lighting plans with all specifications are required prior to scheduling as a Final Planned Development. ADJACENT USES, ZONING AND LAND USE: Uses Zone General Plan North Single family R-1-A CBD residences (Single Family Residential, L-2 (Residential Low) (2 and 3 stories), with hillside conditions Desert Museum applicable), (3 story), C-B-D Desert Fashion (Central Business District) Plaza (3 story) East Restaurant, Hotels, R-3 (Multiple Family H43/30 Apartments Residential and Hotel) (High Density Residential) South Hotels, Apartments R-2 (Limited Multiple H43/30 Family Residential) (High Density R-3 (Multiple Family Residential) Residential and Hotel) West Vacant, Single family R-2 (Limited Multiple L-2 (Residential Low) residences Family Residential) M-15 (Residential Medium) ANALYSIS: The proposed project consists of the approval of a Planned Development District (PD) with specific project development standards, and tentative map for a proposed 52 unit detached condominium project. Based upon existing zoning, of which 80% of the 6.54 acre site (5.232 acres) is zoned R-3 and the remaining 20% of the site (1.308 acres), is zoned R-2, approximately 132 multi-family or rental housing units could be allowable on the subject property, subject to the ability of the applicant to,comply with the development standards established for the zone. If the applicant wanted to develop the site as a resort hotel,as permitted underthe General Plan and in the R-3 zone, the maximum number of rooms could be calculated using one of two formulas contained in Section 92.04.03.C.1 of the Zoning Ordinance.In the R-3 zone,maximum density for hotels utilizing above ground parking is calculated at a ratio 1,000 square feet of net lot area for each dwelling unit of a hotel or resort hotel. Therefore,with above ground parking, a maximum of 227 hotels units on the R-3 portion of the site, in addition to 19 hotel units on the R-2 portion of the site, for a combined total of 246 total dwelling units could be allowable. r The density of hotels with underground parking is calculated at a rate of one hotel unit per every 800 square feet of net lot area. Were the property to be developed with underground parking, a maximum of 284 hotel units on the R-3 portion of the site, in addition to the 19 hotel units on the R-2 portion of the site, for a combined total of 303 dwelling units could be allowable. The project site is located within both the R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential) and R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel)zones. The development standards required in these zones, and the standards proposed within the development plan presented, are as follows: R-2 R-3 Proposed Density 1 unit/3,000 sq.ft. 1 unit/2,000 sq.ft. 1 unit/5,480 sq.ft. (Max. 19 units) (Max 113 units) (52 units proposed) Height 15' -24' maximum 15'-24' maximum 26' maximum Setbacks 15' height limit 15' height limit w/in 26' height Win 35' to SFR Win 150' of adjacent 200' of adjacent of property line of R-1 property R-1 property adjacent R-1 property Yards based on above front yard of not front yard minimum of height limitation less than 25' 17' 26' side yard minimum of (side yard of 10' or not 15' less than building height) 26' rear yard minimum of (rear yard of 10' or not 20' less than building height) Separation 15' 15, 8' Walls Required where Required where Perimeter walls an R-2 property an R-3 property proposed at all abuts R-1 property abuts R-1 property property lines Parking 1-1/2 spaces per Same as R-2 2 spaces per unit unit, one of which in a garage (110) and must be covered (78); 10 guest spaces, for a 1 guest space per total of 120 spaces 4 units (13), for a total of 91 spaces Coverage Maximum 30% No standard 25% Landscaping Minimum of 55% Minimum of 45% 49% and of the site developed of the site to be open space as landscaping/ landscaped outdoor recreation �„ i J s The project is well within the density requirements of both the R-2 and R-3 zones. However, variations to certain development standards have been proposed.These include deviationswith respect to building height, building setbacks, building separation, and guest parking as noted above. BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS The project elevations and cross sections indicate that the proposed project includes a maximum building height of 26', which is two (2) feet above that allowed in the R-2 and R-3 zone. The proposed project includes two story residential units within 150' of R-1 zoned property. Where the R-2 zone abuts an R-1 zone, all structures within 150' of the R-1 are allowed to have a maximum height of 15'. However, the R-2 zoned portions of the site do not abut R-1 zoned properties. Where the R-3 zone abuts and R-1 zone, all structures within 200' feet of the R-1 zoned properties are required to have a maximum height of 15'and not exceed one story. The setback line may vary by up to fifty feet (50'), however, if the average setback is 200' and the Planning Commission determines that no detrimental effect will occur. The proposed project includes a building height of 26'feet, which exceeds that allowed by the R-2 and R-3 zones by two(2)feet.This is consistent with development in the area, particularly the existing two- and three-story residences to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way and multi- story multi family residential development located directly to the south of the property. The adjacent development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way includes single family residences, a historic resort property,the Desert Museum and the Desert Fashion Plaza. The existing R-1 zoned, multi-story homes to the north of the site feature ground level parking and garage areas, ground level residential uses with no view corridors, elevated second floors with limited views and third floor residences with views to the south of Tahquitz Canyon. Additional hillside residences exist further to the north,which are directly west of the Desert Museum and are only accessible from Palisades Drive. The Zoning Ordinance standards for augmented R-2 and R-3 setbacks in the case of multi-story buildings adjacent to R-1 Zoned properties, was designed to protect the privacy and view corridors of R-1 properties, which have historically been single story residential units. In this case the proposed project is adjacent to two and three story hillside residences, may of which exceed the height of the proposed project. Because the RA zoned properties in this case are not single story residences, a reduction of the required 150' and 200' setbacks has been proposed. Therefore,the applicants request for a maximum building height of 26'as part of this Planned Unit Development appear reasonable. Staff finds that after review of the site plan,site cross-sections, visual simulations, and field conditions that there is merit to the applicants request. The proposed project includes reduced front yard setbacks of a minimum 17',whereas the R-2 and R-3 zones require a minimum front yard setback of 25'.The proposed project provides for side yard and rear yard setbacks which exceed the R-3 zone requirements. The proposed project also features minimum building separation of 8',whereas the R-2 and R-3 zones require a minimum building separation of 15'. Given the proposed site design characteristics,whereby the project is designed around motor courts with rear yards facing towards the exterior of the project, the proposed front setbacks will not cause structures to be located closer to adjacent development than normally allowed by the underlying zones. The same is true of building separation,given the proposed site design characteristics,whereby the project is designedwith 1144)40 1 I an internal orientation, the proposed building separation will not cause on-site structures to be located closer to off-site structures than normally allowed by the underlying zones. The proposed project exceeds the overall parking requirements for the residences. Two (2) parking spaces are provided in a garage for each residential unit, equal to the number of bedrooms in each unit, while the underlying zones only require 1.5 spaces per unit, one of which must be covered. The project provides a total of 10 guest parking spaces, while Zoning code provisions require 0.25 spaces per dwelling unit, for a total of 13 guest spaces. Thus, as designed the project exceeds code requirements for parking, 104 garage spaces and 10 guest spaces are provided, for a total of 114 parking spaces. A multi family project with the same number of units would required a total of 91 spaces. Thus, the project exceeds parking code requirements by 19 spaces, and exceeds requirements for covered parking spaces. LOT COVERAGE AND LANDSCAPING The allowable lot coverage in the R-2 zone is 30%. The R-3 zone does not contain standards for maximum lot coverage. The proposal is for 25% lot coverage. Approximately 20% of the project site is zoned R-2. The remaining 80% of the site is designated as R-3. As an in-fill project,the proposed project's lot coverage is consistent with existing development in the area, much of which was constructed prior to the time when zoning code requirements for open space came into existence. The proposed amenities, including the location of open space in a large detention basin, and the swimming pool, spa and pool area buildings provide for both active and passive recreation amenities. The project includes 49% landscaped area, while the R-3 zone requires a minimum of 45% landscaped areas and the R-2 zone requires a minimum of 50% landscaped area. The proposed landscaping is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and with existing development in the area. The proposed landscape design includes a dense shade tree canopy, accent plants,shrubs,vines and groundcoverin a lush,yet water efficient design.Proposed landscape materials are larger in size, with a minimum of one (1) gallon sized plants, to minimize the number of growing seasons required to achieve full plant maturity. Staff recommends that the detention basins and archeological site be landscaped, to the extent possible. In accordance with Section 9403.00(C)of the Zoning Code,the Planning Commission and the City Council are authorized to establish a full range of development standards appropriate to the orderly development of a site for which a PD is approved. Therefore, the Planning Commission and City Council may determine that the benefits of the proposed development plan warrant the granting of the development standards proposed. With respect to site design, the 52-unit project design features the grouping of residential structures around central driveway courtyards. This design minimizes vehicular driveway areas and accompanying garage views and is therefore a positive design element. From the project entry at Tahquitz Canyon Way, a 26'wide loop road provides vehicular circulation through the site. A single common pool and spa facility has been located at the westerly end of the project site, and retention basins at the northwest corner of the site and along the easterly property line add to the landscaping and open space provided within the project. Lot sizes are likely to preclude the construction of individual pools. III } CIRCULATION The project will take access from Tahquitz Canyon Way at its westerly terminus. In accordance with General Plan Policy 3.4.7, West Tahquitz Canyon Way,and with the objectives of retaining the low density residential character of the area, preventing the intrusion of through-traffic, and providing localized parking, the proposed project includes a number of off-site improvements on West Tahquitz Way. These improvements include traffic calming, textured paving, bay parking, a landscape median on Tahquitz Way and entry monuments west of Museum Drive. A Traffic Impact Study for the Tahquitz Villas Project in the City of Palm Springs was prepared for the project by Albert Grover&Associates(July 5,2001).The traffic study indicates that the future development of this subdivision will create approximately 568 daily 2-way trips. The report further notes that the project is expected to generate approximately 57 trip ends (31 inbound and 26 outbound) during the Saturday afternoon peak hour . The most critical combination of project traffic and adjacent street traffic within the study area will occur between 1 pm and 2 pm on Saturday afternoons. During this worst case time period,the signalized intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way at Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way at Indian Canyon Drive currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) "B", with no individual turning movements worse than LOS "C." Currently, the unsignalized intersections of Tahquitz Canyon Waywith Museum Drive,Cahuilla Road,Belardo Road and the driveway entrance to the Desert Fashion Plaza all operate with no individual turning movements worse that LOS "C"during this peak hour. Although analysis demonstrated Saturday afternoon traffic conditions to be the worst-case condition for this study, the unique traffic patterns generated by the City's weekly Thursday evening"Village Fest"event were of particular concern with regard to quantifying the potential traffic impact of the proposed development. Data collection, analysis and field observation of Village Fest conditions indicate that, for all scenarios, Thursday evening traffic with post development traffic will operate acceptably at all intersections,and at a LOS superior to mid day Saturday for the critical intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road. With the addition of project traffic during "Opening Year", all Levels-of-Service at each study intersection will remain unchanged from existing conditions. Therefore, no improvements are necessary to maintain acceptable Year 2002 traffic operations eitherwithout orwith the project. By 2010,based on"Build Out"traffic projections,all study intersections except Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service, although typically one "Level of Service" lower than for Year 2002 traffic. No roadway traffic control improvements are recommended to accommodate"Build Out"2010 traffic or as a consequence of the proposed development. The intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road is likely to operate unacceptably, although not beyond capacity by 2010 as a consequence of increased background traffic due to the revitalization of the Desert Fashion Plaza. No improvement is recommended at this time or is planned for 2010 as a result of traffic from the proposed project. The intersection should be observed and remedial measures considered if they become necessary,which is anticipated to occur as Desert Fashion Plaza revitalization occurs. / 1 A- 107 The traffic report also found that.Tahquitz Canyon Way acceptably serves existing traffic through the study area and will continue to do so though 2010 with recommended mitigation measures. WEST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY/TAHQUITZ DRIVE TRANSITION General Plan Policy 3.4.7 , West Tahquitz Canyon Way (attached), requires resolution of the current traffic and driveway conflicts. The applicant has proposed a number of improvements to Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of the intersection with Museum Drive, in order to meet this objective.The improvements include narrowing of the street right of way,a landscaped median, stone identification monuments,on-street bay parking on the south side of the street and project entryway improvements. The objective of these improvements is to slow traffic west of the intersection, provide traffic calming in the immediate vicinity of the project area,provide for large vehicle back-up for deliveries to the Desert Museum, provide additional parking in the area and create an upgraded terminus for Tahquitz Canyon Way.The improvements are also intended to reduce the number of misdirected vehicles in the area,since the area west of the intersection is not a through street. Recent projects in the immediate vicinity, including Case 5.0699, PD- 239, The Willows Bed and Breakfast Inn, have similarly been conditioned to participate in improvements at the terminus of West Tahquitz Canyon Way(attached). The preliminary plan will need to be refined to provide adequate improvements and provide adequate sight distances as part of the Final Planned Development plans. The gated project entry will feature a 16'wide guest lane with a phone and address board for guests to call their hosts and announce their arrival. An 8' landscaped median will provide a buffer between the guest driveway,which will also allow for mis-directed vehicles to turn around and the 20'wide primary entry driveway, which was designed in accordance to specifications of the Fire Department.A second teardrop shaped, 16'wide landscaped median separates the primary entry lane and the 18'wide exit lane.The median was redesigned as a tear drop shape to facilitate fire truck turning and entry movements into the proposed project. PROJECT DESIGN Since the application was been received, the applicant has worked with staff to incorporate a number of revisions into the project. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed architectural design of the project, as depicted in the project elevations and cross sections, is consistent with the high standards established within the City of Palm Springs. The proposed project is consistent with existing development in the project area. The project will minimally affect views from lower level residences of the adjacent single family residential and multi family residential properties. Project landscaping will reduce the visual impact of the project. Therefore, there should be no impacts to aesthetics as a result of the project. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: An initial study/environmental assessment dated August 23,2001 was prepared by staff forthe Planned Development and Tentative Tract Map. In the Initial Study, staff found that the proposed project had the potential to have a significant environmental impact in certain areas, such as traffic, archaeology, and air quality with respect to future short-term construction activity,if mitigation measures are not incorporated into the project design. In the attached Initial 1 1461100 Study/Environmental Assessment, the above issues were analyzed in greater detail. In conclusion, with the proposed mitigation measures, staff feels that any environmental issues will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. The proposed mitigation measures are included in the conditions of approval. If the Planning Commission concurs with the determination of the initial Study and the appropriateness of the mitigation measures,then a recommendation of issuance of a Mitigated Negative Declaration by the City Council would be in order. NOTIFICATION/COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT All property owners within a 400-foot radius of the parcel considered for subdivision were notified. A legal notice was published in the Desert Sun. A series of neighborhood community meetings were held regarding the project on September 4, 1998, February 4, 1999 and March 20,2001.The City has received written correspondence from area residents,which is attached for your review. ATTACHMENTS: 1 Vicinity Map 2. Tentative Map 3. Site Plan 4. Revised Entry Plans 5. Entry Photo Simulation 6. View Corridor Photo Simulation 7. Initial Study a. Elevations b. Photos 8. Correspondence 9. General Plan Policy 3.4.7, W. Tahquitz Canyon Way 10. Conditions, Case 5.0699, PD-239, The Willows 11. Resolution 12. Conditions of Approval r � 1 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING INITIAL STUDY Revised: December 19, 2001 Application No(s:): Case No. 5.0804, Planned Development District No. 254 and Tentative Tract Map 29077 Date of Completed Application: 8/15/01 Name of Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc. Project Description: Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map for a gated 50 unit, one and two story, multi-family residential development. Location of project: APN # 513-121-35 and 513-141-12; Tahquitz Canyon Way, south west of the corner of Museum Drive, west of Cahuilla Road. General Plan Designation(s): H43/21 (High Density Residential) Proposed General Plan Designation(s): No change proposed Present Land Use(s): Vacant Existing Zoning(s): R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel) *A small portion of the southwest corner of the project site is zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential) Proposed Zoning(s): No change proposed I. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See section 2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in the same area, cumulative impactshould be considered). ®Yes ❑No Il. If "yes" above, does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects.listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? ❑Yes ®No III. If"no" on II., does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts listed in Section 15268 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines? Yes ®No IV. If "no" pn III., does the project fall under any of the Statutory ❑Yes ®No Exempt iws listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines? 1 � � .j) V. If "no" on IV., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical DYes ®No Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines? (Where there is a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not apply). VI. Project Description: The applicant proposes to subdivide 0.8 acres (gross)/6.54 acres (net) of land into a cluster residential development of 50 residential units. The property is located between Tahquitz Canyon Way and Arenas Road, west of Cahuilla Road. The subject site is currently zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential) and R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel). The applicant is proposing a Planned Development Districtto allow the development of a 50-unit attached and detached multi-family cluster residential project with modified setbacks and building separation. The project also includes a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide the parcel into 50 lots units for individual ownership. The proposed development will gain vehicular access from the westerly terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way, an existing public street. A precise grading plan will be required in conjunction with the specific development plan. The Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map will be considered by the Planning Commission and the City Council as required by the Zoning Ordinance. 1 VI I. Site Description: The site is currently vacant and consists of generally level land, with a slope of approximately 1% - 2%, with native scrub vegetation and scattered trees and shrubs. Vill. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses: North: R-1-A(Single Family Residential); Single Family Residential South: R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential) and R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel); Apartments and Hotels East: R-3 (Multiple Family Residential); Hotel, Restaurant West: R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential); Vacant Surrounding General Plan: North: L-2 (Low Density Residential) South: H 43/21 (High Density Residential) East: H 43/21 (High Density Residential) West: L-2 (Low Density Residential) 2 IX. Is the proposed project consistent with: If answered yes or not applicable, no explanation is required) City of Palm Springs General Plan ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A Applicable Specific Plan ❑Yes ❑No RN/A City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A South Coast Air Quality Management Plan ®Yes ❑No ❑N/A Airport Part 150 Noise Study ❑Yes ❑No RN/A Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan ❑Yes oNo RN/A X. Are there any of the following studies required? 1. Soils Report ❑Yes RNo 2. Slope Study ❑Yes RNo 3. Geotechnical Report ❑Yes RNo 4. Traffic Study ®Yes oNo 5. Air Quality Study ❑Yes ®No 6. Hydrology ®Yes ❑No 7. Sewer Study ❑Yes RNo 8. Biological Study ❑Yes RNo 9. Noise Study ❑Yes RNo 10. Hazardous Materials Study ❑Yes RNo 11. Housing Analysis ❑Yes RNo 12. Archaeological Report RYes oNo 13. Groundwater Analysis ❑Yes RNo 14. Water Quality Report ❑Yes RNo 15. Other ❑Yes RNo r C)X\ 3 b Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact XI. Incorporated herein by reference: • Archeological Investigation at the McCallum Ranch by James D. Swanson, University of California Riverside, (August 1981); • A Cultural Resource Reconnaissance of the Joseph Drown Foundation Property in Palm Springs, Riverside County , California by RMW Paleo Associates, Incorporated (August 1999, Revised, February 2001); • Hydrology Calculations for TM 29077 prepared by Sanborn A/E, Inc. (December 2001); and • Traffic Impact Study for the Tahquitz Villas Project by Albert Grover& Associates (July 5, 2001), and Preliminary Drainage Tentative Tract No. 29077, Bergheer California, Inc., AIE- CASC Engineering (February 4, 1999). 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans ' or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? ❑ ❑ p c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impacts to soils or farmlands, or Impacts from incompatible land uses)? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community(including a low-income or minority community)? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1 a,b,d,e)NO IMPACT. The proposed project falls within an acceptable range of land uses as described by the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance for the R-2 and R-3 zone designation.The project site is designated as H43130 on the City's General Plan.In the opinion of the Planning Division,the project is compatible with the City's General Plan and consistentwith the Zoning Ordinance.There are no agricultural resources in the area of the project. The projectwill not disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an established community upon build out. 1 c)LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.The proposed project is a residential development which would constitute the redevelopment of a formerly developed site within a fullydeveloped area.The general area Is experiencing new private-sector Investment and,as a result of the new investment is undergoing revitalization. The project site previously contained single family residences and multi family residences which were demolished.The proposed project is an in-fill development,almost entirely surrounded by existing development, with the exception of the parcel immediately to the west.The proposed use is surrounded by residential,visitor serving, cultural and commercial uses.The site is approximately 600'west of the former Desert Fashion Plaza site.The site is also approximately 1000'west of the Intersection of Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquilz Canyon Way, the city's busiest pedestrian intersection.The proposed project is 4 � �,3 -� 0 Potentially Significant - Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact similar in size,scope,scale,density,architecture and massing to land uses in the vicinity. The proposed project includes a number of slight modifications from the standards set forth In the R-3 zone. A small portion of the southwest corner of the site which is adjacent to existing R-2 zoned property is zoned R-2.Given that the development standards for the R-3 zone are identical to those ofthe R-2 zone,staff has uses the R-3 zone for the purposes of this analysis.The proposed project Includes a building height ranging from 12'to 24'feet,which complies with the R-3 zone.This is consistent with development in the area,particularly the existing multi-story residential development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way and multi-story multi family residential development located directly to the south of the property.Development to the north of Tahqultz Canyon Way is single family residential units and a historic resort property.These multistory homes feature ground level parking and garage areas,ground level residential uses with no view corridors,elevated second floors and third floor residences with views to the south towards Tahquitz Canyon. Additional hillside residences exist further to the north,which are directly west of the Desert Museum and are only accessible from Palisades Drive. Because of the existence of an established landscape canopy throughout the Tennis Club area,the proposed project will have minimal visual Impact on the surrounding properties.Properties directly adjacent to the project site,which currently enjoy open space views of the project site,will experience the loss of adjacent open space,which may be valued and therefore could be distressing to some adjacent residents.Adjacent properties will also experience a loss of some view corridors.Hillside properties directly to the north of the project site currently have views of the rear of multi family and hotel properties which front on Arenas Road. Conversely, hotel and multi family properties located on Arenas Road have view corridors across the project site which provide visual access to the hillside properties located north of the project site. In both instances, these view corridors will be modified and replaced with views of the proposed project. The applicant has created a photo simulation,taken from one of the hillside properties,looking south into the mouth ofTahquitz Canyon.From the photo simulation,it is evident that views of the back of the hotels and multi family properties located along Arenas Road will be replaced by views of the proposed project,which will are to be softened through the addition of project landscaping.Because of the age and condition of some of these properties which are presently visible,the project may result in an improvement of views in and around the project site, The project elevations and cross sections indicate that the proposed project includes a maximum building height of 24',which is allowed by the R-3 zone.The R-3 zone requires 200'of separation between buildings in excess of 15 feet and R-1 zoned properties.The setback may vary by 50'feet if the average setback is 200'and the Planning Commission determines that no detrimental effects will occur.The project includes three,12'tall single story buildings(five residences)setback 30'from the property line abutting the adjacent R-1 zoned, properties, which will serve as a buffer between the R-1 zoned properties to the north and the 24'tali two story buildings located in the - intefiorofthe project.The proposed project includes 24'tall, two story residential buildings with an average setback of 203'to abutting R-1 zoned property, (four buildings with a setback of 173'and two building with a setback of 263%which complies with the R-3 zone. The proposed project includes front yard setbacks of 30',which exceeds the R-3 zone requirement of 25'.The proposed project provides for 20'side yard and 18'rear yard setbacks,which do not meet the R-3 zone requirements.The proposed project also features minimum building separation of 8', whereas the R-3 zone requires a minimum building separation of IT. Given the proposed site design characteristics, whereby the project Is designed with internal circulation and rear yards face towards the exterior of the project, the proposed side and rear yard setbacks will not cause structures to be located closer to adjacent development than normally allowed by the underlying zones.The same is true of building separation,given the proposed site design characteristics,whereby the project is designed with an internal orientation,the proposed building separation will not cause structures to be closerlo structures located adjacentto the site than normally allowed by the underlying zones. The proposed project exceeds the parking requirements for the residences.Two spaces are provide in a garage foreach residential unit. The project provides a total of 19 guest parking spaces.The project exceeds code requirements for parking,100 garage spaces and 19 guest spaces are provided,for a total of 119 parking spaces,whereas 75 unit spaces,(50 ofwhich must be covered)and 13 guest spaces are required(for a total of 88 spaces)would be required. The projects proposed a lot coverage is 25%.The R-3 zone does not contain standards for maximum lot coverage.As an In-fill project, the proposed projed:s lot coverage Is consistent with existing development In the area.The proposed amenities,including the location of the bulk of the opens space in a large detention,and the swimming pool,spa and pool area buildings provide for both active and passive recreation amenities. The project includes 49%landscaped area.The R-3 zone requires a minimum of 45%landscaped area.Therefore,the proposed landscape coverage is consistent with the Zoning Code.The proposed landscape coverage is also consistent with existing development in the area. The proposed project design Includes dense shade tree canopy,accent plants,shrubs,vines and groundoover In a lush yet water efficient landscape design.Proposed landscape materials are larger In size,with a minimum of smaller 1 gallon sized plans,to minimize the number of growing seasons required to achieve full plant maturity. 5 11+ Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact The project is located In an area which Is predominantly developed.All public services and utilities are currently in place and no expansion to the Infrastructure,with the exception of minor traffic calming street improvements to Tahquitz Canyon Way, Is proposed as part of the project. The proposed project falls within an acceptable range of land uses as described by the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance for the R-2 and R-3 zone designation.The project site is designated as H43/30 on the City's General Plan.In the opinion of the Planning Department,the project is consistent with existing development in the vicinity of the proposed project.Compliance with the conditions of approval will minimize any potential land use compatibility concerns. 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population projections? ❑ p ❑ b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension or directly or indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or extension of major Infrastructure)? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? ❑ p ❑ t 2. a-c) NO IMPACT. The proposed project includes 50 new multi-family residential units in a gated community, and will result In approximately 150 new residents.The proposed planned development and subdivision is consistent with existing zoning and general plan designations for the property. The project site is currently vacant,and is bounded by single family residential uses to the north,commercial uses to the east and residential and hotel uses to the south and residential uses further to the west. The project is not likely to induce growth because the project is proposed as an in-fill development.The project utilizes existing infrastructure and does not include the extension of new infrastructure into an undeveloped area lacking major Infrastructure. Since the site is vacant,displacement of existing housing including affordable housing,will not occur,and there should be no impacts to population and housing as a result of the project. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts Involving: a) Fault rupture? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Seismic ground failure,including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Seiche,tsunami,or volcanic hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Landslides or mudfiows? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading and fill? ❑ ❑ ❑ 6 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact g) Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑ 1) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑ j) Is a major landform, ridgeline, canyon, etc. involved? ❑ ❑ ❑ 3. al)NO IMPACT. The subject site consists of 6.8 gross acres,6.54 net acres of vacant land. The development of the proposed 52 condominium units will involve minor grading of the existing terrain. There are no known geological hazards present on the site other than ground shaking potential associated with earthquakes,and the site is not located within any Alquist-Priolo or City adopted special study zone. A site inspection conducted by the Department of Planning and Building verified that the site is relatively flat,with no slopes exceeding 10%.Therefore,there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to intrusion into slope or hillside areas. There are no known unstable earth conditions associated with the project site based on review of the Seismic Safety Element of the City of Palm Springs General Plan. The future development of housing on the site will be designed to comply with the Uniform Building Code which mandates requirements for seismic safety construction and the developer will be required to submit a precise grading plan along with a soils report for review and approval of the City prior to the Issuance of any permits. Therefore,there will be no geologic impacts as a result of the development of this project and the proposed subdivision of the land. The project site is a level parcel with very little ground relief. The project does not include any change In site topography orground surface relief features through site preparation or development,therefore there will be no impact to the environment. The project is being proposed in a previously developed area.No significant increases In wind erosion blowsand or water erosion either on site or off-site are expected based upon review by the Planning and Engineering Departments.Therefore,there is no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to erosion. - There are no known geologic hazards present on the site,other than ground shaking potential associated with earthquakes.All structure will be constructed to meet Uniform Building Code speck earthquake design standards. The preliminary grading plan notes 8,000 cubic yards of cut and 5,000 cubic yards of fill. Because of compaction,this grading activity is expected to be balanced on site,with no-importing or exporting of dirt likely to be required.This grading activity will not result in significant impacts to on-site and off-site drainage patterns or soil erosion.The applicant will be required to submit soils and compaction reports for review and approval by to the City of Palm Springs Department of Planning and Building and the Engineering Department. There are no known unstable earth conditions associated with the project site, and the nature of the project Is such that there is no possibility of creating and unstable condition. According to the General Plan,settlement and liquefaction as a result of seismic shaking are not considered significant hazards in Palm Springs.Therefore,there will be no impact to the environment as a result of liquefaction hazard issues. The project site Is located on the valley floor and Is underlain by deposits of recent alluvium.Because the site is level,no unique geologic features are known to be present.Therefore,there is minimal potential for a significant effect on the environment due to Impacts to unique geological features.A site inspection by Department of Planning and Building Staff reveals no major land forms on the site.Thus there exists no potential for a significant effect on the environment due to an impact on a major land form, 4. WATER Would the proposal result In: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns,or rate and amount of surface runoff? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ Potentially Significant l Potentially Unless Less Than No ' Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19 c) Discharge into surface waters or other alternation of surface water quality (e.g, temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity)? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Changes In the amount of surface water in any water body? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water movements? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals,or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations, or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ I ) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater otherwise available forpublicwater supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ J) Are there any on-site or any proposed wells? ❑Yes ®No 4.a,e) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The subject site is vacant and sporadically covered with native vegetation. The development of the proposed 50-unit condominium project will Increase the amount of hard surface and will therefore result in some additional storm water run-off,but this should not be significant. Hydrology calculations provided by by Sanborn AlE,Inc. indicate that two off-site tributary areas drain onto the site from the west.One area with a Q100=35 cis enters at the northwest corner of the project(Point A).The second area with a Q100=100 cis enters just north of the south west boundary(Point B)of the site. The report indicates that both of these tributary areas presently combine with the onsite storm water and travel to the southeast comer of the project. The Drainage Report indicates that both of these two off-site tributary areas will be intercepted by Master Drainage Plan facilities.The flows entering at Point A will be intercepted by a storm drain planned for Tahquitz Canyon Way,A storm drain planned for Arenas Avenue will Intercept flows entering at Point B. On site flows are planned to be intercepted in the Tahquitz Canyon Way master planned line. Both of the two off-site tributary areas will be Intercepted by a detention basin proposed to be located at the northwest corner of the project. This is depicted as Lot"E"on Tentative Tract Map 29077(dated September 2001).Tentative Tract Map 29077 indicates that the proposed detention basin,"Lot E",measures just over half an acre in area(23,213 square feet).The basin is designed with a 2A slope,or a slope angle of 50%.The bottom of the basin is located at an elevation of 452,the top of the basin Is located at an elevation of 459.The drain of the overflow structure is located at an elevation of 455. Both of the two off-site tributary areas will be intercepted by detention basins located at the northwest corner of the project.The Master Planned storm drain facility will be extended through this project and Into the basin.Ultimately,only the off-site flows emanating from Point A will be intercepted by this basin,and a storm drain planned for Arenas Avenue will intercept the flows of the remaining tributary. On-site storm flows will be directed to a proposed retention basin located along the property's eastern boundary,which is depicted as Lot"F"on Tentative Tract Map 29077.The"Lot F"detention basin measures approximately one quarter of an acre in area(15,176 square feet)and 8 ' 4X7 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact features a slope of 2:1, or a slope angle of 50%.The basin is located as a buffer along the south eastern boundary of the project. In order to enhance views from the surrounding hillside areas and In order to prevent on-going problems with erosion,the detention basins shall be landscaped.These basins shall also be subject to regular landscape maintenance, Potential environmental Impacts due to changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns or the rate and amount of surface runoff will be mitigated to a level of less than significant through the addition of on site detention basins and directing of on site flows Into basins. MITIGATION MEASURE: W-1.The applicant shall construct on site detention areas and related facilities as depicted on Tentative Tract Map 29077,This Includes, "Lot E",which measures just over half an acre in area(23,213 square feet).The basin Is designed with a 2:1 slope,or a slope angle of 50%.The bottom of the basin Is located at an elevation of 452,the top of the basin Is located at an elevation of 459.On-site storm flows will be directed to a proposed retention basin located along the property's eastern boundary,which Is depicted as Lot"F"on Tentative Tract Map 29077,The"Lot F"detention basin,which measures approximately one quarter of an acre In area(15,176 square feet)and features a slope of2:1,or a slope angle of50%.The basin is located as a buffer along the south eastern boundary of the project.In orderto enhance views from the surrounding hillside areas and In orderto prevent on-going problems with erosion,the detention basins shall be landscaped. These basins shall be subject to regular landscape maintained. 4.b,c,d,f,g,In,i,j)NO IMPACT. Based upon a review ofthe Federal Emergency Management Agency,Preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Maps(Community Panel No.060257 0006)and the knowledge of the Planning and Building Department staff and the City Engineer,the site is located outside of the 100-year or 500-year flood way. Due to the nature of the project and its location,the project will not create a change in the course ordirection of watermovements,the quantity of ground waters,alterthe flowofground water,and there are no wells on the subject site. Additionally,according to the U.S.G.S.Topographical Quadrangle Map, no natural drainage course or flood control channel exists on the site. Therefore,the project will not be impacted by water and flood related issues nor create impacts on water related issues. 5. AIR QUALITY Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Alter air movement,moisture,or temperature,or cause any change in climate? Cl ❑ ❑ d) Create objectionable odors? ❑ ❑ ❑ 5.a)POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning designations for the property. The project will also be consistent with the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD)CEQA Air Quality Handbook. However,due to future project construction and grading activities,short term impacts toairquality could occur. To minimize construction activity emissions,the project applicant will be required to comply with the City's Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Ordinance. Compliance with this Ordinance will reduce the impacts to air quality to a level of insignificance. MITIGATION MEASURE: AQ-1.The applicant shall comply with Section 8.50 of the Palm Spring Municipal Code, Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control(PM-10) and prepare and submit a plan to the Building Department to control fugitive dust emissions in compliance with the South Coact Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD).The plan must Implement reasonably available control measures to ensure that project emissions are in compliance with the SCAQMD. � C � Y) Potentially Significant t Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 5,b-d)NO IMPACT. The project will be located on a site that is surrounded by single family residences,multifamily residences and hotels, a restaurant,the Desert Museum and the Desert Fashion Plaza.The proposed project will not alter climatological conditions elther locally or regionally. The proposed residences will not Interrupt wind patterns. The Irrigation of landscaping will not effect the moisture or temperature of the area in a signlficantway due to the size of the project. Short term impacts,such as odors and pollution created by diesel engines of large equipment during construction and grading operations,may occur as a result of the development of the site but due to their short term nature these are considered less than significant. 6. TRANSPORTATIONURCULATION Would the proposal result in: a) Estimated Average Daily Trips generated by the project? (S.F=10; M.F. = 6; or from ITE): In Out Total Saturday Midday Peak Hour 31 26 57 AM Weekday Peak Hour 12 34 46 PM Weekday Peak Hour 38 22 60 Saturday Daily: 277 277 554 Weekday Daily 284 284 568 b) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.,sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ d) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off- site? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation (e.g,bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ h) Rail,waterborne or alr traffic Impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ 6. b-d)POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED. A Traffic Impact Study for the Tahquitz Villas Project in the City of Palm Springs was prepared for the project by Albert Grover&Associates(July 5,2001).The traffic study Indicates that the future development of this subdivision will create approximately 568 daily 2-way trips. The report further notes that the project is expected to generate to ! Ilrr 0 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No ; Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact approximately 57 trip ends(31 inbound and 26 outbound)during the Saturday afternoon peak hour.The most critical combination of project traffic and adjacent street traffic within the study area will occur between i pm and 2 pm on Saturday afternoons. During this worst case time period,the signalized intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way at Palm Canyon Drive and Tahquitz Canyon Way at Indian Canyon Drive currently operates at Level of Service (LOS) "B", with no individual turning movements worse than LOS "C." Currently, the unsignalized Intersections of Tahquitz Canyon Way with Museum Drive,Cahuilla Road, Belardo Road and the driveway entrance to the Desert Fashion Plaza all operate with no individual turning movements worse that LOS"C"during this peak hour. Although analysis demonstrated Saturday afternoon traffic conditions to be the worst-case condition for this study,the unique traffic patterns generated by the City's weekly Thursday evening"Village Fast"event were of particular concern with regard to quantifying the potential traffic impact of the proposed development. Data collection,analysis and field observation of Village Fast conditions indicate that,for all scenarios,Thursday evening traffic with post development traffic will operate acceptably at all intersections,and at a LOS superiorto mid day Saturday for the critical Intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road. Traffic conditions for2002"Opening Year"without the addition of traffic from the project are not expected to change from existing conditions. With the addition of project traffic during"Opening Year', all Levels-of-Service at each study intersection will remain unchanged from existing conditions.Therefore, no improvements are necessary to maintain acceptable 2002 traffic operations either without or with the project. By 2010,based on"Build Out"traffic projections,all study intersections except Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service,although typically one"Level of Service"lower than for existing/2002 traffic. No roadway traffic control improvements are recommended to accommodate"Build Out"2010 traffic or as a consequence of the proposed development. The intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Beside Road is likely to operate unacceptably, although not beyond capacity by 2010 as a consequence of increased background traffic due to the revitalization of the Desert Fashion Plaza. No improvement Is recommended at this time or is planned for 2010 as a result of traffic from the proposed project.The intersection should be observed and remedial measures considered if they become necessary,which is anticipated to occur as Desert Fashion Plaza revitalization occurs. The traffic report also found that Tahquitz Canyon Way acceptably serves existing traffic through the study area and will continue to do so , though 2010 with no Improvement. The proposed project includes improvements to Tahquilz Canyon Way,west of the intersection with Museum Drive.The improvements include narrowing of the street right of way,a landscaped median,stone identification monuments,on-street bay parking on the south side of the street and project entryway improvements.The objective of these improvements Is to slow traffic west of the intersection,provide traffic calming in the immediate vicinity of the project area,provide for large vehicle back-up for deliveries to the Desert Museum,provide additional parking in the area and create an upgraded terminus for Tahquitz Canyon Way.The improvements are also intended to reduce the number of misdirected vehicle in the area,since the area west of the Intersection Is not a through street. The gated project entry will feature a 16'wide guest lane with a phone and address board for guests to call their hosts and announce their arrival.An 6'landscaped median will provide a buffer between the guest driveway,which will also allows for mis-directed vehicles to turn around and the 20'wide primary entry driveway,which was designed in accordance to specifications of the Fire Department.A second teardrop shaped, 16'wide landscaped median separates the primary entry lane and the 18'wide exit lane.The median was redesigned as a tear drop shape to facilitate fire truck turning and entry movements into the proposed project. MITIGATION MEASURES: T-1.The developer shall pay the"fair share"cost of a two phase signal to be located at the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Street. The fair share is to be calculated as a percentage of overall traffic growth from 2001 to 2010 at the intersection.Based on a fair share percentage of 12%,the developers contribution of the cost of the new signal is$12,000. T-2. The western terminus of Tahqultz Canyon Way shall be improved to acceptable transportation and aesthetic standards, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer. 6.e-h)NO IMPACT. As a result of the proposed subdivision, unsafe Ingress or egress will not be created. The current situation,which is confusing to drivers that venture onto Tahquitz Canyon Way west of Museum Drive will be Improved. Access has been designed to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and will allow for sufficient emergency access and passing movement in emergencies,as necessary. Access to nearby uses,hazards for pedestrians and/or bicyclists will not result from development of the proposed project,nor will it conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposal will not impact rail,waterborne or air traffic. ij3U Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Would the proposal result in Impacts to: a) Endangered,threatened,or rare species or their habitats (including but not limited to plants,fish, Insects,animals,and birds)? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Locally designated species? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g. oak forest,coastal habitat,etc,)? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Wetland habitat (e.g, marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Is consultation with the California Fish and Game or the Department of Fish and Wildlife Service,as a trustee agency,required? ❑YES ®NO 7.a-f)NO IMPACT. The subject property is an Infill development and is surrounded by developed property. The site is currently vacant, and contains only sparse native scrub vegetation and scattered trees and shrubs.Portions of the site previously contained single family residences and apartments. Therefore,the project will have no impact to endangered species or their habitats. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES Would the proposal create: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Result In the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of a future value to the region and the residents of the State? ❑ ❑ ❑ 8.a-c)NO IMPACT. The project will not conflict or interfere with an energy conservation plan and will not use non-renewable resources In a wasteful and Inefficient manner. Therefore,the project should not result In a negative impact on energy and mineral resources. II 31 � 12 Potentially Significant - Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 9. HAZARDS Would the proposal: a) Be a risk of accidental explosion or release substances(Including,but not limited to: oil, pesticides,chemicals, or radiation? ❑ ❑ O b) Create possible interference with an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Create any health hazard or potential health hazard? ❑ ❑ O d) Create exposure of people to existing sources of potential health hazards? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Increase the risk of fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,grass or trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ 9. a-e) NO IMPACT. There are no aspects of the proposed project or of future project construction which would involve explosives, pesticides, radiation,chemicals,or other hazardous substances. Access to the project will be provided via an entry off Tahquitz Canyon Way, of a width satisfactory to all affected agencies to serve the property in question in case of emergency. The entire site is currently vacant and no hazardous materials are known to be existing on the property, buried underground,or to be used in conjunction with the proposed residential use. Therefore,there would be no risk of a release of or exposure to hazardous materials which would result In a potential for a significant impact on the environment The proposed street improvements on Tahquitz Canyon Way were redesigned with the input of the Fire Department and Engineering Department to improve area traffic circulation and eliminate Interference with emergency response vehicles. 10, NOISE Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? ❑ ❑ ® O c) Will the project be compatible with the noise compatibility planning criteria according to Table 6-F of the Palm Springs Municipal Airport F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility study? ®YES ONO 10.a)NO IMPACT. The proposed residential subdivision is not expected to generate noise levels greater than the noise levels stated within Chapter 11.74 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code,other than during construction where the activities will be restricted to the hours and noise levels specified in the Municipal Code and the General Plan. The project Is located in an area of the City not subject to periodic noise levels above 65 CNEL,as identified by the City of Palm Springs General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Despite this,new construction of the homes shall comply with and meet minimum soundproofing requirements applicable to the project per Section 1092(and related sections,if any)of Title 25,California Administrative Code and any applicable Uniform Building Code requirements to ensure that interior noise can be mitigated to"safe"levels,approximately 45 CNEL. 13 p / 0) Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No } Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 10.b)LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The project Is located in close proximity to Palm Canyon Drive,which contains the City's main downtown area,which is well known as a visitor destination and an amenity and asset for the City's Tourism base. In this area,there are increased levels of noise during specific times of day and seasons due to downtown activities. During these peak visitation times,the City experiences increase noise from a larger number of private automobiles, busses, and emergency vehicles, as well as greater competitiveness for business through the increased use and levels of noise from musical and other forms of entertainment. Despite the distance from downtown,future residents of the site may experience relatively low but audible noise from the downtown area(35 to 50 dB). These types of noise levels are low enough to be considered less than severe or hazardous. However, even low noise levels may be viewed by some as a nuisance and/or unacceptable. Interior noise levels,with windows closed and mechanical ventilation,should be below audible levels. No mitigation necessary or recommended. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES Would the proposal have an effect upon or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Distance to nearest fire station(114 mile) b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? ❑ ❑ ❑ f e) Other governmental services? ❑ ❑ ❑ 11.a-e)NO IMPACT. The proposed project is within the City's five minute response time for fire service and within reasonable proximity of the Police station. The project will be adequately served by other public services as well, and school fees are required for all new construction to mitigate any potential impacts to the school district. Therefore,there should be no Impacts to public services as a result of this project. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the proposal result In a need for new systems or supplies,or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑ 14 I / A 33 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact f) Solid waste disposal? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Local or regional water supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑ 12 a-g)NO IMPACT.The project will utilize non-renewable energy resources.All utilities and services are available to the site.The project has been reviewed by the Engineering Department an other relevant agencies.The utilities required for the project are present In the site area and currently serve the site.Therefore there is no potential for a signlflcant effect on the environment due to impacts on utilities. 13. AESTHETICS Would the proposal: a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ c) Create light or glare? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ 13. a-c) LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. The subject site is located within an area of the City where architectural approval for residential development is required. Preliminary architectural plans have been submitted,and plans for the condominium development will be subject to the City's Architectural Review process. The proposed project has been reviewed by the Design Review Committee on multiple occasions.The function of the Design Review Committee is to provide recommendations to the Department of Planning and Building staff,in terms of project aesthetics.The Design Review Committee is comprised of design professionals including architects and landscape architects.Recommendations made by the Design Review Committee have been incorporated Into the project,including the implementation of the great room concept,narrowing of internal streets,entryway Improvements and a shift towards pedestrian oriented design.The Design Review Committee has determined that the proposed architectural design of the project,as depicted in the project elevations and cross sections,is consistent with the high standards established within the City of Palm Springs.They have noted that the project Is consistent with existing development in the project area,and noted that the proposed project would make a positive addition to the area. The project will minimally affect views from lower level residences of the adjacent single family residential and multi family residential properties.Project landscaping will reduce the visual impact of the project.Therefore,there should be no impacts to aesthetics as a result of the project. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 93.21.00,Outdoor Lighting Standards will be required as a condition of approval.A photometric study and manufacturers cut sheets of all exterior lighting,Including building lighting, landscape lighting and parking lighting will be required to be submitted and approved prior to issuance of a building permit.All lighting shall be designed to protect the night sky,through the use of shielded and directed down lighting.If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down lights will be required to be utilized. Compliance with the Lighting Ordinance will reduce Impacts due to lighting or glare to a level of less than significant. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the proposal: a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ c) Affect historical resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 15 11A 3 Y �i Potentially Significant } Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact I d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? ❑ ® ❑ ❑ 14.a) NO IMPACT. The Cultural Resource Reconnaissance study prepared forthls project indicates that no remains were found on site. Therefore, there should be no impact to paleontological resources as a result of this project. 14.b-e)POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED,The Cultural Resource Reconnaissance study prepared for this project Indicates that the site Includes four features which required consideration.The study outlines a number of management options for addressing these cultural resource Issues.Since the report was prepared,the project has been revised and those areas deemed to possess cultural resources were removed from the project site.The study notes that the residence which was once located at 369 West Tahquitz was razed and therefor,required no further consideration Resolution 24-99 of the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians defined a location of an Indian Burial Ground on the westernmost portion of the site. Resolution 51-00 of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians direct tribal staff to act on behalf of the tribe to take the necessary steps to accomplish the tribes goal of obtaining title to the area determined to be sacred ceremonial burial grounds.The Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has provided the City with evidence in the form of correspondence between the tribe and the applicant that the tribe is moving forward on obtaining the cemetery property and Tahquitz Ditch. Therefore, there should be no impact to paleontological resources as a result of this project. MITIGATION MEASURES CR-1.In regards to the Native American Cemetery,if construction within the area northwest of the Tahquilz Ditch is not proposed as part of the project,the area northwest of the ditch is to be deeded to the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,with deed restrictions requiring that the area be maintained in an acceptable manner. CR-2 In regards to the Tahquitz Ditch segment,if construction within the area of the ditch segment is not proposed as part of the project, the area is to be deeded to the Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians,with deed restrictions requiring that the area be maintained in an acceptable manner. CR-3. In regards to the Ruined Structure, a complete excavation is recommended to determine if the structure is associated with the Tahquitz Ditch,If the Ruined Structure is determine to be related to the Tahquitz Ditch,it is to be preserved.Otherwise the structure remains may be removed. 15. RECREATION Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? ❑ ❑ ❑ 15.a-lb)NO IMPACT.A swimming pool and spa area is included as part of the project to meet the recreational needs of the residents. 16. PUBLIC CONTROVERSY a) Is the proposed project or action environmentally controversial in nature or can it reasonably be expected to become controversial upon disclosure to the public? 163.50000 Potentially Significant Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact 16, a).LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.The applicant has conducted a series of community meetings with neighboring residents, business people and property owners in order to keep them informed of the proposed project.The site has been vacant for a number of years.Adjacent residents are concerned that traffic in the area will Increase,views in the area will be diminished and that the appropriate type of development for the area is single family residential development. The traffic report addresses traffic mitigation measures,Including the payment of"fair share"fees to reduce the impact from project traffic to a level of less than significant.The proposed development Includes a Planned Development District which complies with development standards established by the underlying zones,with the building separation and side and rearselbacks.However,the project Is consistent with historic development patterns in the area.The proposed residential development is adjacent to single family residences, a historic resort and a museum to the north, a restaurant,apartments and the Desert Fashion Plaza and hotels to the east,hotels and apartments to the south and unimproved land and single family residences to the west. The City Council directed the applicant to revise the project with attention to the proposed density,the setback of two story structures relative to adjacent R-1 zoned properties,and the provision of guest parking and bay parking.The applicant subsequently redesigned the project and reduced the number of units from 52 units to 50 units.Other revisions include expanding the setback from 2 story buildings to the adjacent R-1 zone properties to meet code requirements,providing additional guest parking and the elimination of bay parking from Tahquitz Canyon Way. Through these project modifications, the applicant has been able to reduce to a level of insignificance or eliminate the environmental impacts of the project,including but not limited to traffic impacts and visual impacts.These improvements will improve vehicular circulation in the immediate vicinity of the project as well as improve area aesthetics. The Department of Planning and Building staff will mail a notice of preparation of this Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration to interested parties that have corresponded with the City or attended community meetings In regards to this project.The Department of Planning and Building staff will also mail a Public Hearing Notice to all property owners located within 400'of the site.The notice will also be mailed to all interested parties which have corresponded with the City in regards to this project. i 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-tens, environmental goals? ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects,and effects of probable future projects.) p ® 0 ❑ i ( } i Potentially Significant i Potentially Unless Less Than No Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated Impact d) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Affect environment(Cultural Resources) ❑ ® ❑ f) Environmental Consequences - 1. Summary of impacts(Include a table summarizing the potential impacts by alternative. As much as possible, quantify the Impacts. All of the BLM "critical elements"must be addressed whether or not they are affected by the proposal.Affected elements will be discussed In further detail in the following section. ❑ ❑ ❑ 17.a,b,&d)NO IMPACT. The project will not impact the habitat of fish or wildlife species,and the project will not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. The project will not achieve short-term goals to the detriment of long-term environmental goals.. 17.c&e)SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. Potential impacts associated with the project could be cumulatively considerable with respect to traffic and cultural resources. However,those impacts identified can be mitigated to a level of insignificance, as identified by mitigation measures proposed. 18. LISTED BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY: Douglas R.Evans, Director of Planning&Building Hope Sullivan,Planning Manager Alex Meyerhoff,Principal Planner David Barakian,City Engineer 19. DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ® 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because of the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration ❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. ❑ I find that the proposed project is consistent with the Program EIR on: December 20 2001 Douglas . Ev s Date Director of PI Ring&Building 18 11437 F Palm Springs RECEIVED i Eft! 4 e.}rN2,. Il Economic Development Cor,wrapon JUN 19 W AIcrvpM1lPWLc lnlomsl CoPorellan E June 19, 2002 PLANNING DIVISION Mayor Will Rleindienst and Members of Council City of Palm Springs HAND DELIVERED Re-: Tahquitz Ventures Dear Mayor and Council Members: On behalf of the Board of Directors of PSEDC, I write to empress frustration at the Council's rejection of the Tahquitz Ventures project. Mostly we are concerned with the failure of the process and the message it sends to the wider business and investment community. During its two and one-half years in the approval process, this project was approved three times by the Planning Commission and passed design review. To then be rejected by the Council, despite staff support, is shocking. If serious concerns existed about the project they should have been raised and resolved during the process—before it ever reached Council. Decisions such as the one made here by the Council make a mockery of the process. The Planning Commission becomes irrelevant. The DOGS meetings become useless. Is this the message we want to send to those who want to invest in our community? It certainly seems to contrast with the claims of being "business friendly"that we hear regularly from Council Members. Although we support the project on its merits and recognize that a much higher density (apartments, low-income housing or a 350-room hotel)project could be built by right of zone, our particular frustration is about the process. When Council rejects a project at this stage after all issues should be resolved, it makes it extremely difficult for organizations like PSEDC to encourage new investment with good faith. We hope the Council will consider our comments seriously. Si cerely John Stiles President cc: David Ready, John Raymond, Doug Evans Post 0llieo Box 3205, Palm Springs, CA 92202 / 700.225-1925 / Fax: 780-325-0117 RECEIVED ' MAY 3 0 2002 Rose Mihata 468 Tahquitz Way PLANNING DIVISION Palm Springs, CA 92262 (760) 320-0882 May 27, 2002 To the City Manager and Council Members ofpaim Springs, I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed project, which is to be built .upon the land across from my home. 1 an,extremely concerned with safety issues that might arise as a result of this pmject, It is my opinion that both paramedic units and Sane engines'will have a difficult time accessing the road leading to my home and the home of my neighbors if this project is completed. I am alerting you about my concerns because if I am in tweed of emergency services and these emergency services are delayed due to poor access to nxy property l will hold the City of Palm Springs liable for any adverse outcomes to either property or person. My second objection to this project is that you are allowing a wall to be built that is only 31 feet away from my property that will block all views from the lower level of my home, I have had an appraiser evaluate the impact this will have on the property value and he informed me that the devaluation of the property would be 30%, which will be a considerable financial loss. It is in your best interest to examine all of the potential consequences of allowing this project to go forward prior to giving any approvals. As elected officials you have the responsibility to oversee the well-being of the citizens of Palm Springs. I implore you to consider the interests of my neighbors and I when making decisions about this proposed development. Sincerely, &44- Rose E Itlihata 9ij-m.-F PG 112-ql-Z 5.08a � 565 W. Sanla Rnsa Drive Palm Springs, CA 9 2 2 6 2 Marshall Roath,Designer Past Office Box 9257 Palm Sor l n g s , CA 9 2 2 6 3 April 24, 2002 Telephone 760 313,9344 roatl,do.0gn@oatlbllnk.n nl Palm Springs Planning Commission City Hall Palm Springs, California 92262 RE: Case 5.0804 PD 254/Bergheer California Dear Commissioners: I am a designer, now living in the historic Tennis Club neighborhood of Palm Springs, and a former five-year member of the Sausalito Community Appearances Advisory Board,their Design Review Board. I am also a consultant to architects on large-scale commercial projects and teach graduate architectural students at the Academy of Art College in San Francisco. I had the chance to review the drawings for this project recently and made the following observations to the Design Review Committee on Monday afternoon and would like to reiterate these to the Planning Commission: 1. The elevations presented show single structures, pleasant individually,but monotonous in a sea of tile roofs and identical facades as used. Contrast this to the historic Tennis Club neighborhood with few two-story buildings and much variety of architectural styles and roof designs. 2. The plan in the City's possession shows two-story structures on either side of a 12 to 15 foot space facing each other. What would be the view from these windows? Would one living room face a neighbors bedroom? 3. There are no deep overhangs for 115-degree heat. The architecture as designed would be good for Laguna Niguel, Golita or Dana Point but not Palm Springs. 4. There is no interaction between the inside and outside, as we live in the desert, with not much shown for outside living and no private spaces. In closing, it is my suggestion that more study by the developers' architects be required including a complete site plan, and 3-D renderings to show the buildings relation to each other and integration into the neighborhood. An EIR is needed to define the impact on the neighborhood. This project is not in a state where it can be approved, nor is there enough design documentation submitted by the developer and his architects against which they would be held accountable for future development. Sincerely, Marshall Roath 111jqO cc: Planning Director, Commissioners, HTCNO r � MAR - 4 LC�'.2 "- 468Rose E. Mihata Office (7WestTahquitzCanyonWay Fax (7 Palm Springs CA. 92262 �W, v February 21, 2002 rib/1rl , Mr David Ready(City Manager) City Of Palm Springs Il 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA. 92262 RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California, Inc Dear Mr David Ready, As adjacent land owners we, and other members of our neighborhood association are concerned with the cavalier marmer in which the planning commission approved the proposal for the Bergheer Project on January 9"'2002. We believe that their action was violative of California Government Code Sec 54950 thru 54962 providing public commissions exist to aid the conduct of the peoples business. All actions must be open and deliberated and conducted openly. The people retain control of the instruments they have created. California Government Code 65804 requires city zoning agencies to see that all interested parties have notice. We own immediately adjacent property to the land proposed for the construction of 50 units. We did not receive advance notice of the commission meeting, Rose Mihata had hand delivered relevant prmte maten s an p otographs to Alex Meyerhoffto give to the commissioners, as s e was untbrtunately going to be out of the country—die day o t e meeting. The material was not given to the Comrnissioners. A44 I The commission meeting was irregular in that Mr Jon Caffery reclused himself because of commercial transactions with the ' petitioner. Under Ord 1027 see 2:29.090, the commission lacked the majority for a quorum but voted on the issue from which Mr Caffery had reclused himself. Mr Doug Evans failed to address at the meeting, the serious safety tic�b s,,fvj issue that had been brought to his attention with photograp as �0 evidence and was asked to address the commissioners regarding the concerns of the neighborhood. Equity compels the city council to remand the issue of approving the project,back to the planning commission, for proper notice and for a public participation before a proper quorum. There are California appellate decisions,which do not allow agency proceedings on an issue when a conflicting member was necessary to sustain the vote. The issue will be before you on March 6m 2002. Please do not require us to seek mandamus. Respectfully yours, Rose E. Mihata James Jess I FROM : ROSE-NIHRTA �Nm 766T20979` Feb. 27 2M 11:S )P1 The mu=b ioo maatirt2 WIX kcgalar is that w Jm CaRery tttektwd h6acNraurwmo�i�trwwtio>tiw;rhdoe ptWdmw.L%dc Otd IW wo 212gM the o=ziwion hd wd dw hedsitrSw�ahiquarom mar[ but voted aouww *mwbiohbkCdkyrodwol lilt Dm&Evens Med to address at do meam&the seiouF s*W jaws dw bad bm btovom to his mec tim with photopephr Me vid eeooe AM tree a"to W&,,,do enmmirionaengetdioa the aommmnF o[the oishbahood Haa+y aoagie tb sib oatodt to remead the iwoe of appovwg the protect.back to tbePlaNM4 aaaeadwio tr proper o2dae and foe a ptthYD pwtbilwienbdm a propergaotmu Thm ao CaMmk WpolWa daciAgm wha do no abw afeocw pavoeedinpambmwbmswaft mmberwuacoefweyfo stance Ur voic 26e Iwe wYI6a bldolayou oa Adamh 2002. Rica do not aquas . me to a*maodomm &eyeatGdlvwwa. . g}p,an GperasXe . a I w Ik � • a t4i8� • 1 d I �Aom .t. *1 3 I y Oar i� AIT zz f iA1�� 1 y r y q••,��� d L k (q � r , r _ + r n 'J mAr 4 ■ / - .° � .... -_ a�a a a - •. y{q,. �. � . 3 ® . .. � . . _ . ... 1 _----- - Apr-23-02 01 :40 McCarthy 1 S18 981 3503 P.01 Q EJW 3ZZ ATITN APRtic "Tennis Ctub "District ,Association175 South cahuttta ToadPLANNI TaLrn Springs, C.A 92262 'TEL (760)320-9346 jax (760)325-8610 Jrank 'Tysen, Trestdent April 23, 2002 TO: Pahn Springs Design Review, Planning Commission and City Council RE: Commitments of the Bergh=group regarding the architecture ofTahquit" Villas a planned development of 50 units projected for the southwest corner of Tanduitz and Museum Drive. We believe that it is important that you arc aware of commitments regarding this project that Mr. Berghcer and his representatives including his architect made several years ago at an initial neighborhood meeting. This meeting was called by Planning Director Doug Evans and held at the Willows I listoric Inn and attended by sever al neighborhood representatives including myself. in recognition of the historic character of our neighborhood being made up of a mixture of 1920s and 1930s Spanish revival and mid century modern buildings Mr. Bergheer promised that his project would be built in the Spanish revival style characteristic of much of the neighborhood particularly of several immediately adjacent structures, SPECIFiC:ALLY HiS COMMITMENT INCLUDES MUDDED TERRA COTTA CLAY RC1O TILE, WOOD PRAMF WINDOWS, SMOOTT I PLASTER TYPIC'AI.OF' THE 1920S AND 1930S PERIOD AS WELL AS TILE PRESERVATION 017 MUCH OF T1 i11 ORIGINAL. STONEWALL AROUNI) 'I HE PROPURTY. THESE COMMIT NIENT'S HAVE BEEN PERIODICALLY REAFFIRMED BOTFI IN MEETIN(N WIT'I I N1001 IBORI 1001) RU,PRESENTAT'IVI''.S AS WELL AS I3rFORE". CITY GOVEMNMEWFAL BODIES WI10 APPROVED T]IEM. I'1' HAS COME TO OUR ATTU.NTION THAT VERY RI:CI:NTI.Y REPRESENTATIVES OF MR. BERGHEER HAVE TRIED TO CHANGE THESE COMMITMENTS INCLUDING CHANGING THE COLOR OF ROOF"TILE TO VARIOUS SHADES OF BROWN, SUBSTITUTING ALL OR PART OF fHF WOOD WINDOWS TO ALUMINUM OR VINYL AND ABANDONTNO THE SMOOTH PL.AST'ERINO MAKING IT A MORP.G17,NFR1C PROJECT. We are deeply concerned that this project to be built on perhaps one of the best remaining locations in Palm Springs will propaly harmonize with the historic character of our neighborhood. Our couccrn is further aggravated by the fact that Mr. Berghcer's El Apr-23-02 01 :40 McCarthy 1 818 981 3503 P-02 Palm Springs Design Review, Planning Commission and City Council Re Berghccr Development April 23, 2002 Page 2 Mirador Project has been heavily criticized by home buyers in that development for unprofessional and illegal practices and is now subject of one or more lawsuits. Therefore we appeal to you to be alert and vigilant in protecting Palm Springs and its historic Tennis Club area and see to it that Mr. Bergheer and his representatives do live up to these commitments which originally wott them significant neighborhood support. At stake are both the character of our neighborhood and our property values We must add that since that original meeting with the Berghcer interests all Historic Tennis Club building activities by private individuals have loyally followed the Spanish revival or the mid-century modern style including the spectacular recent restoration of the Andalusian Court Inn, the two Orbit Inns as well as such private residences as the Cahuilla home of Bill and 'I`rish Davies. This is in addition to previous authentic restorations over the past several decades of the following Inns: Ingleside, Estrella, Orchid free, Desert Hills, Casa Cody, La Serena, San Marine, Korakia. 'I'he Willows, Coyote, Bella Villa and Desert House and the new construction and restoration of such magnificent homes as Rose Mihata's and Steve Chereske's on Tahquitz. Sam and Michelle Pishue's on Linda Vista, Helen Dzodzo's house on Pablo and Peter Dixon's new 1920s style home on Cahuilla immediately behind the Ingleside lnn. Please alleviate our concerns. FRANK TYSEN qq FROM ROSE-MIHRTR ,1 FRX NO. : 7GG3209395 -" b. 22 2002 12:20PM P1 � ti Rose E. Mi6ata 468 West Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA. 92262 Phone: (760) 320-0882 Fax: (760) 320-9395 December 27, 2001 City Clerk CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA. 92262 Re:Case 5.0804-PD 254/Eerghecr California,Inc D=Council Members, Llnfortunately, I am unable to attend the City meeting on January 9,2002,as I will be out of the country. I hope my interests and those of the other City Residents concerned,will be considered, As I expressed in my earlier letter, 'I was concerned that a Full Enviromnental Impact Study had not been obtained and I strongly recommend this because of the following incidents: At the last City meeting on October 17,2001,I voiced another conoeru and put a scenario to yourself and the other Council Members. This was with regard to the increase in the traffic congestion and how this could hamper the Fire Dept, Paramedics and Police Dept,in the event of an emergency, On the night of the Palm Springs Christmas Light Parade,traffic was being diverted around Psalm Canyon through Museum Drive. There were coaches with people attending the The Follies, parked along Tahquitz Canyon Way. The Le Valluris Restaurant FROM : ROSE-MIHRTR FRX NO. : 7663209395 x-y. 22 2002 12:21PM P2 was then busy, with dinner guests. My Daughter had put her children in the car to leave, when she reached The Willows Hotel, she was confronted with a fire truck and two paramedic trucks that were attending an emergency at the hotel, which had completely blocked the entrance/exit. They sat in the car for ten minutes before, a paramedic returned and moved a vehicle to enable them to squeeze past, but in moving their truck to the side,they were then blocking Le Vallurls. When talking to your Attorney David Alshire at the last city council meeting,I told him my concerns. If I had an emergency,as I have a pre-existing health problem,which could require paramedic assistance at anytime, If the road was blocked, it could be the diference between life and death and that the SAFETY of the residents in the area is paramount and should be the first thing to be eonsiderW when a project is put to the planning Dept. Again,this is the sort of thing that would be highlighted in the FWI Environmental Impact Study. David Alshire agreed with my concerns and understood them as,he himself had come very close to having an accident two weeks prior at Le Vallmis and that it was obvious to anyone who had driven in that area that increasing the traffic would only worsen an existing dangerous traffic zone. Please review the enclosed photographs. Yours truly, � '-t K L _I Rose E.Mihata cc. Alex Meyerhoff Planning Commission OCT 171210,011 D LETTER OF SUPPORT PLANNING DIVISION TAHQUITZ PROJECT- BERGHEER CALIFORNIA OCTOBER 179 2001 Dear Mayor and City Council Members, I have met with Karl Bergheer over the past year to discuss the development adjacent to Le Vallauris and it's effect on our entry area. I have watched the plan develop to its current configuration. I believe the Developer has been generous and sensitive to the surrounding neighborhood and property owners. The most recent changes to the set backs and drainage certainly indicate this approach. I am in support of the Project and believe the quality of Buyer will benefit the area and business owners. JUr*ugggeWans e- Le Vallauris =, j 4DMainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. Planning/Civil Engineering/Land Surveying 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 301 /Palm,Springs, California 92262-6784 Telephone(760) 320-9811 /FAX (760) 323-7893 • e-mail info@mainierosmith,com • www.mainierosmith.com October 12, 2001 QP �p4/,t, OCT 12 2001 y `2•N'v Mr. Will Kleindienst Mayor C17�GV CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 Re:, Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California, Inc. Dear Will: Mainiero, Smith and Associates represents Ms. Rose Mihata and she has engaged us to represent her in the current City hearings ,concerning the proposed condominium development immediately adjacent to her residence at 468 West Tahquitz Canyon Way:. My purpose in this letter-is to inform the Council as to-our concerns about the overall site plan,and the many.variances being requested in the Planned Development District application currently.before the City Council on October 17, 2001. Imsummary, we continue to feel the quality of this project is not yet at a high enough level to justify a reduction in standards by the Council. The Planning Commission's narrow 3-2. vote certainly should be seen as evidence that not all of the issues have been fully resolved, The Process: . The Planned Development District (PDD)., process is designed to improve the,quality of development by allowing flexibility in development standards. To that end, the proposed 'development is seeking reduced setbacks and reduced distanbes between buildings among othe'requests. We agree that the PDD affords the City and the developer the best opportunity to forge a qualityplan.for the site, One of the objectives of.the PDD has been to ensure that the resultind'development exceeds right-of-zone standards: Another requirement'in the Zoning Ordinance is that "the form and type of development on .the PD site bounds y shall be compatible ,with the existing or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods." We believe that these two, objectives of the ordinance have 'not been met and'strongly point to further study and refinement of the plan. S t :Plan: . The site plan that the Planning Commission approved by, a 34 vote stilt reflects a lack of sensitivity to the single family pattern that ekists.on the north side of the project. The buildings form a'virtual wa.lbwith only 6 feet of clear opening between the,244o6t•tall structures. 3 Mr. Will Kleindienst October 12, 2001. ,Page Two There is no meaningful view corridor through the central portion of the project. The setback to two-story construction has been increased from 25 to 50 feet but is still far short of the 200-foot setback required under normal zoning considerations. The site plan has failed to integrate the project With its location by virtually ignoring views nor has it fulfilled the mandate of the planned Development District requirement to adjust. the project`design at its boundaries to match the surrounding neighborhood. Circulation: The access to the area remains a significant concern,.partisularly-with the n.ewly.proposed angled parking in front of Le Valluris restaurant.. The current design would be confusing to the folks that are forever wandering around in their "discovery". mode, as it does not create an easy turn?around area and fails to resolve a'difficult situation once and for all. This is the last chance we may have to cure this problem. 'Once the subject property is developed, we will be living with the results essentially forever. This solution is required in conjunction with:the approval of this development. Summary: While some improvements to the project have been made,, the unique nature of the subject property has hardly been capitalized on. The City Council is being asked to reduce several important development standards and we don't believe the , overall design of the project is at a high enough level to justify an approval by the'City Council. We understand and encourage'.a,.high .quality development for this property but believe that that level has not been achieved. And finally, inherent in the approval of'this development is that this will be the last opportunity we will have .to resolve the already impacted nature of the local traffic circulation patterns that everyone agrees are a problem. We seek the Council's concurrence that a development for this property should be one that solves these.problems and isn't just "a development." Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working With the staff, Commission and Council to resolve these several issues. Very truly yours, Marvin Roos, AICP Director of Planning Services MDWsm cc; Rose-Mihata Mainfero, Smith and Associates Inc. 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 361/Palm Springs,Califoc&92262-6784'/Telephone(760)320-9811/FAX(760)323-7893 e-mail info @ mainierosmith.com•www.maimerosmitli.com 10/12/200_ 00:03 76032131426 SCD PAGc Ub i SO Leven Cheroske Design ASID 530 West To*tlz Canyon way Pt me:760-320,4020 Pslm Spi V,CaOromla 92262 Fax:760.320.1428 October 12, 2001 Jeanne Spurgin City Hall/3200 E. Tahquitz C inyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 ROL Case 5.0804-PD 54 Bergheer California Inc. Dear Ms. Spurgin, I live at 530 W. Tahquitz Can on way and face the proposed development of 53 l condominiums, by Bergheer alifomia Inc. 1 am strongly opposed to th Is development for the following reasons, 1. It is not compatible with the million dollar single family homes facing this project, 1 know that this projeA could impact the value of my property, if it is not re-designed to a higher scale 2.The development does NO t meet current set back and separation codes set by our city. Ether we are goir 9 to conform to codes or we are not. What good are the codes, if we do not fol low them? 3. There is only one way in arid one way out of this project. If the 8' separations are approved it will be a major fire hazard. If one condo catches fire it could , endanger the entire complex, homes and hill side, I would find It hard to believe you could get the necessary I re trucks in to this area,while trying to get people out of danger. 4. The current area can not handle the traffic this project would bring. Just last week the Willows Inn had a p rty of 50 cars. It took me 10 minutes to get down my street, to home, What will happen when we add 53 homes, pool men, mail men, repair people, utility pec pie, the restaurant , the Willows, catering trucks, scd445*at9.n*t 10/12/2001 00:03 760328 SCD PAGE 07 i Steven Cheroske Design Page s O*bsr 12,2001 deliveries, the Museum? Jus think about it and the new Desert Fashion Plaza Traffic. TO PLANNING UNTIL ME AN GET IT RIGHT. WE-WILLMAM"WE WITH !HIS FOR DECADES LQ COME. IF WE RUSH IN ON AN APPROVAL. WE WILL BE SORRY LATER-M I sincerely hope you will review this project very closely. 1 will be at the meeting on the'17th of October and hope you will send this project back to planning. Sincerely Steven Cheroske &Timothy 4elyer I �► S „ scd4456yts.not � i I ROSE MIHATA 468 WEST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 619-320-0882 12"' October 2001 Mr Jim Jones City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz,Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA. 02262 Dear Mr Jones, RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California Inc With reference to the above project, I would like to bring to your attention, certain issues. I have retained Mr Marvin Roos to review the project for me, a copy of his review is attached. I am not apposed to a quality development being built on subject land, so long as they adhere to codes and restrictions. The builder was aware of the codes and restrictions, during his due diligence, before escrow closed. Why is (Doug Evans) bending these codes and restrictions, to accommodate the builder ?. From the onset Mr Evans has tried constantly, to intimidate the neighbors. Stating that if the neighborhood apposes this project, they could have a project similar to the unsightly one previously proposed. Another main concern is we are aware that the land is already back in escrow again for the second time, so it is doubtful that Mr Bergheer, will be the final builder on this development. Please also note that Ralph Raya at the Planning Commision, motioned to turn down the project, Doug Evans immediately requested they withdraw the motion, it barely passed 3 to 2. Doug Evans is using his position to push through, a project that kill grossly affect the neighborhood. I am deeply upset that the Planned Development District and Zoning Ordinance requirements are not adhered to. Could I ask you to please read the enclosed letter from Marvin Roos and letter I had previously sent. This project is coming before you on October 17"' , we will be requesting a complete Environmental Impact Study Report, before the Council makes any decision on this project. Rose E. Mihata r � 7 i Sharon Rogers 468 W. Tahquitz Cyn Way Pahn Springs CA. 92262 12'h October 2001 City Members Palm Springs City Hall Dear Council Members RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254 /Bergheer California, Inc I am writing with reference to the above proposed project, as I live in the neighborhood in question. On a daily basis I deal with the ongoing traffic problem,that exists around the area of the proposed development. When passing the Willows hotel and Le Vallauris I have to manouvre around catering vehicles and valet parking. Not only that, but when the Follies show is running,the large buses come to the end of Tahquitz Canyon,to turn round. As you can see there is already an existing Traffic Congestion Problem, the proposed project will only increase the traffic, therefore making the problem worse. I urge you to have an Environmental Impact Study Report carried out. Yours truly, S.Rogers. Albert Duron P.O.Box 312 Palm Desert CA. 92260 12'e October 2001 City Council Members Patin Springs City Hall RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Begheer California, Inc. With reference to the above project, that I am apposed to for the following reason. I am a Real Estate Agent that works with Rose Mihata and whenever we have had to meet for business, I always encounter traffic problems. On one occasion I had to reverse back, to allow traffic through and because of the congestion my Mercedes was hit and badly damaged. From a real estate point of view, I would be strongly against the project as it would seriously devalue the surrounding homes, especially the home of Rose Mihata. Yours trul , Albert Duron 10-12-201 3:54PM FROt, �USLTNTSINTL WEITHRN 1 760 3Z- i309 P. 1 ' J GF PA(� RCf�ID SEE INN. sq a 1930a. deaczt gaw�daw wetzeaY' dCl 1? Gi xbJ co }- ILE j �I� e Luc eG� `f`Cv� �IC,w� Wht �a - i Ul- Dr` .o vA�l' eat e o-r c oo�o ao� s.: yk�., n -ram u r� J 261 SOUTH,BELARDO ROAD, PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262 (760) $25-2701 FAX(760)S25-3855 Reservation(800)733-343.5 10-12-201 3:54PM FROM 'NSLTNTSINTL WEITHRN 1 760 32; 1309 P_ 2 i (/Ua7- 77 av ✓�11, �EL�t ✓�ti / G pr/ G✓ , . 97 —lam 10-12-201 3:SSPM FRC, )JSLTNTSINTL WEITHRN 1 760 32 �309 P. 3 �jGLO �7 Ll r� 14 v �a . �".J GEti•LS, � � Cl w /vk 71'4— � .:�syiGC�cc//`` �'✓G''D. � .-i�/�L�cs'1601`l..`i .. .. I l� l Z Yv / . . 00T-12-01 03 : 18 PM WILLOWS 760 325 6451 P. 01 f I F Pic Ttle WILLOWs HISTORIC 11AL10 ',PRrNCq INN �RECc� October 12,2001 Mayor Will Klcindicnst Mayor Pro Tbm Ron Oden Councilmember Jeanne Reller Spurgln Councihncmbcr Dcyna Hodges Councihnernbcr Jim]ones Dear Mr. Mayor and Councllmenibers, 1 am writing regarding the proposed project for(he Drown Foundation property at the western terminus of Tahqultz Canyon Way. 1 am In favor of a quality development for the site,but have several concerns regarding the proposed project. I would like to miter theso into the record. 1. The project is too dense currently mid the site plan is unimaginative. 2. Traffic and noise generated from the project have not been adequately addressed. 3. Lighting needs to be high-quality,down-lighting and not light polluting. 4. Timing for implementation of lheconstruction and earth-moving needs to avoid our high season. 5. The current owner wilt not be the developer of the project. As the current owner has promised many agreed upon details,such as the architectural qualities and specific design elements,we need assurance that these agreements will be honored by the subsequent owners. These elements are outlined in previous letters regarding the project which I append here for your review. They include the old-world spanish architecture with two-piece barrel tile and cement roofs,minimalist lighting,lush landscaping, wooden,recessed windows and more. The architecture as presented now in(his project is very attractive and is appropriate for the neighborhood. These details are expensive and we need to make sure no revision would occur with subsequent owners. 6. The terminus of Tahqultz Canyon must be improved. I believe that the current proposal is better than what now exists. 7. There should be a more substantial portion of the project that has one-story elements. 8. The CCRs for the project should address noise,trash,gardening and pool hours. This proposal has improved with every iteration. It needs further improvement. 1 agree that a Planned Development District with single family homes is an appropriate use forthe site. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Si rely, 4 `i' TracyConr;id f 412 West'I'ahquitz Canyon Way•Pahn Springs•California gi2Gz,'telephone:760-320-0771 Fax: 76v 3zwuY8o SEP-05-01 05:09 PM WILLOWS 760 325 6451 P. 01 1 THE WILLOWS HISTORIC PALM SPRINGS INN September 5,2001 Alex Mcyerholf Principal Planner City of Palm Springs PO Box2743 Palm Springs,CA 92263 And Via Facsimile 322-8360 Dear Alex, I am very concerned about the proposed Planned Development District for the Drown Foundation property at the terminus ofTahquitz Canyon,Case No.5.0804,Planned Development District No.254 and Tentative Map 29077. I have been involved in discussions for several years regarding this property, Attached please find a copy of a letter sent to Jim White,representing Karl Bergheer and Berghccr California in 1998 regarding our concerns,which have not changed. Mr.Berghccr did respond with changes to the architecture of which we wholeheartedly approve. We still do not want two-story elements along Tahquitz Canyon or Palisades Drive,we feel that the lowest possible density is appropriate and are concerned about the building schedule disrupting our tourist-based business. We are also concerned that Mr.Bergheer himself will not,in the end,be the developer of this property. We would like any plan that is approved to be specific to Mr.Bergheer or direct an assignees regarding the quality of workmanship and the aesthetic points that Mr.Berghccr has guaranteed its personally throughout our numerous discussion and during the public discourse at the previous Planning Commission Study Session. Thank you for your consideration and for entering the specific concerns detailed on the following page into the formal record. Tracy Conrad 6 412 West Tnliquitz Canyon Way-Palm Springs.California 9z262•Tolophone.760-320-0771 -Fax:y6rr320-0780 Z1077 S_c9go REGI�ED OCT $ ZQQ� the palm springs modern oasis PLANNING DIVISION 10/11/01 VIA FACSIMILE: 760-322-8360 TO: Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner Department of Planning&Building City of Palm Springs FROM: Stan Amy Orbit In, LLC RE: Case No. 5.0804 (PD No. 254) Bergheer California, Inc. Project"In Tennis Club Historic District' Per our phone conversation, I would like to identify and establish standing with regard to the following issues of concern: 1. The appearance (material, finish and color) of the walls to be constructed on the south perimeter of the project, particularly where it abuts our property located at 370 W. Arenas. 2. The specific location along the south perimeter of any landscape materials which will attain a height of greater than 7 feet. My concern is to preserve a mountain view corridor to the north and west particularly from the northeast corner of our orbitin.com property. mail@arbitin.com Alex, regarding these two issues, I request the opportunity to review and 562 w arenas comment on specific designs following their submission and prior to their palm springs, ca 92262 approval. phone (760) 323-3585 fax(760) 323-3599 toll free(877) 99-orbit I /A "'- (1-877-996-7248) Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner Department of Planning & Building City of Palm Springs Page 2 Finally, although I did not mention it in our conversation, I would like to express concern and establish standing regarding the broader issue of the compatibility of this project with the character of the Tennis Club Historic District and the project's effect on the opportunity to maximize property values and tax base over the long term. I am particularly concerned with the issues of density and side yard setbacks. Alex, thank you again for responding quickly and informatively to our questions. Your helpfulness and even-toned manner inspire confidence in the public process. Sincerely, Stan Amy CC: William G. Kleindienst, Mayor Ronald Oden, Mayor Pro Tern Deyna L. Hodges, Council Jim Jones, Council Ronald Oden, Council Jeanne Reiler-Spurgin, Council b4othy C. & Harold J. Meyerman RECEIVED 550 Palisades Drive Palm Springs, California 92262 SEP 1 9 2001 Tel.: (760) 318-6674 Mr. Douglas Evans, Director Sept I_ NNIO DIVISION City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way P.O. Box 2743, Palm Springs, Ca. 92262 Dear Mr. Evans: Re: Case 5 0804-PD 254/Drown Foundation We were unable to attend yesterday's meeting in person nor, for that matter, will we be able to attend the follow-up meeting scheduled for September 26. As residents of the area, we are not opposed to a high quality project which may well be contemplated for the acreage in question. We are strongly opposed, however, to a number of features which appear to be part of the present plans. I would summarize our concerns as follows: 1.) Insufficient setbacks from the 400 block of West Tahquitz. The very high quality and historic significance of the present homes along Tahquitz will be diminished unless setbacks are increased significantly; 2.) Height of the proposed structures adds to the "tunnel" problem which was referred to by one of the participants. As a result, the developer will need to consider single story structures along West Tahquitz in addition to (1) above; 3.) The fieldstone wall along Tahquitz should remain as an important and desirable feature for both the existing as well as the new residents; 4.) Density will need to be reduced as setbacks are increased, distances between structures increased and single story homes contemplated, and 5.) The new development will make congestion, which is already an issue, only worse. The City should also be assured by the developer that the property will not be "flipped" once again. Finally, the City has an unusual opportunity to extend the high quality of the existing neighborhood by approving a project which is consistent with the surrounding area, comprising notable landmarks such as the Willows, Vallouris, the existing homes referred to above as well as the home of Mr. Albert Frey, Mr. Halliday's home and our own residence inspired and designed in large part by the late Mr. Frey. Sincerely, - � 6 7 c.c. Mr. & Mrs. Bruce Page Pc Mainiero; Smith and Associates, Inc. Planning/Civil Engineering/Land Surveying 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 301 /Palm Springs, California 92262-6784 Telephone(760) 320-9811 /FAX (760)323-7893 • e-mail info@mainierosmith.com • www.mainierosmith.com September 12, 2001 Mr. Doug Evans RECEIVED Director of Planning and Building CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way SEP 12 2001 P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, California 92262 PLANNING DIVISION Re: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California Inc. Dear Doug: We represent Ms. Rose Mihata and she has asked us to review the proposed 52 unit condominium project proposed immediately adjacent to her personal residence at 468 West Tahquitz Canyon Way. She has already sent a letter to you requesting a more detailed environmental analysis in the form of an EIR. My purpose is to delve into the overall site plan and the variances being requested. In summary, we would request some restudy of the plans in hope that the project proponents be afforded the opportunity to resolve the areas of conflict. The Process: The Planned Development District (PDD) process. is designed to improve the quality of development by allowing flexibility in development standards. To that end the proposed development is seeking reduced setbacks and reduced distances between buildings among other requests. We agree that the PDD affords the city and the developer the best opportunity to forge a quality plan for this site. One of the objectives of the PDD has been to ensure that the resulting development exceeds right-of-zone standards. Another requirement in the Zoning Ordinance is that "the form and type of development of the surrounding neighborhoods." We believe that these two objectives have.not been met and paint to further study and refinemenfof the plan. Site Plan: The site plan issues that we believe need further study are the height and design of the, units facing Tahquitz Canyon Way. The requirements of the zoning ordinance for R-2 and R-3 properties abutting R-1 zones include a 2QQ-foot setback for any two-story buildings. The current design shows two story structures with only a 25= foot setback from the north property line. In addition, the buildings should all be single story and should be separated by at least the ordinance minimum of 15-feet, if not 20- feet, which would be the single-family standard. The greater distance between buildings would allow some view corridors through the development and the single story limit would insure, that there were no second story windows looking down into the existing'devebpmpnt. 'i Mr. Doug Evans September 12, 2001 Page Two An alternative that might also work would be to extend the retention basin along the northerly property line thereby increasing the setback from the north property line. Concerning the proposed retention design, it seems like an opportunity for multiple use is being lost for the only significant open space on the site. Circulation: The access to the area remains a concern, particularly with the newly proposed angled parking in front of Le Valluris restaurant. The current design would be confusing to the folks that are wandering around in their "discovery" mode, as it does not create an easy turn-around area and work from that point. The conditions of approval also indicate that a new traffic light is being proposed for the tee-intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road. This signal should only.be entertained if the entry to the Fashion Plaza parking is relocated to align with Belardo Road. Walls: The normal requirement for perimeter walls where R-3 or R-2 properties abut single-family properties is for a six-foot masonry wall. Since the existing historic and unique fieldstone wall along the north property line is only approximately 40" +/- in height, a new 6-foot wall would appear out-of-place if placed immediately adjacent to it. We would suggest eliminating the requirement for a six-foot wall along the north property line and if a privacy wall is desired, that it be limited to the patio areas of those units. In summary, we believe the site plan should be restudied to come closer to meeting the intent of the Planned Development District requirement for consistency with the adjacent properties, to increase the setback for two story development adjacent to T-1 zones, to open up the distance between buildings and to resolve the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way. Verytruly yours, Marvin Roos Director of Planning Services MDR:crri 1 cc. Rose Mihata M ID Mainiero, Smith and Associates,Inc. 777 EastTthquitz Canyon Way,Suite Mf/Palm Spings,California 92262-6784/Telephone(760)320-9811/FAX(760)323-7893 OCT-12-01 03 : 18 PM 14ILLOWS 760 325 6451 P. 02 ogo ' TIIE WILLOWS HiS'roRic PALM SPRINGS INN September 5,2001 Alex Meyerhoff Principal Planner City of Palm Springs Pt)Box 2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263 And viaracsimlle 322-8360 Dear Alex, I am very concerned about the proposed Planned Development District for the Drown Foundation property at the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon,Case No.5.0804,Planned Development District No.254 and Tentative Map 29077. 1 have been involved in discussions for several years regarding this property. Attached please find a copy of a letter sent to Jim White,representing Karl Bergheer and Bergheer California in 1998 regarding our concerns,which have not changed. Mr.Bergheer did respond with changes to the architecture of which we wholeheartedly approve. We still do not want two-story elements along Tahquitz Canyon or Palisades Drive,we feel that file lowest possible density is appropriate and are concerned about the building schedule disrupting our tourist-based business. We are also concerned that Mr.Bergheer himself will not,in the end,be the developer of this property. We would like any plan that is approved to be specific to Mr.Bergheer or direct an assignees regarding the quality of workmanship and the aesthetic points that Mr.Bergheer has guaranteed us personally throughout our numerous discussion and during the public discourse at the previous Planning Commission Study Session, Thank you for your consideration and for entering the specific concerns detailed on the following page into the formal record. Si erely, �rt./ Tracy Conrad 4rz Wcat Tahquitz Canyon Way•palm Springs•California 9226z Telephone:76o-3zu-0971 •Fax 7[10-320-0780 . 00T-12-01 03 . 19 PM WILLOWS 760 ,325 6451 P. 03 THE WILLOWS HISTORIC PALM SPRINGS INN August 18, 1998 Jim White Lynwood Development Via Fuesimile(619)224-9720 (619)224-6617 Dear Mr. White, Thank you very much for your phone call of today.As you know,The Willows has required a huge financial and emotional investment,and we are very concerned about anything that might deleteriously impact its value or viability. I appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns regarding any development of the Drown Foundation property. There are several aesthetic issues which are readily apparenPregarding the property. ]. The entrance to the site is problematic,with limited ingress and cgress,and an awkward approach. A reconfiguration of the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way in conjunction with the City of Palm Springs would be desirable. The schema would include limiting the"turnaround"traffic that now occurs,placing the telephone poleslutilities underground,and demarcating the transition from public to private street.The site entrance would also probably require sonic reconfiguration of the current placement of LeVallauris'trash area,as it would be inconsistent to have the trash immediately adjacent to the entrance of an upscale residential project. Mitigation of the increased traffic to the site would be accomplished by a proper design of(lie silo entrance and reconfiguration of Tahquitz Canyon Way from Museum Drive to the site. 2. The project would be low-density,low-profile and upscale in nature. 3. In keeping with the ambiance of the neighborhood,the rooftops would be high quality Spanish tile of single font,rather than s-shaped form,preferably variegated in color. 4. The lighting plan would be low-voltage and incandescent,appearing upscale,and consistent with a residential neighborhood. Any"up lighting"or globe fixtures would be highly undesirable as they would glare and contribute to light pollution. 5. Landscaping would be lush and generous,limiting hardscape. 6. The design would limit the number and placement of trash pick up sites,or use quieter,smaller, special trash vehicles,in order to mitigate the noise of trash pickup and contribution to noise pollution. Implementation of the development is also of concern,Heavy construction would avoid"high season"of January through May and avoid Saturdays and Sundays,to limit the negative financial impact on the tourist-based businesses adjacent. Again,I appreciate the opportunity to express these concerns. I believe that their mitigation would result in an aesthetically appropriate development for the site. 1 am looking forward to seeing your specific proposal,and would reserve the ability to comment further regarding its particulars. I am looking forward to introducing you,the architect,and the new owner to The Willows personally on September 3, 1998, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Tracy Conrad It / 412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way-Palm Springs•California g2262,Telephone:760-32o-0771•Fax:76o-32o-0780 Marc Herbert 28C4 Tice Creek Dive,No.4 Walnut Creek,Califomia 94595. Phone(925)932-5 509 July 30, 2001 City Council, RECEIVED City Planning Commission, City of Palm Springs, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, AUG 6 2001 Palm Springs, CA 92262. RE: PLQposQd D evlopmen f n NN!NG DIVISION Parcel on West Tahq ti z CanyQn Way Tract 29077 PD 5,0804 We are sure the City Council and the City Planning Commission are aware of the special nature of the vacant land involved here. This is not just another desert property but bears a key relation to a number of architectural landmarks--the Museum, the Willows, the Frey House, Vallauris restaurant-- and is a central element to the historic Tennis Club district, as well as close to our outstanding downtown. What is built here will have a direct impact on these neighbors for years into the future. That said, we find the proposed development by Bergheer California to be appallingly lacking in sensitivity and imagination. Where is the attention to the surroundings? Where is the recognition of the special Palm Springs lifestyle? No, this unique site is deserving of something much better than a"cookie cutter"program of lots and houses with no consideration to views, orientation and impact on abutting buildings and the area in general. Yet we know that this applicant is capable of producing high-quality work. Our property fronts on West Arenas Road, and our rear line is therefore along the southerly boundary of the plot in question. Regardless of what is approved, we ask that the overhead utility lines along this border be placed underground and the poles removed. New underground connections for buildings on West Arenas Road should be at the expense of the developer. The present rock barrier should be replaced with an attractive masonry wall, six feet in height, with surfaces properly finished on both sides. Appropriate landscaping should be installed adjacent to the new wall on the developer's side. Ask the applicant to provide a simple scale model of the proposal showing the existing adjacent development. The Council and Commission will see at once how inappropriately dense, uniform and intrusive the project will be if allowed to be constructed as presented. Marc Herbert Rose Mihata 468 West Tahquitz Canyon 17' June, 2001 Palm Springs, California 92262 Office(760) 320-0882 Fax(760)320-9395 City of Palm Springs, Planning Department P.O. Box 1786 Palm Springs CA 92263 Dear Sirs, RE : BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC. —GATED COMMUNM CASE NO : 5.0804 I strongly oppose the above project to be located on West Tahquitz Way at the foot of Mt. San Jacinto in downtown Palm Springs. I purchased my home for the neighborhood setting and the spectacular view of depth and distance, which will be totally destroyed if this project is allowed to proceed. Before investing large sums of money to restore my property to its 1920's era, my contractor and I thoroughly researched and educated ourselves regarding the city restrictions on the subject property. My first and foremost concern was regarding future construction on the vacant land across from my impending purchase. Our research included the potential height requirements and extent of anyone obstructing my view, including set-back regulations, building codes,variances, restrictions and necessary laws and ordinances existing. After satisfactory assurances by the City Officials I ventured into a substantial investment of up-grading and restoration. I believe a full scale Environmental Impact Report is imperative. Such a report will bring to light, amongst other things, the many negative aspects of this project. Traffic, Fire,loss of view, pollution and congestion, noise, nighttime illuminations which will severely hamper a visual appreciation of the moon and stars, flooding due to change in patterns of water run-offs, plus the quiet enjoyment and security. I also feel it necessary to direct your attention to a previous letter I sent regarding the traffic problems this proposed project would create. My son was involved in an accident, he was hit by another vehicle which was leaving Le Vallouris,the driver of the vehicle leaving the restaurant failed to look for oncoming traffic before pulling out into my son. On another occasion there was a fatal accident in the intersection of the said property. I witnessed this accident and took the man to the hospital but unfortunately he /& 07� 3 died from his injuries. Lets not allow another person to die because our planning department failed to carry out an adequate traffic study. The volume of traffic that would be created by this project spells a nightmare of congestion. This would also assist in adding to the traffic-flow problem that already exists in the neighborhood. The Desert Fashion Plaza is practically closed at the present time, therefore it is only going to get worse when it re-opens for business. For these and other reasons a thorough traffic study is viable,imperative and necessary in order to safeguard the integrity, safety and history of this neighborhood. In closing,I want you all to know that I love this city. It goes without question that all of you feel the same way, however, we owe it to ourselves to take a closer look at this proposed project. Not only for those of us whom it will affect now,but for all of those it will affect in the future of this beautiful city. Enclosed is a copy of a"Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report from Doug Evans dated August 18, 1988. I sincerely hope that the members of the Design Review Committee and Planning Department will take my fears and concerns into consideration and insist on an Environmental Impact Study being carried out. Respectfully submitted, "JA-- ROSE E_MIIIATA Property Owner 468 West Tahquitz Way 8 / 117 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF PREPARATION TO: Distribution List. FROM: City of Palm Springs Planning Division PO Box 1786 Palm Springs, CA 92263 SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report. The Palm Springs Planning Division will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and content of the environmental information which is germane to your agency' s statutory responsibilities in connection with the proposed project. Your agency may need to use the EIR prepared by our agency when considering your permit or other approval for the project. The project description, location , and the probable environmental effects are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study Q(� is, ( ) is not, attached. Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be sent at the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice. Please send your response to Douglas R. Evans at the address shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency. Project Title: Planned Development District 196 (Case 5.0466) . Project Applicant: Mel Haber Enterprises, Inc. DATE August 18, 1988 Signature rQi Title Planner III Telephone 619 / 323-8245 Area Code (Revised 6-87) r ` 71`1* 1 NOTICE OF PREPARATION CASE 5.0466 - PD-196 - Haber Project Project Description: A Planned Development District (PDD) application in-lieu of a change of zone to high density residential (R-4)) has been filed for a 104-unit luxury apart- ment complex. The site area is 8.75 acres. The proposed apartment building may range from two to five stories in height and have a building height of up to 55.5 feet. The project will include lighted tennis courts, lakes, pools, recreationtareas, underground parking, and extensive landscaping. The project is located at the west end of Tahquitz Way west of Museum Drive and the site abuts the base of the San Jacinto Mountains. The site is surrounded by single-family residences and a restaurant on the north, small hotels, apartments and condominiums on the east and south, and single- and multiple-family residences on the west. The subject property is zoned and planned for medium and high-density hotel or residential uses. Existing zoning would permit up to 183 residential units or up to 390 hotel rooms. Probable Environmental Affects of the Project: FLOOD CONTROL/WATER. Approximately 75 acres of watershed lies tributary to the proposal site. Currently storm runoff is concentrated in two watercourses which discharge onto the site. The western portion of the site currently retains storm flows; therefore, downstream properties are not affected by this tributary runoff. A preliminary drainage plan will be prepared by the applicant. and incorporated into the Draft EIR. (3.B&C) NOISE. The project, being a 104-unit residential development, will increase noise levels in the surrounding area during construction and during operation of the project. The Draft EIR will address construction related noise impacts and operational impacts of the project. (6.A&B) LAND USE. The Draft EIR will address surrounding and proposed land use. The project, being 2 to 5 stories in height, may affect adjacent properties. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. A traffic study is being prepared and will be incorporated into the Draft EIR. The study will address average daily traffic, peak hour traffic volume, existing roadway design, signs and other concerns. (13.d&f) FIRE PROTECTION. /1141 7&1 The emergency service concerns regarding a 4 to 5-story building will be discussed. (14.a) } NOTICE OF PREPARATON Page 2 Case 5 .0466 - PD-196 AESTHETICS/SCENIC VISTAS. The proposed 4 to 5-story apartment complex may disrupt existing views from adjoining properties. The Draft EIR shall include visual impact analysis, site crossections and a narrative discussion. CULTURAL RESOURCES. 11 Archaeological/historical resources has four areas of concern and are as follows: (a) A rock wall runs along the northern property boundary and is within the setback area of the proposal . The Historical Society has expressed an interest in having this feature remain in its current location. The wall is a totally unreinforced rock wall constructed approximately 60-70 years ago. This wall element adds to the uniqueness and character of the area. (b) The water flume was constructed by the Indians sometime in the 1830' s and is considered one of the earliest pieces of agricultural engineering in this part of the country. This flume was utilized for irrigation and domestic purposes by the Indians and then by white settlers in the latter 1800's . The flume crosses the site in a diagonal direction from the southwest to the northeast. (c) Historical records indicate an Indian burial ground exists on or immediately north of the proposal site. These records have been con- firmed with members of the tribe. Preliminary information indicates the burial ground may be within the open space area along the northerly property line, but there is still some concern as to the southerly and easterly limits to the burial ground. The developer has agreed to the preservation of this area as to protect the integrity of the burial grounds. (d) Tribal and historical records indicate there is the possibility of sub- surface archaeological finds on-site. This possibility exists because of the close proximity of this property to the Agua Caliente Hot Spring (Spa Hotel property) which is known as an archaeological site of which the boundaries have been described as extending westward to the mountains. In order to determine specific boundaries of this site, excavations were conducted. A detailed cultural resource study made and will be conducted addressing resources located on-site. The results of these studies will be incor- porated into the report. 11A, WP/PLNG CORRES NOTICE OF PREPARATON Page 3 Case 5 .0466 - PD-196 Focused EIR. The information contained in this document, including the initial study, shall be used to focus the Draft EIR on significant issues. In addition, impact areas and concerns raised during the NOP process will be incorporated into the Draft EIR. r Y WP/PLNG CORRES 77 .... .. -ter -_..: ..��.:-::�'.:...(•... �M1:.L.�. f. ..." CITY OF PALM SPRINGS - Environmental Check List Form - -� ti; _ • • -� '^-r - - r � (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yams Maybe No I. - Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcoverirg of the soil? c. Chonge in topography or ground surface relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of v soils, either on or off the site? _4 f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach scuds, or ehenges in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? r g. Exposure of people or property .to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes; landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any charge in climate, W either locally or regionally? T 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the-course of di 7 - rection of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in obsorpticn rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface V runa f f? c- Alterations to the course or flow of flood V ... +..v e+ Z_1 17 d r. f � •'ruin' r� �+1� '�� -'' yea, -uf Krt �. • nrMi d. Change in the amount of surface water in any water body? v . T r C. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding bun not limited to temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? V g. ' Change in the quantity of ground waters;- T either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such es flooding or tidal waves? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, ond aquatic plcnts)? J b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an crea, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural / crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: _T- a. Change in the diversity of species, or I� numbers of any species of animals (birds, I land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthie organisms or insects)? - b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife hcbitat? Yes. MAYbe W 6. Wise. Will the proposal result in, M. a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Clore. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 8, Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned land use of on area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in. a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve - a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? b. Possible interference with on emergency response pion or an emergency e-yocuation pion? 11. Population- Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the *humcn population of on area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation, Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new pat-king? c. Substantial import upon existing trarispor- taticin systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Servlm. Will the proposal have on a 4:.NO effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental g ern services in any of the �`- following areas: -.. - - a. Fire protection? - _ b. Police protection? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? y f. Other governmental services? IS. Eriergy. Will the proposal result in:C. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications systems? _X c. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? X I e. Storm water drainage? �- f. Solid waste and disposal? X 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the, creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or -- historic archaeological site? Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical ,• or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? e. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical cfwrxge which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious or soared uses within the potential impact s area? 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate irrcortent examples of the major periods `I of California history or prehistory? �t b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvontoge of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future) c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con sidercble? (A project may impact on two �+ (/ or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but ff where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on humon beings, either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: ( Initials) _C. — Title Tie � Initial Study Reviewed For Findings and Recommendation: MARVIN 0. ROOS anning Director 0 tr (2M' Li , = ' V I:I r iti � pal �•� �' �y�� y� � �� � TRACT 171511 HAS PLOT PLAN ■ tl 17 1� �H ly`I 7 7 0 /\ v � Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Organization July 23, 2000 Doug Evans Director of Planning and Building 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, Ca 92262 Dear Doug, Thank you for inquiring as to what we in the Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood consider sites of historical, cultural and architectural significance, 1 forwarded your request to the entire Board of Directors for the HTCNO and several neighbors for their input as well. By our name,Palm Springs recognizes the historic significance of our area as one of tine earliest neighborhoods in the city formed several years prior to the actual 1938 incorporation of Palm Springs as a City. Our neighborhood is the location of the original home of Pearl McMannus,a number of early resort hotels,and summer homes. We find some of the most significant aspects of our neighborhood to be its proximity to downtown and the fact that we have an almost Waal and definitely a small town feel with our narrow streets that have been-preserved-without-curbs and-sid€walks. We also welcome e absence of streetlights and our ability to enjoy the dark night sky. The Board talked about a number of structures in our neighborhood that we feel are also significant. We agreed that prior to developing a list for your survey, we would want to first contact each of these owners for their permission to include their address. Let us know how you plan to utilize this survey information in the short and long term future so that we will have more details to share with neighbors we contact. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Christine Hammond Chair Cc Hope Sullivan Kira Klatchko HTCNO Board of Directors 373 South Monte Vista Drive ❑ Palm Springs, California 92262 ❑ 778-0041 OCT-12 01 03 . 19 PM �W'IILLOWS TitF WILLOWS HISTORIC PALM SPRINGS INN August 18, 1998 Jim White Lynwood Development Via Fucsimilc(619)224-9720 (619)224-6617 Dear Mr, White, Thank you very much foryour phone call of today.As you know,The Willows has required a huge financial and emotional Investment,and we are very concerned about anything that might deleteriously impact its value or viability.I appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns regarding any development of die Drown Foundation property. There are several aesthetic Issues which are readily apparent regarding the property. I. The entrance to the site is problematic,with limited ingress and egress,and an awkward approach. A reconfiguration of the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way In conjunction with lire City of Palm Springs would be desirable. The scheme would include limiting the"turnaround"traffic that now occurs,placing die telephone polesludlities underground,and demarcating the transition from public to private street.The site entrance would also probably require some reconfiguration of the current placement of LeVallauris'trash area,as it would be inconsistent to have the trash immediately adjacent to the entrance of an upscale residential project. Mitigation of the increased traffic to the site would be accomplished by a proper design of lire site entrance and reconfiguration of Tahquitz Canyon Way from Museum Drive to the site, 2. The project would be low-density,low-profile and upscale in nature. 3. In keeping with the ambiance of the neighborhood,the rooftops would be high quality spanish the of single form,rather(Iran s-shaped form,preferably variegated in color. 4. The lighting plan would be low-voltage and incandescent,appearing upscale,and consistent with a residential neighborhood. Any"up lighting"or globe fixtures would be highly undesirable as they would glare and contribute to light pollution. 5. Landscaping would be lush and generous,limiting liardscape. 6. The design would limit the number and placement of trash pick up sites,or use quieter,smaller, special trash vehicles, in order to mitigate the noise of trash pickup and contribution to noise pollution. Implementation of the development is also of concern.Heavy construction would avoid"high season"of January through May and avoid Saturdays and Sundays,to limit the negative financial impact on the tourist-based businesses adjacent. Again,I appreciate the opportunity to express these concerns. 1 believe that(heir mitigation would result in an aesthetically appropriate development for the site. 1 am looking forward to seeing your specific proposal, and would reserve the ability to comment further regarding its particulars, I am looking forward to introducing you,the architect,and the new owner to Tine Willows personally on September 3, 1998, Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, ,p Tracy Conrad 412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way-Palm Springs•California 92262•Telephone;760-320-0791-Fax;760-320-07Ho FROM ROSE E MIHRTR p PHONE NO. : 619 320 0862 Feb. 23 1999 00:34RM P1 C12/1 9'd9 14:5,1 421i99 H+11 II q}Y PAGE 61 art/' NORM AN ,).,). 11AL1.o,1.J)AY ��.. to U. 1a1(r% oboe N015F., IUAI-10 f]dfb'I 5 ra l+l t, I�.pF1 34 A.$5LS y; rr uQnIJN VALL,E)' 14 f1e) 1r:U•"7%:4 February t�lf 1999 I'A4M off<I f11,'% 1�'MUI A10 42?R To: Traffic rugincer &. Doug P,vatis I live at 600 Palisades Drive and au.) apposed to tli.e condo dcvelopmeut by Mr. Doug Evans, The `traffic on Palisade Drive cannot witlistand any more use and l atn uva" od about the tiro protectiao to t11e propose(I 11roject. TWs project needs to be stopped now and reevaluated Norman I llalliday Vq ),1 J JJ Hi P. 01 Steve Cheroeke 530 W.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA, 92262. Fax Cover Sheet DATE: February 16, 1889 TIME; 6:34 PM TO; Mr, Doug Evans PHONE: City Planner FAX; 760.322,8360 FROM: Steve Cheroskee PHONE: 760.320.1055 FAX; 780,320.1327 RE; Proposed Development of W. Tahquitz Canyon Way CC: Traffic Engineer Number of pages Including cover sheet; (1] Message For the record, I am opposed to any development of W. Tahquitz Canyon Way, located directly acroos from my home. I have a large financial investment in this historic property; and feel any development in this area would de-value my property. Furthermore, due to existing commercial businesses located due oast of my property, the area cannot support additional traffic. We struggle daily with the inability to move in and out of our property , An estimated 645 automobiles entering and exiting this proposed property daily would create a congestion disaster. Sincerily, Steve Cherdeke kUSc E MIHATA PHONE NO. 619 320 0892 Feb. 16 1999 00: 11AN P „+ ' Rcs�kt,lx,t�t Yalm Sprt;+�S�,�},t;2 february lo, 1999 lo11 affic. ,ng,inecr, City of Palm Springs I would like.to bring to your attention that the traffic on Tal,quitz between Valai Canyon and the ctu.rance of PalisAdes Drive has become; extr0liely hazardous due to the increased traffic siroatiun, Approaching Tahquitz from Bellardo Road and trying to turn left requires one to pull onto Tahquitz before you can clearly see. Several times I have either observed or actually been the driver whe:i a powmial accident ltai been closely averted T urge you to investigate this situation imniWiately to avoid unnecessary loss of life. I ant also strongly opposed to pLaiing 64 condominium units at the Wesi End ufTaliquitz. According to Doug Evant, of the Palm Springs planning department, the addition of these c undominium units will resoit io 600 more cars accessing this area each day, The stxeet is already congested because of people acce,,siug the Fashion Plaza, the Desert Nfuseum, the Vallaris Restaurant, and various Eiotele. Prior to allowing this building project to be approved the City needs to do a troths environnwntal study. Yours Sincemly, 4 7 Rose Mtiaala W7 3.4.7. W. Talumift Canyon Wov. This isolated residential neighborhood on the edge of Downtown contains a unique mlx of significant historic structures and custom homes of classic Modern architecture. Where access, circulation and other public facilities are adequate, the historic residences are appropriate for conversion to quality visitor-related residential use consistent with. the Downtown redevelopment policies; the low-density residential character of the neighborhood shall be retained. The development of a master plan for circulation is encouraged as,pro ierlies are (Ire)developed to prevent the intrusion of through-traffic dnd io provide localized parking. Page 3 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 1 rrrrr PUBLIC HEARING: 3 Case 5.0804—TTM 29077 (PD 267)—Application by Bergheer Calilibmia, Inc. for a Preliminary Planned Development District related Architectural Approvals and Telitative Tract Map for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel(APN 513-121-035 and 513-141-012)into 50 parcels for clustered residential development within a gated community, located to the southwest of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15. Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest. Commissioner Caffery stated that,when this application was heard previously by the Planning Commission, he believed he had a conflict of interest; however, he does not believe that conflict exists currently. In order to confer with City Attorney,the Director and Commissioner Caffery left the meeting and Chairman Klatchko called an informal recess. Upon returning to the meeting, Commissioner Caffery stated that he does not believe he has a conflict. Director stated that it is recommended that Commissioner Caffery sit for the purpose of establishing a quorum; however, abstain from voting as additional legal research is necessary to determine absolutely that there is no conflict. Chairman Klatchko confirmed that three votes would be necessary for a successful motion on this application. Alex Meyerhoff,Principal Planner,reported that at its meeting of September 26,2001,the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project;.however, the City Council, at its meeting of October 17, 2001, referred this application back to the Planning Commission with direction to review the setback of two-story units to the R-1 Zone, Tahquitz Canyon Way street scape bay parking, guest parking, and proposed open space. He stated that the applicant has revised the plans to address all of these issues. Included in the revisions are the elimination of two-story buildings adjacent to.the R-1 Zone boundary along Tahquitz Canyon Way and an average setback of 203 feet to the R-1 Zone. He reported that the applicant also revised the parking plan (which now exceeds parking code requirements) to create additional guest parking spaces . Also in response to City Council direction, the applicant has revised the plan to eliminate bay parking and widen the landscape median to provide for an enhanced entrance on Tahquitz Canyon Way which are both intended to meet the objective of the General Plan policy for West Tahquitz Canyon Way. He stated that the proposed improvements are also intended to reduce the number of misdirected vehicles in the area. He stated that recent projects in the immediate area (e.g. The Willows Bed 10 91 Page 4 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 and Breakfast Inn) have been similarly conditioned to participate in improvements at the terminus of West Tahquitz Canyon Way and that refinement to the plans is needed to provide adequate sight distances as part of the Final Development plans. He reported that the proposed Tentative Tract Map includes a number of lettered lots which will be used forcommon area improvements and amenities such as driveways,guest parking,a swimming pool, spa area with accompanying restrooms, pool building, project roadways, sidewalks and an onsite retention area. He reported that the proposed 50 units (originally 62) range in size from 1,615 square feet to 2,100 square feet,with attached and detached one and two-story structures (which include five different models). He reported that the building height complies with the R-3 Zone and is consistent with development in the area. He stated that the adjacent development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way includes single family residences, a historic resort property, the Desert Museum, and the Desert Fashion Plaza and that the existing multi-story homes to the north of the site feature ground level parking and garage areas, ground level residential uses with limited view corridors, elevated second Floors with views and third floor residences with views to the south of Tahquitz Canyon. He reported that the project's gated entry features a 16'wide guest lane with a phone and address board for guests to call their hosts and announce their arrival. He stated that an eight foot landscaped median will provide a buffer between the guest driveway and the main driveway and that a teardrop shaped, 16 foot median separates the primary entry lane and the 18'wide exit lane in order to accommodate fire truck and large vehicle turning movements into the proposed project. He stated that there will be decorative,stamped paving at the entryway which will be in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Regarding the proposed landscape design, staff recommends that the detention basins and archeological site be landscaped to the extent possible. He stated that the project includes 49% landscaped area, which exceeds zoning requirements. He reported that by 2010, based on "Build Out" traffic projections, all studied intersections will continue to operate at acceptable levels of service with the exceptions of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road and that no traffic control improvements are recommended to accommodate "Build Out"2010 traffic as a consequence of the proposed project. He stated that the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road will likely operate unacceptably although not beyond capacity by 2010 as a consequence of increased traffic due to the upcoming revitalization of the Desert Fashion Plaza. He stated that the intersection should be observed and remedial measures considered as needed. He reported that the Traffic Study finds that Tahquitz Canyon Way acceptably serves exiting traffic through the study area and will continue to do so through 2010 with recommended mitigation measures. He distributed a memo from the Engineering Department regarding the Initial Study to the Planning Commission which clarifies findings and has been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing. I I Page 5 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 Mr. Robert Van Etten addressed the Planning Commission to state that he feels the application should be denied because he feels that the applicant's performance on the project will not meet requirements. He submitted photographs and plans for the Colony at El Mirador(another project of this applicant)for the Planning Commission to review which are on file in the Planning Division. He stated that, on his El Mirador home, materials (such as stucco vs. block walls) do not adhere to plans and that landscaping has not been completed. He stated that he has had difficulty reaching the applicant to address these concerns and that, most recently, mail sent to the developer's office was returned by the Post Office as "Undeliverable—No Forwarding Address." He stated that he felt there were dozens of deviations to generally accepted building standards and codes and that he understands that there is one active lawsuit against the applicant and three other people contacting attorneys regarding these issues. He urged the Planning Commission to visit the Colony at El Mirador in order to review the applicant's work. Mr. Frank Tyson addressed the Planning Commission to state that he felt the revisions to the proposed project are a decent compromise and urged the Planning Commission to require quality materials(e.g.wood window frames and mudded tiles). He thanked the Planning Commission for its attention to detail to this point of the project. Mr. Thomas Van Etten addressed the Planning Commission to read a letter from Dr. Russell Christopher to the applicant that describes problems with the building of his home at the Colony at El Mirador which is on file in the Planning Division. Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. The applicant had no comment. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Director reported that the Building Division has been to the Colony at El Mirador project on numerous occasions and that there are disagreements between some homeowners and the developer regarding finishes and materials but that the areas inside project walls are not subject to Architectural Approval by the City. He stated that landscape issues are also disputed by some homeowners. He stated that the proposed Planned Development District which will have exterior design review of the buildings, walls, landscaping, etc. and that all must comply exactly with Planning Commission and City Council requirements. He clarified that any substitution of materials must be approved by staff or Planning Commission and that,unlike the development at the Colony at El Mirador, staff will have individual inspections for materials, colors, finishes, exterior lighting, and landscaping on each home. He reported that the Planned Development District application under consideration today is very specific and includes a site plan, preliminary landscaping concept,floor plan, roof plan,exterior materials and colors,and preliminary grading. He stated that aesthetic control of a Planned Development District is similar to commercial development—that staff watches progress closely throughout development. He stated that, at the time of Final Planned Development District application, there will be an exact landscaping plan (including contours, berming, lighting, and walkways)for Planning Commission review. Dave Barakian, Director of Public Works, reported that drainage is alleviated by storm drains for this area and that the proposed project will not add more water to Tahquitz Canyon Way but some 1 ' 3 Page 6 of 10 Planning Commission Minutes January 09, 2002 tributary drainage to the western property line of the tract which will then pass through vacant land. He stated that future development requirements will handle additional runoff by retaining incremental increases with onsite storm drainage systems and passing west to east through existing drainage. He stated that there is significant storm water runoff to Tahquitz Canyon Way but that the proposed project will not increase that level;storm drains manage the runoff, and that. staff is satisfied with projected drainage. Commissioner Raya asked the architect to address the Planning Commission regarding rooflines. Mr.Don Corbin, CYP International, addressed the Planning Commission to review elevations and describe the rooflines. Staff reported that sample materials will be presented for Planning Commission review at the time of Final Planned Development District application. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he wanted some materials(such as wooden garage doors)specified in writing at that time. M/S/C(Jurasky/Raya 3-0, 2 abstentions, 1 absent)to recommend approval subject to Conditions of Approval; and applicant to submit written confirmation of material selections at time of final Planned Development application. 1/045Y Page 9 of 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2001 Case 5.0804—PD 254—TTM 19077—Application by Bergheer California, Inc. for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 52 parcels fora residential development within a gated community,located to the south west of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15. Continued from the September 12, 2001 lines. Commissioners Caffery and Shoenberger abstained due to conflicts of interest. As he was absent at the meeting of September 12, 2001, Commissioner Payne confirmed that he had reviewed the video tape of that meeting and, therefore, did not recuse himself from today's review of this application. Director reported that, at the September 12, 2001 meeting, a motion for denial was amended to a continuance in order to review certain issues and that the applicant has submitted revised plans to address those issues. He reported that the plan originally proposed 64 units, but that the revised plan is fora 52-unit community. He reviewed the previously reviewed elevations along with the revised plans for the Planning Commission. He stated that the new plans include an additional setback area and the relocation of the pool to directly west of the entry. He stated that the maximum building height has been reduced to 24 ft. from 26 ft. He reported that the City Engineer has recommended the removal of 3-4 bay parking spaces in the area of the terminus of Tahquitz I I j Page 10 of 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2001 Canyon Way but that staff believes parking is feasible there due to the nature of the condominium traffic and that the intent of the General Plan is to add parking spaces. Director reported that the developer intends to build models and the project in phases. He also reported that the most recent project which this developer built in phaseswas completed in only two phases. He clarified that no phasing plan is being proposed today and that a proposal will be included with the Final Planned Development District application. He reported thatthe owner of Le Vallauris has been out of town and staff has been unable to get his comment regarding the proposed development but that the developer has offered to move the trash enclosure for that restaurant back closer to the building to better suit operational needs of Le Vallauris. He reported that the final development plans will also include pool design and embellishment of the recreation area. Commissioner Payne commented that he felt traffic at the terminus at Tahquitz Canyon Way can be a concern and asked the City Engineer to address traffic issues. City Engineer stated that the trafficstudy indicates that, in the target year of 2020 (assuming the Desert Fashion Plaza is renovated and occupied), that the contribution to the total traffic by the proposed development will be 12% and that the developer will pay 12% (or $12,000) toward a traffic signal at Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road at that time. i Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing at 4:45 p.m. Mr. Marvin Roos, Mainiero, Smith&Associates, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is representing Ms. Rose Mihata—a neighboring property owner to the proposed development. He stated that the Ordinance calls for single-story development for most of this site and that the distance between buildings is eight feet but that the code calls for 15 feet for building separation. He asked that the development be required to match the area as much as possible while allowing flexibility for superior design. He stated that his client feels the rhythm and size of the site plan is problematic—that there is no feeling of integration with the neighborhood. He sympathized that the parcel is a difficult one to develop but that the reduction of City standards is not worth the compromise. Mr. Frank Tyson, Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood,addressed the Planning Commission to ask that the view from the Casa Cody pool deck be protected. Ms. Tracy Conrad, The Willows Bed & Breakfast Inn, addressed the Planning Commissioners to thank them for their time and attention to this proposed development—that their input has greatly improved the project. She stated that she disagreed with the City Engineer regarding the removal of bay parking at the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way and asked that bay parking be allowed there. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the developer has changed the project substantially for the benefit of the neighborhood and community. He stated that properties across the street are two and three-stories in height. He stated that the Page 11 of 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 26, 2001 developer is attempting to lower the pad elevation for Mr. Tyson, although, he stated that Casa Cody's pool is 110 feet from the subject property line and the proposed homes will not be visible from Casa Cody. He reported that the developer is working with an adjacent property owner(Mr. Wessman) for the sewer lines instead of going through Mr. Tyson's property. Mr. Mike Finely, real estate developer, stated that it is important to protect the expansive views in this neighborhood. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed at 5:00 p.m. Commissioner Raya stated that his concerns are the limited building separation, building heights, and the roof design. Chairman Klatchko stated that he was pleased to see the improvement in the proposal and that all stated concerns had been addressed in the new plans. He stated that the developer should be allowed to build by right of the code and that it is the developer's prerogative to establish the building separation distances. Commissioner Jurasky commented that he would like to see a decorative treatment of the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way such as decorative paving or a monument. He stated that he is in favor of bay parking in this area and that he felt the portion of cost for the traffic signal at Belardo Road is excessive. M/S/C(Matthews/Jurasky 3-2, 2 abstentions, Payne and Raya dissenting)to recommend that the City Council approve subject to the Conditions of Approval in the Staff Report; and a. The addition of a condition requiring a six foot block wall around the pool area; and b. The western terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way shall be improved to acceptable transportation and aesthetic standards, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Building and the City Engineer, and as approved by the Planning Commission; and C. Condition No.31 shall be amended to read, "If in the course of doing grading for construction, human burial remains are discovered, the applicant shall require the contractor and/or developer to notify the Riverside County Coroner and the Aqua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Tribe Office. Once the Coroner's investigation is complete,the burial remains will be prepared for removal to a location specified by the Tribe. The actual removal of remains, and the method for such removal, shall be conducted by authorized representatives of the Tribe. To avoid delay in construction, if the Tribe has not removed the remains within 48 hours of receiving written notice from the landowner,developer or City of Palm Springs,the contractor and/or developer may arrange to have the remains removed and stored at an appropriate holding facility. If the Tribe has not acted to take possession of the remains, the remains can then be buried at the Palm Springs Public Cemetery." r7 1 Page 4 of 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2001 a Case 5.0804—PD254—TTM19077—Application byBergheer California, Inc. for the subdivision of 6.8 acre parcel into 52 parcels fora residential development within a gated community,located to the south west of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15. Commissioner Caffery abstained due to a conflict of interest. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that this application includes 52lots and ten lettered lots which will be used for common area improvements and-amenities such as guest parking, swimming pool and spa,roadways, and onsite retention area. He reported thatthe site is currently vacant and that an earthen swale crosses the northwest corner of the property. He stated that the proposed condominiums will be two-bedroom, detached units ranging in size from approximately 1,600 sq.ft. to 2,100 sq.ft. and will be offered in three different models. He stated that the key issues for review are the proposed setbacks to single family residences, yard minimums, separation of buildings, lot coverage,landscaping and open space percentages. He reported that the proposed project exceeds parking requirements(two-car garages for each condominium and a total of ten guest parking spaces). He reported that the project design features the grouping of residential units around central driveway courtyards which minimizes vehicular driveway areas and accompanying garage views. He stated that lot sizes will likely preclude the construction of individual pools, but that a single common pool and spa facility will be located at the westerly end of the project site. He reported that the applicant has proposed improvements to Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of the intersection with Museum Drive, in order to resolve current traffic and driveway conflicts and to provide trafficcalming(e.g.narrowing the street right-of-way,adding a landscaped median with stone identification monuments, on-street bay parking on the south side of the street, and project entryway improvements). He stated that the improvements are also meant to reduce the number of misdirected vehicles in the vicinity. He reported that recent projects (e.g. The Willows Bed&Breakfast Inn)have been similarly conditioned to participate in improvements at the terminus of West Tahquitz Canyon Way. He reported that the gated entry will feature a 16 ft. wide guest lane and 8 ft. wide landscaped median to buffer between the main 20 ft. entry driveway. He stated that a second [teardrop-shaped to accommodate fire trucks] 16 ft. wide landscape median separates the primary entry lane and the 18 ft. wide exit lane. He reported that the applicant has incorporated a number of revisions into the project, as requested by staff, and that the final proposed architectural design is consistent with existing development in the area. He reported that the initial study/environmental assessment dated August 23, 2001 identified a potential for a significant environmental impact on traffic, archeology, and air quality with respect to future short-term construction activity unless mitigated and that mitigation measures are proposed which will reduce identified impacts to a level of insignificance. Page 5 of 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2001 Director reported that the development proposal history on this property includes apartment buildings of several hundred units and a condominium proposal with 30 ft. tall building with 25 ft. setbacks along Tahquitz Drive. He explained that the intent of this proposed Planned Development District is to allow the Planning Commission an opportunity to consider an overall sound development plan in the presence of issues such as the proposed reduced setbacks. He reported that the property to the north of the subject site is not flat land single family residences, but that it is hillside property with multi-story homes. He reported that the proposed density is substantially reduced from General Plan zoning allowances and that, although it was requested by the Planning Commission at a Study Session as an element to consider, the developer reports that single-story units will not allow enough density for a successful project. He reported that staff has received a letter from Mainiero, Smith & Associates, representing Ms. Rose Mihata, in objection to the project and a letter from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Planning Commission recommending approval with an additional condition regarding possible recovery of cultural and archeological resources. Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing at 2:35 p.m. Ms. Tracy Conrad, neighborhood resident and owner of The Willows Bed & Breakfast Inn, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she has several concerns about the proposed projectwhich include the site plan which she called unimaginative cookie-cutter units. She stated that the allowed General Plan density is misleading and that the allowed number would not be possible to implement. She stated that the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way is an ongoing problem which should be resolved prior to approval of the proposed project. She stated that the height of the buildings are problematic and that they are not oriented to the mountain. She stated that she is worried that, if the current applicant/developerwere not the actual builder,concessions which have been made to the neighborhood (e.g. two piece barrel tile roofs and upscale design elements) will not be honored. She stated that she is also concerned about the landscaping, lighting, noise,and traffic. She stated that the proposed project will impact her business and every resident of the Historic Tennis Club neighborhood for a long time and urged the Planning Commission to give careful consideration to the proposal. Mr. Steve Cheroske addressed the Planning Commission to state that the traffic at Tahquitz Canyon Way in this area is a concerning issue to him; as are the proposed setbacks and building heights. He stated that he felt the condominium project will affect the beauty and historical significance of the surrounding area. He stated that he felt the density was too great for the area and asked that the Planning Commission require adherence to all zoning requirements. Mr. Frank Tyson, President of the Historical Tennis Club Neighborhood, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the historical neighborhood has been improved over the years and has received national and international attention for its beauty. He stated that he is not prepared to support the proposal as it has been submitted. He stated that he heard that the Spanish Inn had fallen out of escrow and likened it to the proposed development. He stated that the present developer has not ironed out architectural details, density, and height issues. He stated that the developer promised another meeting with the neighborhood group but has not met with them. He asserted that the applicant has pulled the wool over the eyes of the Planning Commission �� lr " Page 6 of 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2001 regarding pad heights and drainage issues. He urged the Planning Commission to continue or deny the project. Ms. Rose Mihata, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that she feels she is a good citizen and asserted that the applicant is wasting the Planning Commission's time and that the owner will sell the property immediately upon approval. She stated that drainage is a serious concern to her and that there should be a retention basin—that she has lived here for 20 years and has personally witnessed the subject property flooded on several occasions. ,She stated that she is concerned with fire —that the hillside has caught on fire twice in the past 20 years. She stated that traffic is also a concern and that she has witnessed one fatality. She invited the Planning Commissioners to visit the site before they take action on the application. She stated that she does not feel the proposed project will better the neighborhood and that all zoning laws should be adhered to. Mr. Bruce Page, neighborhood resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the concerns raised are legitimate; however, did give his support to developing the property. Mr. Jim White, consultant to the applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state the Mr. Bergheer was not able to fly in for today's meeting and that he is available to answer any questions that the Planning Commission has. Mr. John Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he did not understand the comments regarding the drainage on the property because part of the development plan does include two separate onsite retention basins. He stated that the internal drainage system and retention area on the eastern property line will manage the majority of storm drain water underground. He stated that the pads need to be raised one foot in order to access sewers and that if the adjacent older homes were being built today, they would also have to be raised to that level. He stated that traffic issues are a concern and, therefore, a traffic study has been completed. He stated that a turnaround is proposed to improve traffic situation for the entire neighborhood and will be located entirely on the subject property and that the street would be narrowed to slow and discourage misdirected traffic. He reported that the City Engineer is in support of the proposal. Mr. Allen Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, addressed the Planning Commission to comment on the development of the site design. He stated that, when the project was first started, the Planning Commission reviewed it at two Study Sessions and that concerns expressed at those meetings regarding the site plan were addressed and are included in the proposal being reviewed today. He stated that subsequent Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians issues stalled the project until acceptable Conditions of Approval could be drafted. He stated that the internal roadways were reconfigured to meander and open space was increased. He stated that the project is a creative use for housing downtown and is an upper-end, quality project which will outshine existing properties in the neighborhood. He stated that the applicant and development team have met numerous times With neighborhood residents and have addressed many concerns from those meetings. He stated that the applicant has demonstrated willingness to work with the neighborhood and staff. ' � too Page 7 of 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2001 Mr. Mike Finely, real estate developer, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he is concerned about accessibility, that the two-story units are too close to the property line, that the quantity of vehicles would increase dramatically in the area. He asked that the developer consider eliminating four units to get more distance between buildings and use that space for a buffer. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed at 3:08 p.m. Director clarified that the predominant zoning of the subject site is R-3 and that, by right-of-zone, building height can be 24 ft. to the top of roof pitch, not including pad which needs to be elevated by up to four inches due to the sewer (which connects at Tahquitz Canyon Way.) He reported that, in order to make the substantial reduction to allowed density on this site, the developer is asking for trade-offs such as setback reductions. He reported that the Fire Department is comfortable with the project. He also reported that the Traffic Engineer eliminated some bay parking and would like more eliminated; however, planning staff believes that, due to the nature of condominium traffic, more spaces eliminated would be a detriment to the project. He reported that no need for a traffic light on Belardo Road has been established but that, when and if the Desert Fashion Plaza is redeveloped, it is likely that a light will be installed and the Traffic Engineer estimates that the applicant's fair share of this cost would be$12,000. He clarified that the site is overparked by 29 spaces for residents and proposes 10 spaces for guest parking where 13 are required. He reported that utility lines are planned to be relocated underground, although that mitigation measure will require the cooperation of neighboring property owners and that staff will monitor that progress. He stated that the property line wall on the north may have a wrought iron addition for additional security. He reported that Sanborn A&E has prepared a hydrology report on the site and that, historically, the flooding goes onto the adjacent property and then, if ponding occurs,the subject site receives that overflow. He reported that the predominant amount of flooding,when it occurs, comes from Arenas Canyon and flows out onto West Tahquitz Canyon Way. He stated that staff has looked carefully at the hillside residences to the north, setbacks, and height in relationship to proposed project and has determined a reasonable balance of setback from streets would be between 17 and 23 feet. Commissioner Jurasky stated that he is concerned that, in season, guest parking could be insufficient. He also stated that,while he enjoys the townhouse concept in the downtown business area, he recognizes that there are substantial neighborhood issues to be resolved. He stated that he does not feel the traffic is a potential problem and that he feels the project is well-done. He asked that the developer consider the fact that Model Three repeats itself in an awkward way and that the windows are positioned to look directly into the next door unit. Commissioner Raya stated that he is concerned with density and compromising setbacks; and two-story buildings creating a "sea of roofs"which would not be appropriate for the subject area. He stated that material selections are important for this project and that windows too close from building to building is also a concern. M/(Raya) to deny. Motion withdrawn. '/ Page 8 of 13 Planning Commission Minutes September 12, 2001 Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. Mr. White, applicant's representative, reported that he would like to address the concerns of the Planning Commission and continue the item to the next meeting of the Planning Commission. WS/C(Raya/Jurasky,3-1,Matthews dissenting, 1 abstention,2 absent)to continue to the meeting of September 26, 2001 in order to restudy the following.- A. Pad heights on southern and eastern perimeter lots; B. Wall design on northern property line; C. Relationship of units to other units (especially Floor Plan #3) and corresponding fenestration; D. Density; E. Redesign including single story combination units on southern, eastem, and northern property lines. Chairman Klatchko called a brief recess. The Planning Commission was called back to order at. 4:15 p.m. Council Minutes I 10-17-01, Page 9 i r 13. BERGHEER CALIFORNIA, INC. PDD254, CASE 5.0804 TTM29077 Recommendation: That the Council consider subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into a 52-unit gated residential community located to the southwest of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, R-2 and R-3 zones, Section 15. Director of Planning & Building reviewed the staff report and added that the Planning Commission did approve the project by a 312 vote. Councilmember Hodges cited conflict of interest in the item. Mayor questioned the 200-foot setback line location. Director of Planning & Building stated the location at the site line; and added that the set back to the east is one foot for each foot of building height; and that the setback standards on the east side are met. Mayor declared the hearing open. Marvin Roos stated that the property has had approval inthe past; that at one time a 5 to 6 story building was proposed; that this project does require special approval; that the plans are at odds with the General Plan; that there will be clusters of homes facing Tahquitz; that the 24 foot height runs 100 foot long; that all surrounding views will be blocked; that the project proposes buildings 244 feet high with narrow access between them; that the Planning Commission approval was not overwhelming; that the massing on the north property line is critical; that the problems do need to be addressed with,additional study on the site plans. Bruce Page, 550 Palisades, stated that the project is of high quality; that standards should be maintained; that there may be two roads needed for the project and that if the sewer line is extended there should W allowance for others In the area to access the hookup. Bill Davis, 227 S. Cahuilla Rd., stated that there are some life safety concerns with the project; that the proximity of the structures necessitate better ingress and Council Minutes 10-17-01, Page 10 egress; that there is limited access to the project and that the item should be referred back to the Planning Commission for further study. Tim Helyer, 530 W. Tahquitz Canyon Way, stated that the requirements of the City have not been met; that the setbacks have not been met; that there are concerns regarding traffic; that parking for guests on the project site is very limited; and recommended the project be restudied. Rose Mihata, 468 W. Tahquitz, stated that when purchasing her property the allowable zones surrounding her site were considered; that this development should not be allowed; that the City should enforce its own rules and regulations; that traffic in the area is already bad; that if emergency services are needed they will not be able to get through; and that the project needs to be addressed from safety standards. Steve Cheroske, 540 W. Tahquitz, stated that the project is not comparable to surrounding homes; that the project does.not meet setback codes; that everyone else has to follow the rules of the City and that this project should be required likewise and added that whatever the Council ends up approving, the residents in the area will be stuck with that decision Keith Signford, 544 W. Arenas, stated that traffic is already busy in the area; that the back of his property will end up with a 24 foot wall due to the height of the building; that the parking on the site is very limited; and requested the project be denied. Donald Corbin stated that the property proposed is a great area; that the project proposes a urban feel; that the greatest asset to the project is the proximity to the downtown; that the Fire Department has reviewed and approved the plans; that the project does propose courtyard schemes; that the project does bring an old Palm Springs feel to the architecture and requested approval as recommended. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin left the meeting at 11:30 p.m. Luke Ball, stated opposition to the project and added that the developer gains one million in profit, while the surrounding properties lose their views; that the density is too high; that the project is only about profit; that there are concerns on safety and requested denial of the project. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin entered the meeting at this point, 11:35 p.m. Jim Davis, stated that the plan are beautiful; that the site currently is full of trash, tumbleweed and transients; that there has been a lot of controversy on the site; and that the project should be approved as recommended. Paul Marx, stated that the project will take away the vistas of the residents and requested details of the project. Allen Sanborn, Sanborn A/E, stated that the setbacks on the west, south and east are all within the requirements of R 3 zoning; that access to the site is difficult; that the proposal submitted is the most realistic solution; that the project was difficult for site layout; that there are challenges, such as mountain water run-off it 0, 1 Council Minutes 10-17-01, Page 11 that had to be addressed; that the project is dense, but that the density is to create an urban development; that the project is unique to Palm Springs and requested approval. John Sanborn, stated that the sewer lines and street issues have been addressed in the plans and stated availability for any questions. Frank Tysen, stated that no one is against developing the site, but that there are issues in this project that need to be addressed; that the developer could solve some of the issues by a reduction in density; that there would be more space and a higher quality project; and that the end result would be a more compatible project within the Tennis Club area. Wanda Walker, 400 Arenas, stated that her bedroom window would face a wall of a building. There being no further appearances, the hearing was closed. Councilmember Oden requested the Fire Chief address the issue of access and flow of traffic. Fire Chief stated that the cul de sacs are close but that the design is adequate. Director of Planning & Building stated that the traffic consultant was aware of the needs; that as the area continues to develop further, traffic signals will be needed; that the intersection does operate in an acceptable level of service; and that the projections did not show a significant increase in traffic impacting the area. City Engineer concurred and added that the traffic study did include the build out of the area. City Manager stated that the study did not include a possible housing element at the Desert Fashion Plaza. City Engineer stated that the study did include an estimated 5,000 vehicles at the Desert Fashion Plaza. Councilmember Oden questioned the setback issue. Director of Planning & Building stated that three sides are met; that the remaining side does face an R-2 vacant area; that in that case the setback is agreeable; that while there may be a few deficits in the setback,the project to a large degree has complied with setback regulations. Councilmember Jones stated that the difference in setbacks is on the north side and questioned if the building was one story would the setback be met. Director of Planning & Building stated that the setback would be 25 feet; that the other concern with closeness of the buildings were reviewed by the Fire Marshall; that the buildings are sprinkled; and that the Fire Marshall was comfortable with the distance between structures. Council Minutes 10-17-01,Page 12 Councilmember Jones stated that the developer could place single story next to the R-1 zone. Director of Planning & Building stated that the deviation would be a loss in number of units contained in the project. Councilmember Jones stated that there is a problem when someone buys a home and investigates the uses that are allowed, then the Council allows a variance. Director of Planning & Building stated that it is the uniqueness of the site that resulted in the setback reduction. Councilmember Oden stated that there is concern on the blockage of Palisades and the narrow access to the development. Director of Planning & Building stated that the street is currently a dead-end; that the project proposes cul de sacs on private property and that emergency vehicles would have the needed access. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that the site had been volked; that it is a beautiful project, but that there are too many homes and too close. Mayor stated that typically a project requires the development of a street and questioned why not in this case. Director of Planning & Building stated that a number of years ago the roadway was dedicated to the City and subsequently vacated; that none have voiced the desire for a full public roadway and that in this case the private driveway is preferable. Mayor stated that the intent seems to be to serve the citizens with a county type of road; and added that right-of-zone projects do not come before the Council; that in the case of access, the Fire Chief has stated that the ingress and egress is agreeable; that Andreas Hills for example only has one street in or out; that the number of units in the project seem agreeable, but that the increased height and setbacks are bothersome; that all the homes located on the north internal road should stay one story; that the other side of the street could be two story; that the drainage areas should be landscaped; that the bay parking is of concern; that buyers need to know that they are purchasing property in the downtown area; that buyers do need to be aware that the purchase of these properties will experience noise, traffic, street closures due to special events in the downtown; that the buyers need to know that they are purchasing property in the downtown area; that there is concern on the scale of the project; that there is concern on the open space and view; that the density of the project is questionable; that the project does seem to be too stretched; and that the units on the north side are of concern and recommended the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for review. Director of Planning & Building stated the referral would require additional hearings on the part of the Planning Commission. Council lvlinutes 10-17-01, Page 13 Motion to refer the item to Planning Commission was presented; after which, it was moved by Reller-Spurgin, seconded by Jones, and unanimously carried, Hodges abstaining, that the motion be adopted. 1/ j r 11AP/ 7 z� figs 513 134 005 France's Nadolds6i&Dianne Sluzas f � 411 W Arenas Rd#5 , .�•'�` ` -Palm Springs, CA 92262 .J � \+.� y� � 513 501 OO2 SY �G r! a a7 5,66 W Arenas Rd 42 =? o Palm'Springs, CA 92262 _--_- —. pETVph, ._. TO sQ SE14DER No SUCH 'F �p 'ORT�q�o' hEGo/y I �f W4 Stan Amy ( ✓ fi`�1 �f l,l P�y .R F. 41098 Northeast 191h Portland, OR '� r.. ..- ,� tL/ 513410Y042, �gc ,/{3arold,&6or9tk eY 4T 22334 ItCodr/ B 4 r' Pasadena CA,.9110 r I' { 513 121 001 ` F Ellen Verger ` 4i t 1-• �'.zJ PO Box 203 1i4WlF� ra Lola Rossi 227 South Cahuilla Road '21m Springs, CA 92264 fn A Lp ----------- - ------------------------- W Z<111 20 03n R0552R7 922623016 1301'p �57 �z CIZ P70RWARD TIME EXR RT1\J '; .SEND 'au ccoul R0651 (9 U) W[Lin PC BOX 1157 00 cc 00 0 PALM SPRINGS CA 0 RETURN TO put n- rf.-J(I MD u CC Z La 0:3o]c J L) 51 ""10106 s la D 1187 avis Santa Co' I �,'[ilalgc Rd#1209 4� ara„CA 93108 % (n M J ? CYP Architects Sheryl Hamilin Don Corbin 170 Newport Center Dr, 565 W. Santa Rosa Drive Newport Beach, CA 926' #225 60 Palm Springs, CA 92262 /J 70 WAML-365 92?6aaOQ6 i3oi sq 0. rORWARI.-I TIME 14TN TO 5ENQ FORWARD TIME EXP 1-4TN TO SEND' ; CYP INTERNATIONAL HAMLIN'SH'ERYL '5.566 VIA LIDO PO BOX 91207 NF-L,fPORT BFqCH, CA PALM SPRINGS CA 9m�F!63-7257 RETURN TO 5Fr,MF.51, Proof of Publication In Newspaper STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside Laura Reyes says: 1. 1 am a citizen of the United States, a NOTICE OF PUBLICS HEARING resident of the City of Indio, County of CITY COUNCIL Riverside, State of California, and over the CITY OF PALM SPRINGS age of IS years. Case No.5.0804-PD 254 2. I am the Office & Production Manager of Tentative Tract Map 29077 The Public Record, a newspaper Of general A Preliminary Planned Development (PD No. 254), and circulation printed and published in the City of Tentative Tract Map,for the Tahqui[z Villas,a subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel(APNA 513-121-035 and 513-141.012)into 4B Patin Springs, County of Riverside, State of parcels for clustered residential development within a gated community, located to the southwest of Ibe mfercention of California. Said The Public Record is a Tanquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, newspaper of general circulation as that term Section 15. Applicant:Tahquitz Venture LLC,and Ct Realty Corp(formerly is defined in Government Code section 6000, Bergheer California,Inc.) Its Status as Such havingbeen established b NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of y Palm Sprigs,California,will hold a public hearing at its meet- Judicial decree of the Superior Court of the ing of July 17,2002.The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 State Of California in and for the COUIT Of p.m.in [he Council Chamber at City Half,3200 E.Tahgoilz J Canyon Way,Palm Sprigs,California Riverside in Proceeding No. Indio 49271, The purpose of this hearing is to consider an application for an environmental assessment, a pretiminary planned develop- dated March 31, 1987, entered in Judgment Mont district,and a tentative tract map The proposal includes BOOK No, 129, page 355, on March 31, 1987. the sum ismn of o6.8 acre Parcel into 48 parcels for develop- mart as a gated,clustered residential community. 3. The Public Record IS a newspaper of Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental 0l circulation d established Quality Act,a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been pm - pared rcu on ascertained an pared At this meeting,the City Council is expected to approve lit the City of Palm Springs in the County Of the proposed Mitigated Negatve Declaration. The proposed map, Initial Study and related documents are Riverside, State of California, Case No. RIC available for public review daily,between 8 a.m.and 5 p.m a[ 358286, Filed Julie 8, 2001. the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Building Department,located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. 4. The notice, of which the annexed IS a true If any individual or group challenges the action In court,issues printed c0 was published ill the newspaper a raised may be limited to only those Issues raised at the public copy P P P hearings described in[his notice or in written correspondence on the following publication dates t0 wit: at,or prior to,the City Council Hearing. June 25 2002 Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners r within four hundreds for all interested Persons to be heard. I certify under penalty of perjury that the Questions regarding[his case may be directed to AlexanderF. above is true and Correct, Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Dated at Palm Springs, California this 1st Building,760-323-8245. day of July, 2002. PATRICIA A.SANDERS City Clerk June 25,2002 L eyes f ' e & Product' n ager Tahquilz Canyon Wey ' SITE 8 ✓' u', 'y a �NUC10110M OppALMSp? N City of Palm Springs * * Office of the City Cleric * NOOrePorepte°1qn * 3200 Tahgm[z C¢ny°n Way • Palm Spunp,Cahfomia 92262 Q� gyp. TEL (760)323-8204•PAX:(760)322-8332 •TDD.(760)864-9527 q��FORN AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing before the City Council of the City of Pahn Springs, hi conjunction with Case No. 5.0804, PD 254, Tentative Tract map 29077, for the Tahquitz Villas, a subdivision, located to the southwest of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 26th day of June, 2002. A copy of said Notice is attached hereto. Said mailing was completed by placing a copy of said Notice in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing sarne in the U.S. Mail at Pahn Springs, California. I declare umder penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Pahn Springs, California, this 26th day of Jmre, 2002. C; PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk —� 7 d Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL Case No. 5.0804-PD 254 /6 5 07± Tentative Tract Map 29077 A Preliminary Planned Development (PD No. 254), and Tentative Tract Map, for the Tahquitz Villas, a subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel (APN#513-121-035 and 513-141-012) into 48 parcels for clustered residential development within a gated community, located to the southwest of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15. Applicant: Tahquitz Venture LLC, and CT Realty Corp. (formerly Bergheer California, Inc.) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 17, 2002. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for an environmental assessment, a preliminary planned development district, and a tentative tract map. The proposal includes the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 48 parcels for development as a gated, clustered residential community. Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. At this meeting, the City Council is expected to approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. The proposed map, Initial Study and related documents are available for public review daily, between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Building Department, located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the City Council meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400) feet of the subject property.An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Alexander P. Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Building, (760) 323-8245. Patricia Sanders City Clerk VIGIN77 MAP N.T.S. Tahquitz Canyon Way SITE eArusro ROD R cC CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO, Case No.5.0004-PD-267 E 1�RI IIUN Tentative Tract Map 29077 ' A P P L I C A N A Preliminary Planned Development District and the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel Into 50 parcels, located to the south wasl of the Intefsection of ` Tahquitz Venture LLC, and CT Realty Corp. Tahquitz Canyon way and Museum Drive, (formerly Bergheer California, Inc.) Zone R-3/R-2,Section 15. WIOWIM5 101MI �C� hc�. l�JG cLJ sly} {F� 1PPV ®,R14nwo 6-, aid _ Allen Sanborn The Olson Company Karl Bergheer Sanborn A/E Kevin Atkins Bergheer California, Inc. 1227 S. Gene Autry Trail #c 3020 Old Ranch Parkway#400 1601 Dove Street#170 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Seal Beach, CA 90740-2751 Newport Beach, CA 92660 CYP Architects AEI - CASC T.K.D. Associates Inc. Don Corbin Tom Nievez Tom Doczi 170 Newport Center Dr. #225 937 S. Via Lata #500 2121 E. Tahquitz Cyn, Way#1 " Newport Beach, CA 92660 Colton, CA 92324 Palm Springs, CA 92262 e u ®04�9T4IbYM&[7 5s6 wi JC�7$8 t dGlu$ „ 0965 aasel slagel ssaappV oAU3AV Qy Marc Herbert Sheryl Hamilin Paul R. Edwards 2864 Tice Creek Drive, No. 4 565 W. Santa Rosa Drive 3020 Old Ranch Parkway Walnut Creek, CA 94595 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Suite 400 Seal Beach, CA 90740 David L. Baron Andrew R. Linehan 1111 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, 41877 Enterprise Circle N. Suite 110 Suite 200-M Palm Springs, CA 92262 Temecula, CA 92590 AT 009TS 301 a;elduia}asn WlslaaeIS paal "Wows W1O96S Aasel slagel ssaappy ©AU3AV Q7/ 513 501 008 513 501 009 513 501 010 R K Miller Investment Co Inc R K Miller Inv Co Inc&Terry Hauswir R K Miller Inv Co Inc&Cartnann Bre 1450 La Perla Ave 1943 Pariva Dr 1447 Wikiup Dr Long Beach, CA 90815 Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 513501011 513 560 008 513 560 009 Lot Common Excel Legacy Corp Paquitz&Fashion Plaza Desert PO Box 2002 17140 Bernardo Center Dr#3 17140 Bemardo Center Dr#300 Palm Springs, CA 92263 San Diego, CA 92128 San Diego, CA 92128 ®09LS ao}aleldwal asg wis;aegS paad WOOWS W1096S Jasel slagel ssaJPPV oh� P9ik T'M 2.1077 513 110 002 513 110 005 513 110 020 Paul Marut&Tracy Conrad Steven Cheroske&Timothy Helyer Springs Desert Museum Palm 412 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 530 W Tahquitz Way 686 Palisades Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 110 023 513 110 034 513 110 035 Paul Mamt&Tracy Conrad Palm Springs Desert Museum Inc Paul Marut&Tracy Conrad PO Box 3340 PO Box 2310 412 W Tahquitz Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 110 036 513 110 042 513 110 043 Rose Mihata Harold&Dorothy Meyerman Dorothy&Harold Meyerman 468 W Tahquitz Way 2234 E Colorado Blvd 935 Hillcrest PI Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pasadena, CA 91107 Pasadena, CA 91106 513 110 044 513 120 002 513 120 003 Robert Halliday&Roberta Halliday Rashad Wasef&Eva Wasef Rashad Wasef&Eva Wasef 1555 Shoreline Dr#110 500 Madeline Dr 500 Madeline Dr Boise, ID 83702 Pasadena,CA 91105 Pasadena, CA 91105 513120010 513120011 513120012 David&Trudy Johnston David&Trudy Johnston David&Trudy Johnston 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513120013 513120015 513120016 David&Trudy Johnston David&Trudy Johnston Johnston 147 S Talquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr Palm Springs, CA .92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs,CA 92262 513 120 025 513 120 026 513 120 028 Keith Sondrall&Luc Bal Wahoo-Cal Hotels Lie Richard Hirsch 544 W Arenas Rd 4109 ATE 19Th Ave#B 606 W Arenas Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Portland,OR 97211 Palm Springs,CA 92262 513 120 029 513 120 040 513 120 041 Paul&Deena Brand Johnston 1999 Johnston 1999 David Dore 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 2403 Crest View Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Los Angeles, CA 90046 51112 042 513 120 045 3 12101 6 Johnston 99 ah ston 1999 / Joln n 1999 147 S T itz 147 S 71%� ,it tSr 147 S itz Dr Pal prmgs, CA 92262 Pa p rings,�'X-'92262 P�1t Springs, 92262 113 047 13 120 048 513 120 049 Johnston 1 John 1999 Jolnsi6r,1999 147 S Tal rtz Dr 147 S T t m r 147�5 TalRfuitz Pal priugs, CA 92262 P Springs, CA 92262 Rahn Springs,CA 92262 09LS 10l aleldwal asp} Wlslaags paad 4loowc W 0965 aasel slagej ssaippv ®AU3AV Q� 513 120 050 513 120 051 513 20 052 Jolms 1999 Johnston 1999 Johns 199 147 S T r 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S T uitz Dr Pal prings, CA 62 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pal prings, 92262 513 120 053 513 121001 513 121 002 Palm Springs Tennis Club Owners Ass Ellen Verger Brenda Farrar NO STREET NAME or NUMBER PO Box 2037 32 Eastfield Dr ,CA Kings Beach, CA 96143 Rolling Hills, CA 90274 513 121 003 513 121 004 513 131 022 James Francis Jess Joe Novak&Molly Novak Vicki Cedilla&Munger Vicki Fka 572 W Arenas Rd#3 12125 Riverside Dr#204 2122 Edam St Palm Springs, CA 92262 North Hollywood, CA 91607 Lancaster, CA 93536 513 131 023 513 132 003 513 132 017 Petty Enterprises Inc Pilger Assoc Inc Roger Malone&Eugene Milligan 601 W Arenas Rd 221 S Patencio Rd 529 W Arenas Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 132 018 513 133 001 513 133 002 Albert Carl Taucher Keith Sondrall Emil&Joan Forrer Wilda Looff Taucher 544 W Arenas Rd PO Box 198 280 Corona Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262 Tahoe Vista, CA 96148 Long Beach, CA 90803 513 133 004 513 133 013 513 133 014 George Marion&Louisa Sanborn Men Don Arthur Kuzma&Dale Burr Herbert&Mary Hodson 231 S Lugo Rd 6506 NE Highway 99 701 Texas St Palm Springs, CA 92262 Vancouver, WA 98665 Redlands, CA 92374 513 134 001 513 134 002 513 134 003 Wahoo-Cal Rentals Llc Francis&Evelyn Bushman Jerry&Janice Tippin 4109 NE 19Th Ave#B 5515 Inner Circle Dr PO Box 8171 Portland,OR 97211 Riverside, CA 92506 Tahoe City, CA 96145 513 134 004 513 134 005 513 134 006 Donald&Deborah Garsh Frances Nadoldski&Dianne Sluzas Fay Lecerf&Jacqueline Alp PO Box K 411 W Arenas Rd#5 Box 114 Eckville Chula Vista, CA 91912 Palm Springs, CA 92262 AB TOM OX0 CANADA 513 134 007 513 134 008 513 134 009 Eugene&Adrian Rossi Neil Graham Ludwig Uri Fa Rossi 20982 Brookhurst St 4201 625 N Canon Dr 3215 E Ocean Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Long Beach, CA 90803 513 134 010 513 134 011 513 135 001 Roland&Sandra Truex Kalsman&Associates Jean Smallwood 411 W Arenas Rd#10 47 N Pasco Laredo 555 W Arenas Rd 43 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Palm Springs, CA 92262 0091S Aoj aleldwal asn WISIaagS paaj 410ows W10965 jasel slagej ssaippv oAN3AV 513 135 002 513 135 003 513 135 004 Joan Twohey Russell&Alice Yensen George&Karen Whicker Ellis 555 W Arenas Rd 42 1 N Stonington Rd 12285 Woodley Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Granada Hills, CA 91344 513 135 005 513 135 006 513 135 007 Robin Sharp&James Grove E Alan Petty&Petty E Alan Petty&Joanne Petty 4316 Marina City Dr#423 3480 Torrance Blvd#212 601 W Arenas Rd Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Torrance, CA 90503 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 135 008 513 135 009 513 135 010 Harold&Helen Penner Bette Dedrick&Donald Walken Harold&Helen Penner 290 S San Jacinto Dr#1 34424 Walnut Ln 290 S San Jacinto Dr#3 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Creswell,OR 97426 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 135 011 513 135 012 513 135 013 Penner 2001 Reynold&Antonia Stelloh III Harold&Helen Penner 1311 La Palma St 4281 E Ocean Blvd 290 S San Jacinto Dr#6 San Diego, CA 92109 Long Beach, CA 90803 Palm Springs,CA 92262 513135014 513 135 015 513135016 Harold&Helen Penner Donald Rockola Harold&Helen Penner 290 S San Jacinto Dr#7 1555 N Astor St 290 S San Jacinto Dr#9 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Chicago, IL 60610 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 135 017 513 135 018 513 141 001 Wayne Samuel Harold Penner&Helen Penner Paul Bruggemans&Michel Despras 290 S San Jacinto Dr 290 S San Jacinto Dr 385 W Talrquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA.92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 141 004 513 141 005 513 141 011 John Wessman Frances Winter Wahoo-Cal Llc 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr#G106 904 N Rexford Dr 4109 NE 19Th Ave#B Palm Springs, CA 92264 Beverly Hills, CA 90210 Portland, OR 97211 513 141 013 513 141 015 513 141 016 John Wessman Casa Cody B&B Con Inn Lie Casa Cody B&B Country Inn 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr#G106 175 S Cahuilla Rd 15012 Del Gado Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 513 142 001 513 142 003 513 151 002 William Mcwethy Jr. Craig Blau Larry&Sharon Kramer 11939 Sorrento Valley Rd 200 W Arenas Rd 1909 El Camino Real San Diego, CA 92121 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Redwood City, CA 94063 513 15 J 006 513 151 007 513 151 010 William&Trisha Davis Virginia Berardini Donald Stratton&Shannon Bartley 1187 Coast Village Rd#1209 237 S Calmilla Rd 2412 Glendower Ave Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Los Angeles, CA 90027 0091 S Jo}aleadwal as0 W.Lslaags Paaj 14100ws W1096S aasel slagel ssaappy ®AU3A'V 513 151 013 513 151 014 513 151 015 Joann Mcclure William&Sharon Simon Coleman Dennis Devermont 1134 Clermont Dr 251 S Lucerne Blvd 19528 Celtic St South Bend,IN 46617 Los Angeles, CA 90004 Northridge,CA 91326 513 151 016 513 151 017 513 151 018 Shawn Young Louis Miller&Matthew Miller Community Church Of Palm Springs 307 W Arenas Rd 1155 Tiffany Cir N PO Box 1703 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92263 513 151 020 513 152 002 513 152 010 Emil&Joan Forrer Marin&G Ursescu Edna Marian Christense&Karen Kr P 375 W Arenas Rd 239 W Arenas Rd 261 S Belardo Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 513 152 020 513 470 001 513 470 002 Douglas Mannoff&Donna Mannoff Johnston 1999 John Gerard Jr. 200 S Calmilla Rd 147 S Tahquitz Dr 20533 Rancho La Floresta Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Covina, CA 91724 513 470 003 513 470 004 513 470 005 Luther Stowe Jr. Marc Herbert&Groth Ric VonHungen Wanda&J Richard Walker 4105 Montgomery St#15 2864 Tice Creek Dr#4 Walker Wand Es Oakland, CA 94611 Walnut Creek, CA 94595 3512 Ross Rd Palo Alto, CA 94303 513 470 006 513 470 007 513 470 008 Paul Marks&Paul Marks John&Jean Metzger Peter Phillips 34597 Via Catalina 600 Arbolado Dr PO Box 115 Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Fullerton, CA 92835 Fawnskin, CA 92333 513 470 009 513 470 010 513 470 011 Randall&Joan Boose John&Jean Metzger Area Common 1808 NE Knott St F Metzger NO STREET NAME or NUMBER Portland, OR 97212 600 Arbolado Dr CA Fullerton, CA 92835 513 470 013 513 470 014 513 501001 John Gerard Jr. &Maria Belem Gerard John Gerard Jr. Robert Barthel&Vinetta Barthel PO Box 2394 20533 Rancho La Floresta Rd 123 NW 4Th St#412 Covina, CA 91722 Covina, CA 91724 Evansville,IN 47708 513 501 002 513 501 003 513 501 004 Lisle Taaje R K Miller Inv Co&Susan Lse Bennet R K Miller Inv Co Inc 500 W Arenas Rd#2 500 W Arenas Rd#3 Kathleen Highsmith Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 5 Forest Glen Ln SW Tacoma,WA 98498 513 501 005 513 501 006 513 501007 Joan Levine R K Miller Inv Co Inc R K Miller Investment Co Inc 500 W Arenas Rd 45 Philip Thompson Jr. 554 1ITh Ave Patin Springs, CA 92262 554 11Th Ave Salt Lake City,UT 84103 Salt Lake City,UT 84103 ®09LS Iol aleldwal as0 wislaotis paad 410ows rW1� 965 se T V/°�" `o�rc� �� liyr stageissaap0V08c9A 760?7 Christine Hammond Keith Sandrall Leonard Colombo 373 South Monte Vista Drive 544 West Arenas Road 241 Furness Avenue Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 _ Los Angeles, CA 90042 w Greg Demetre Craig Blau Logan Need Historic Tennis Club Area 200 West Arenas Road 324 South Monte Vista Drive 343 West Baristo Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Elena Stancill Steve Cheroske Stan Am TKD Associates 530 West Tahquitz Canyon Way 41098 Northeast 19`h 2121 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Portland, OR 97202 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Tracy Conrad Frank Tysen Rose E. Mihata 412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way Casa Cody 468 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 175 South Cahuiila Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Bob Weithorn Christy Eugenis Trisha Davis Orchid Tree Inn Orbit Inn Hotel 261 South Belardo Road 532 West Arenas Road al West Arenas Road P Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Jane Smith Bill Davis Lola Rossi 500 West Arenas Road The Movie Colony Association 227 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 928 Avenida Palmas Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Michael Atencio A.C.B.C.I. Hope V. Sullivan 600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Principal Planner Palm Springs, CA 92262 Douglas R. Evans Director of Planning & Building 0091S ao}aleldwal asp W1slaagS paaq g400w5 N1096S Jaseg stage] ssaippV eA2J3AV 12 NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION LABELS Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter 280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.O. Box 2824 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Philip Tedesco Sharon Lock Frank Tysen 1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 175 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92264 Bob Weithorn Jane Smith 261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter 280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.O. Box 2824 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Philip Tedesco Sharon Lock Frank Tysen 1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody 175 South Cahuilla Road Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Bob Weithorn Jane Smith 8 LABELS PER SET 261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas 3 SETS OF LABELS Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 1 SET MAILED p09T5loi a;etdwat asn wjs1994y Paaj 410OWS