HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/5/2002 - STAFF REPORTS (15) DATE: June 5, 2002
b
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 recommended that the City Council impose conditions requiring the applicant to:
Utilize the highest quality building materials possible, including mudded two-piece cTay-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, 1 O'x 10' minimum size for review by the Design Review
Committee, prior to approval of a Final Planned Development District;
Incorporate a provision into the CC&R's requiring City approval prior to amendment of the
CC&R's;
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.
J Vh
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.
11-M ZW
Director of Plan ng and Building
City Manager
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
t.Y�Z
VlGINTY MAP
N.T.S.
Tahquitz Canyon Way
S/TE
o
BARISTO ROAD
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE N0, 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 intePseotlon of
Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive,
Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc. Zone R-3/R-2,Section 15,
Rose Mihata
468 Tahquitz Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
(760) 320-0882
May 27, 2002
To the City Manager and Council Members of Palm Springs,
I am writing to express my concerns regarding the proposed project, which is to be built
upon the land across from my home. I am.extremely concerned with safety issues that
might arise as a result of this project. It is my opinion that both paramedic units and fire
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 need of emergency services and these emergency services are delayed due to poor
access to my property I 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,
Rose E. Mihata
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),subjectto 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,
handtroweled,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.
l YA
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.
� J
Date: January 9, 2002
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 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 approval of 5.0804-PD fora Planned Development
District(No. 254) and Tentative Tract Map(TTM 29077)for a gated 50-unit multi-family cluster
residential community, located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way, west of Museum
Drive (APNs 513-121-35 and 513-141-12). subier.f fn4be conditions outlined in the attached
Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
t
Bergheer California, Inc. has submitted an application for a Planned Development District to
allow a 50-unit multi-family 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.
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 proposed units range in size from 1,615 square feet to 2,100 square feet,with attached and
detached one and two-story structures. Four models are proposed, one single story and three
two story, and which feature variations of the great room concept. Proposed on-site
recreational facilities for the project consist of a pool, spa, and accompanying restrooms/pool
building.
If the Preliminary Planned Development is granted, the applicant will submit final development
plans for review and approval by the Planning Commission at a later date. The Planning
Commission will review the final plans for substantial conformance with the approved
preliminary plan.
{ [ 7
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 a tentative map for a proposed gated 50-unit multi
family cluster residential project. Based upon existing zoning, of which approximately 99% of
the 6.54 acre site is zoned R-3 and 1%of the site 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. The R-2 portion
of the site abuts adjacent R-2 zoned properties. Because of the similarity of R-2 and R-3 zone
development standards,for the purpose of this analysis,staff has utilized the R-3 development
standards.
If the applicant wanted to develop the site as a resort hotel,as permitted under the 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.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.
Hotels with underground parking are granted additional density which 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 303 dwelling units could be allowable.
Below, the R-3 development standards are compared with the proposed plan:
R-3 Proposed
Density 1 unit/2,000 sq.ft. 1 unit/5,480 sq.ft.
(Maximum 113-303 units) (50 units proposed)
Height 15' -24' maximum 24'
Setbacks 15' height limit w/in 4 units at 173' and 2
to SFR 200' of adjacent units at 263' from
R-1 property R-1 property
(Average 203')
Yards Front-25' Front- 30'
Side - 10' Side -20'
(10' or equal to building
height if height if over 12')
Rear- 10' Rear- 18'
(10' or equal to building
height if height if over 12')
Separation 15' 8' -40'
Parking 1-1/2 spaces per 2 spaces per unit
unit, one of which in a garage (100) and
must be covered (75); 19 guest spaces, for a
1 guest space per total of 119 spaces
4 units (13), for a total
of 88 spaces
Coverage No standard 25%
Landscaping Minimum of 45% 49%
and of the site to be
open space landscaped
The project is well within the density allowed by the R-3 zones. However, variations to certain
development standards have been proposed.These include deviations with respectto side and
rear yard setbacks and building separation as noted above.
BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS
In response to the City Council direction, the applicant has revised the plan to eliminate two-
story buildings adjacent to the R-1 zone boundary along Tahquitz. In their place, single story
buildings have been substituted. In compliance with the R-3 zone, two story buildings, 24' in
height are now located an average of 203' from the R-1 zone boundary.
According to the Zoning Ordinance, the setback line from units greater that 15' in height (two
story units) to abutting R-1 zoned property may vary by up to fifty feet(50'), however, as long
as the average setback is 200' and the Planning Commission determines that no detrimental
effect will occur. The project includes four two-story buildings 173' from abutting R-1 zoned
property and two two-story buildings 263' from the abutting R-1 zoned property. Thus, the
proposed average setback to the R-1 zone for the two-story units is 203', which complies with
the Zoning Ordinance. The proposed ons story buildings are 18' in height.
The proposed building height of 24' feet complies with the R-3 zone. 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 proposed project includes 30' front yard setbacks, which exceeds with the R-3 zone
requirements of 25'. The proposed project provides for side yard (20') and rear yard (18')
setbacks which are less than the R-3 zone requirements. The proposed project also features
minimum building separation ranging from 8'to 40',whereas the R-3 zone requires a minimum
building separation of 15'. Given the proposed site design characteristics,whereby the project
is designed with attached units around motor courts with rear yards facing towards the exterior
of the project,the proposed side and rear 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 on-site
structures to be located closer to off-site structures than normally allowed by the underlying
zones.
PARKING
In response to City Council direction, the applicant revised the plan to create additional guest
parking spaces.Two(2) parking spaces are provided in a garage for each residential unit(100
garage spaces) and 19 guest parking spaces for a total of 119 parking spaces.An apartment
or condominium project with the same number of units would require a total of 88 spaces.Thus,
the project exceeds parking code requirements.
f y1q1D
l
LANDSCAPING AND OPEN SPACE
The project includes 49% landscaped area, which exceeds R-3 zone requirements. The
proposed landscape design includes a dense shade tree canopy, accent plants, shrubs,vines
and groundcover in a lush, yet water efficient design. Staff recommends that the detention
basins and archeological site be landscaped, to the extent possible.
TRAFFIC
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 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 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 superiorto 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. 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
In response to City Council direction,the applicant revised the plan to eliminate bay parking and
widen the landscape median to provide for an enhanced entryway on Tahquitz Canyon Way.
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 parking on both sides 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 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. 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 29 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 19 wide exit lane.The median was redesigned as a tear drop shape
to accommodate fire truck and large vehicle turning movements into the proposed project.
PROJECT DESIGN
Since the October 17,2001 City Council public hearing on this project,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 both the high standards established within the City of Palm Springs
and existing development in 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.
' Yd>-
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS:
An Initial Study prepared by staff for the Planned Development and Tentative Tract Map was
revised on December 19, 2001, 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 Study, 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, February4.1999 and March
20,2001.The City has received written correspondence from area residents,which is attached
for your review.
Date: September 26, 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 WAYAND
MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONES, SECTION 15.
RECOMMENDATION:
That the Planning Commission recommend approval of 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.
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'.
/ Y/4/Y
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.
l �l�ls✓
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:
That the Planning Commission recommend approval of 5.0804-PD for a 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 y4ro
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 H43130
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.
1 ���7
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 294 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 Win 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 26' 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 16 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
VAX
y i
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 deviations with
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 R-1 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',whereasthe 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
� , l�'
t 1 y
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 groundcover in 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.
� 7 /7
CIRCULATION
The project will take access from Tahquitz Canyon Way at its westerly terminus. In accordance
with General Plan Policy3.4.7, 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 either without 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.
it Val
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
�� � z
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.
5
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 by the City Council. At that 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'.
l (rT a
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 overview of the project,zoning,land use and environmental issues is provided in the attached
Planning Commission staff report and Environmental Assessment.
DOUGL4gR. EVANS
Director of Planning and Building
" 2
City Manager y
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
9 � ,
Y I
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 impact should be considered). ®Yes ONo
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 Yes ®No
listed in Section 15268 (b) of the State CEQA Guidelines?
IV. If "no" �n III., does the project fall under any of the Statutory ❑Yes ®No
Exemptib0s listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines?
1
V. If "no" on IV., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical ❑Yes ®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 6.8 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 District to 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.
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.
VIII. 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 NN/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 NN/A
Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan ❑Yes ❑No zN/A
X. Are there any of the following studies required?
1. Soils Report []Yes NNo
2. Slope Study ❑Yes zNo
3. Geotechnical Report ❑Yes NNo
4. Traffic Study ®Yes ❑No
5. Air Quality Study ❑Yes zNo
6. Hydrology ®Yes ❑No
7. Sewer Study ❑Yes NNo
8. Biological Study ❑Yes NNo
9. Noise Study ❑Yes NNo
10. Hazardous Materials Study ❑Yes NNo
11. Housing Analysis ❑Yes NNo
12. Archaeological Report zYes oNo
13. Groundwater Analysis ❑Yes zNo
14. Water Quality Report ❑Yes zNo
15. Other ❑Yes zNo
3
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
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 H43/30 on the City's General Plan.In the opinion of the
Planning Division,the project Is compatible with the City's General Plan and consistent with the Zoning Ordinance.There are no agricultural
resources in the area of the project. The project will 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 fully developed 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 Tahquitz Canyon Way,the city's busiest pedestrian intersection.The proposed project is
4
1 YA a.4
r'
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 of the 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 Tahquitz 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'tall two story buildings located in the
interior ofthe project.The proposed project includes 241all, 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 26T),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 15'. 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 closerto structures located adjacent to 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 for each 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 project'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 groundcover 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
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
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 ormudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading and fill? ❑ ❑ ❑
6
� 31
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 Iandform, rldgeline, canyon, etc.
involved? ❑ ❑ ❑
3. a+ 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 or ground 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? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
7
Potentially
Significant
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ IN
9) 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
A/E,Inc. indicate that two off-site tributary areas drain onto the site from the west.One area with a Q100=35 cfs 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 corner 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 ofthe 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 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.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
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 orderto 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 of 2:1,or 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 orderto preventon-going problems with erosion,the detention basins shall be landscaped.
These basins shall be subject to regular landscape maintained.
4.1b,c,d,f,g,h,i,j)NO IMPACT. Based upon a review of the 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 or direction of water movements,the quantity of ground waters,alter the flow of ground 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? ❑ 0 ❑ ❑
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Alter air movement,moisture,or temperature,or
cause any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑
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 to air quality
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.
9
Potentially
Significant
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,multi family residences and hotels,
a restaurant,the Desert Museum and the Desert Fashion Plaza.The proposed project will not alter climatological conditions either 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 significant way 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? ❑ N ❑ ❑
c) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.,sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? ❑ N ❑ ❑
d) Inadequate emergency access or access
to nearby uses? ❑ N ❑ ❑
e) Insufficient parking capacity on-slte or off-
site? ❑ ❑ ❑ N
f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ N
g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑ N
h) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑ N
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 R 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
10
1 yJ�35-
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
approximately 67 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 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 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.
Traffic conditions for 2002"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 20W,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 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.
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 Tahquitz 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 8'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 land 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 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.
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 ofthe proposed project,norwill it conflict
with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposal will not impact rall,waterborne or air traffic,
i1
i! I
fl
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? ❑ ❑ D
c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g,
oak forest, coastal habitat,etc.)? ❑ ❑ D
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? ❑ D D
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? DYES ®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? ❑ D D
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.
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Create possible interference with an emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Create any health hazard or potential health
hazard? ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ ❑ Cl
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? ❑ ❑ ® ❑
c) Will the project be compatible with the noise
compatibility planning criteria according to Table
5-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
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
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? ❑ p ❑
IR
b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ❑ ❑
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑
14
� L' ✓43r
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 significant 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,entry way 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 priorto issuance of 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
L/,4 V61
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 for this 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 389 West
Tahquitz was razed and therefor, required no further consideration
Resolution 24-99 of the Ague 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 Agua
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 Tahquitz 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?
❑ ❑ ® ❑
16
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 rear setbacks.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.
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-term,
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.) ❑ ® ❑ ❑
17
Potentially
Significant
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:
❑ 1 find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
® I 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
❑ 1 find the proposed projectMAY 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 Plning&Building
18
Apr�2�� ��� McCarthy / , + 1 818 981 3503 P.Ol CC
, I "D lly
D AT TN
APO 2 3 2002 de 'TanaLs Club rDi,strlct ,Assoctatton M �-
175South Cahuttla Toad u.c`c.'t
PLANNING DIVISION TaLm SprLngs, CA 92262
ReL (760)320-9346 Jax (760)325-8610
Jrank 'Tysen, Tresld.ent
April 23,2002
TO: Palm Springs Design Review, Planning Commission and City Council
RE: Commitments of tho►3crgheer STOUP regarding the architecture of Tahqult" Villas
a planned development of 50 units projected for the southwest corner of
Tahquitx and Museum Drive.
We believe that it is important that you arc aware of commitments regarding this
project that Mr. Berghccr 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 lisloric Inn and attended by sevcl al
neighborhood representatives including mysell.
In recognition of the historic character of our neighborhood being;made up of
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 n1'rhe neighNwhood particularly of several immediately adjacent structures.
SPECIFICALLY HIS COMMITMENT INCLUDES MUDDED TERRA COTTA
CLAY ROOF PILL.. WOOD FRAM II WINDOWS, SMOO.1.1I PLAS'l FIt TYPICAL OF
TILL 1920S .AND 1930S PERIOD AS WL',LL AS TIW PRL'SLIkVATION Ol' MUCH
011 TI Ili ORIGINAL STONE WALL, AROUND'I'lll PROPERTY. THESE
COMMITMENTS HAVE BEEN PERIODICALLY REAFFIRMED BOTH IN
MI;F.TIN(iS WITII N1001111OR11001) RI;PRIi5r:NTATIVRS AS WELL AS 1117TORE
CITY GOVERNMENTAL BODILS WIIO APPROVED'I'llEM.
IT HAS COME TO OUR AT*ITNTION THAT VI:RY RI;CPV'fl.l'
RE PRE SYNTATIVES OF MR. BERGIIEER HAVE TRIED TO CHANGE THESE
COMMITMENTS INCLUDING CHANCING THE COLOR OF ROOF"IILF TO
VARIOUS SHADES OF BROWN, SUBSTITUTING ALI,OR PART OF THE WOOD
WINDOWS TO ALUMINUM OR VINYL AND ABANDONING THE SMOOTH
PLAS'LERINO MAKING I.1' A MORF,GENERIC PROJECT.
We are dceply concerned that this project to be built on perhaps one of the best
remaining locations in Palm Springs will properly harmonize with the historic character of
our neighborhood. Our concern is further aggravated by the fact dial Mr. Berghcer's El
IV477
Apr-23-02 01 :40 McCar-t-ky 1 818,-'�1 3503 P.02
� 3
Palm Springs Design Review, Planning Commission and City Council
Re Bergheer 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 orone 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. Berghcer and his representatives do live
up to these commitments which originally won them significant neighborhood support. At
stake are both the character ul'our neighborhood and our property values
We must add that since Iltat original meeting with the Berghcor interests all
Historic Tennis Club building activities by private individuals have loyally followed the
Spanish revival or the mid-century modem 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 Hill ttnd Trish Davies. This is in addition to previous
authentic restorations over the past several decades of the following Inns: Ingleside,
Estrella, Orchid Tree, Desert Hills, Casa Cody, la Serena, San Marino, Korskia, The
Willows, Coyote, Bella Villa and Desert House and the new construction and restoration
of such magnificent homes as Rose Mihata's and Steve Chcroske's on Tahquim Sam and
Michelle Pishue's on Linda Vista, IWen Dzodzo's house on Pablo and Peter Dixon's new
1920s stylo home. on Cahuilla immediately behind the Ingleside Inn.
Please alleviate our concerns.
FRANK TYSEN
1 V1q
March 7, 2002
RECEIVED
Planning Department
City of Palm Spring :MAR2
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Dear Planning Department: PLANNING DIVISION
RE: Case 5.0804—PD 254/Bergheer California
I have recently relocated from San Francisco where I was a board member of the Telegraph Hill
Dwellers, a neighborhood organization created to preserve the residential neighborhood around
Coit Tower above Fisherman's wharf. The Hill Dwellers were constantly dealing with planning
and zoning issues, so I have had experience with these matters. I am now a full-time resident of
the Historic Tennis Club area,and a member of the Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood
Association.
It is my understanding that a portion of the west side of the subject property was sold a while ago
to another developer. When this sale occurred, the secondary access to the remaining parcel
was lost. At such time, the remaining parcel should have been down-zoned. This property,
which is being considered for the Bergheer Project, no longer supports a high-density gated
community as proposed.
I question why the Palm Springs Planning Department did not require down-zoning into low-
density residential at the time the property was sold.
Furthermore, a letter dated July 23, 2000 to Doug Evans, Planning Director, Christine Hammond,
then president of the HTCNA, describes important architectural features of the neighborhood. I do
not believe the Bergheer project conforms to those guidelines. The letter is attached.
Please include me on notices about all activity regarding this property. Thank you for your
consideration.
Sincerely,
Sh ryl Ha lin
565 W. Santa Rosa Drive
Palm Springs, California 92262
(760) 318-9344
rT
TM 21O 0 7 0 `d 0 �-PIS- 2
(�#0�0
RECEIVED
February 26, 2002
RAW., 5 �
David L. Ball AMERICNS BUILDER OF THE YEAR PLANNING DIVISION
CT REALTY CORPORATION S
20151 S. W. Birch, Suite 200 CE5MA
PALM
Newport Beach, CA 92660 92
R 5 2002 6
Re: Palm Springs Tahquitz Development RECEIVED
Dear David:
It was a pleasure speaking with you today concerning the Tahquitz Development. As
discussed,we are very concerned about the City of Palm Springs' request for home
exteriors finished with smooth stucco.
Due to maintenance and warranty issues related to smooth stucco, The Olson Company
will not build a community that requires it. The finish will continually crack requiring
repair and repainting. Overtime it will be impossible to match the color of the paint with
the repaired cracks, causing a very unattractive appearance, unlike a sand finish.
Recently,the City of Ventura requested us to use the smooth finish stucco. As an
alternative, we showed them a sample of a 20/30 sand finish with two coats of acrylic
paint. The appearance is similar to a smooth stucco finish, however, it provides a much
higher quality finish.
The Olson Company prides itself on its reputation of building quality homes that stand to
the test of time. We have won numerous awards for building quality homes throughout
the State of California and many municipalities have requested us to build homes in their
community a second, third and fourth time. In addition, The Olson Company recently
won the most prestigious homebuilder award "Professional Builder of the Year", for
building quality innovative housing. Therefore, we will not build our homes with a
product that will cause customer dissatisfaction, complaints and ongoing maintenance
problems.
Please call me if you have any questions at (714) 606-6400.
Sincerely,
THE OLS ),V COMPANY
Paul R. Edwards
3020 OLD RANCH PARKWAY, SUITE 400,SEAL BEACH,CA 90740 / (562) 596-4770 / FAX(562)596-4703
www.theolsonco.com I � rJ
14era-4- /04P.4 �
SLOVAK BARON&EMPEYLLP
A T T 0 N N E Y S A T L A W
A Ls.AO DVID L.BARON
11II E,TAHQUITZCANYON WAY,SU IT[110 PALM SPRINGS,CALIFONNIA 92262
DAVIT
MARC E.EMPEY PHONE(760)322-2275 FAX(760)322-2107
JASON D.DARAREINER
PETER M.
CuLsTRNEWICH
MARYE. L.GALLAGHEREV
CHARLEBROVN EKATHIC6r.0\VNE
BRIAN E.WHITLEY
OECOUNSELLOCIEN A.VAN HHLLE
M fONME R ,P.C. February 25, 2002
Via Facsimile - (760) 322-8360
Doug Evans
Planning Department
City of Palm Springs
3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Re: Tahquitz Venture, Tentative Tract Map 29077
Dear Doug:
This letter will clarify any confusion that may currently exist with respect to who the
actual applicant is for Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map No. 29077,
CT Realty Corporation is the current manager for the Tahquitz Venture LLC, which entity
has always owned the property. The predecessor manager of the LLC was Bergheer
California, Inc.,which entity has been removed as the manager of the Tahquitz Venture LLC.
I hope this clarifies any confusion that may have existed.
Very truly yours,
SLOVA10yo R &: PEY LLP
DAVID L. BARON
DLB:wda
c: David Ball, CT Realty Corporation
Russell Kruse, Esq.
LD Wp+ CI 6EgLTYVOLrl o1 11A1— —d — Ary
9
MAR q
Rose E. Mihata Office (760) 320-0882 -1-�P�
468 West Tahquitz Canyon Way Fax (760) 320-9395
Palm Springs
CA. 92262
February 21, 2002
Mr Chris Mills (Council Member)
City Of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs
CA. 92262
RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California, Inc
Dear Mr Chris Mills,
As adjacent land owners we, and other members of our neighborhood
association are concerned with the cavalier manner in which the
planning commission approved the proposal for the Bergheer Project
on January 9 b 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
printed materials and photographs to Alex Meyerhoffto give to the
commissioners, as she was unfortunately going to be out of the
country the day of the meeting. The material was not given to the
Commissioners.
4
The commission meeting was irregular in that Mr Jon Caffery
reclused himself because of commercial transactions with the
petitioner. Under Ord 1027 sec 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
issue that had been brought to his attention with photographs as
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 6 h 2002. Please do not require
us to seek mandamus.
Respectfully yours,
Rose E. Mihata
James Jess
Li—.d" I = Ia-'M hRUM L;i4U-INISINIL wtI IHRN I /fill .i2.i W-W9 P. 2
FROM ; R09EMlWFa f elp, 765r�g795 Fek. 27 2092 11:3�i tPI
To oomwiteioa mweaw waa a gwiir is do bt Tao oft 1 \\
t.atiwad ideydr6aa.waofeommmaialvnotwtionawithtloa dC `-`-�e O �.\-.e r
PKWDW.UWW Old Im wo 229-ft I a ooa•mitiaahai'<ad do
had zwkmd
6lt 6utwmdmtbtiiaw6omwdliohhtetl�6sy Cc cle tfle G 11
Vqo�eS
bdt D mW 8wma fiW to m"m at tba awaby,ft a do w oft
Law&M bd bm b owu to Lit moo m with pbsordowaa
avidww ad waa mw to"&-a"ow oamaM6=0 mwwiv do
aaaonaa atdw oai�hbaahova.
Zvo+r aowww*%v4 outooa to rm=d aw haoa of ope tK she
paojea,badeto the pWx eaaam**c,forprom&&&andioea
puhtio pallo4MiaoMun apopw 4uonus
Tion aaa dacaasxa W"do am Aaw omw
. pta oo*pwwbmaw•bmaamilmwg MWAN%•aaacmmww
aortae lir wN•
Ihokaut�vWbe6a(oroyouoaMarop�'1002. P1s+edomttes�ta
m to tladtotaodaltaw.
flwpoot�•)'otiaa.
4
01,
,y�a,IQn tGtrasKe
�9;M N�lyer
iux.uNz aaa r�
r
� 4
M
I:
1 ,
Y+'
t.
a
• 1
'•• Y t r
�d .TlY. �•"$��
€ _
i
1 . ,
• t
fI
1
4
.i:W kill } -
- _ - _ raj' `' _
uenc Dye rvew vivagee ur'vup, u.vg OVJLn IC4IJ� vct-11 -up IG:JIf rage lie
I
Dot To N
the palm springs modern oasis
RECEIVED
to/uroI OCT 1 < l
VIAFACSIMILE: 760-322-8360 PLANNING DIVISION
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 properly located at 370 W.Arenas.
2. The specific location along the south perimeter of airy
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 comer of our
orbitin,com property.
mnll@orbitin.com
Alex,regarding these two issues,I request the opportunity to review and
562 w.orenos comment on specific designs following their submission and prior to their
palm springs,co 92262 approval.
phone(760)323.3585
fox(760)32M599
loll free l877 99�rbll
(1-877-996-7246)
oenx my. New villages group, LtO; y OU32619413; Oct-11'-Ol 12:32; Page 212
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 wot ld like to
express concern and establish standing regarding the broaderisiue 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 conce#ned 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 Tem
Deyna L. Hodges,Council
Jim Jones,Council
Ronald Oden,Council
Jeanne Reiter-Spurgin, Council
! ! 4 �`�
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 � C�IVD
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 point 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 200-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 development.
1 Y/4
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.
Very�truly yours,
Marvin Roos
Director of Planning Services
MDR:cm
cc: Rose Mihata
Mainiexo, Sanith-and'Associates, Inc.
777 East TahquitzCauyon Way,Suite 301/Palm Sotines Cahforma92262-679Z./ P' ,'- -P 7Fn'1onaQ,, 1�AvI' Ian, 7r,
i
Marc Herbert
2',304 Tice Creek Drive,No 4
Walnut Creek,California 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: Pr D l Lfn � NN!NG DIVISION
Parcel on We�q itz any-on 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 MiIIAD
468 West Tahqultx 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 COMMUNITY
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, night time 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 fhtal accident in the intersection of the said
property. I witnessed this accident and took the man to the hospital but unfortunately he
i
died from his injuries. bets 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, 1488.
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,
ROSES_MMATA
Property Owner ,
468 West Tahquita..Way
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
- NOTICE OF PREPARATION
i
TO: Distr_tbution 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(X) 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 Signature4 _W
Title Planner III
Telephone 619 i 323-8245
Area Code
(Revised 6-87 )
_. -29-
wjF.
w 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.
recreation"areas, 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 1
preliminary drainage Ian will be prepared by the applicant. and incorporated i
into the Draft EIR. t3.HC)
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.
The emergency service concerns regarding a 4 to 5-story building will be
discussed. (14.a)
NOTICE OF PREPARATo
Case 5 .6466 - PD-19L i
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.
r
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.
F
WP/PLNG CORRES
NOTICE OF PREPARATONi lE
Yayc o
Case 5,0466 - PD-I96
1
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.
J
s. 1 Cy t { �
�(//) ���� _y 'i�.. Ott:f• .:�A �'
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS:.. ., .. ... ,'.'`, ,-. ; i;.._. ;.: : ; • ; : _ .
Environmental Check List Form
Y ••L ..SMi -.r ' •4 •Aw
(Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) `
Yes Maybe
No
I. . Earth. Will the proposal result
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes
in geologic substructures?
b. Disn.ptiens, displacements, compaction
or overcovering of the soil?
e. Change 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 y
soils, either on or off the site? �L
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
scuds, or changes 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?
g. Exposure of people or property .to geolo-
gic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar h=ords?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
s' c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any change in climate,
either locally or regionally?
g. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents, or the course of di-
rection of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- 1414 �7
terns, or the rate and amount of surface
rvnoff? __
.il Y-j 'Y.1 •�� ...I�
.yL, .,p7 w�.",•tin`�• .. w.•.^..
d. Change In the amount of surface water•in
any water body?
e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality, in-
cluding but not limited to temperature,
dissolved oxygen or turbidity?
f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
g. ' Change in the quantity of ground waters;—
either through direct additions or with-
drawals, or through interception of an
oquifer 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 as flooding or tidal waves?
( 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: 1
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
number of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
p(cnts)?
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants?
-
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
on area, 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.
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
numbers of any species of animals (birds,
land animals including reptiles, fish and
shellfish, benthic 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
on area, or result in a barrier to the
migration or movement of animals?
d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife
habitat? t(
• • .rK-
6 IVo(sa. W t I t
Fte proposal result itu r�:� . •.ri '=L•. � ,,.,.. �?�i't;4�•�'�
M ��4
a. Increases in exhting raise levels? -�
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. v light and Glare. 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 X
natural resource?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
o. A risk of an explosion or the release
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, all, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
j upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with an emergency
resp«sse plan or an emergency evacuation
PIcn?
II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the
'human population of an area?
12. i-louning. Will the proposal affect existing hOUS-
irg, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. TronsportotiWCirculation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial irrpoct upon existing transpor-
tation systems? y
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/or goods?
' 4
e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic? 1i
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor / t � �
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? ` 7
. / .
. . .. . • (� v!':.,:.;SQL]. L'i L.Y :>ar y! •yr
16. PWIC Services.' will the
proposal have an 1Fes _Alaybe .,,1r to
effect .:,fir„�•`�;;-s�
Won, or result in a need for new or c..:"_=:,• :: S;r ;,. • r.
altered governmental services in any of the
following areast -r- ;.
a
a. Fire protection?
..._•
b. Police protection? _
w
d. Parks or other recreational facilities?
se. Maintenance of public facilities, including --+i—
roods? -_ y
f. Other governmental services?
IS. Eriergy. Will the proposal result in: -
a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- —�i—
Ing sources of energy, or require the Y
development of new sources of energy? /\
Ib, Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for new systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas? _X
b. Communications systems? _X I
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks?
t e. Storm water drainage?
f. Solid waste and disposal?
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. Aesthetkzs. 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 quantify of existing --
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
-------------------
yes
b, Will the proposal result in adverse physical
r or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or .,
historic building, structure, or object?
c. Does the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical change which would affect
unique ethnic cultural values?
d. Will the proposal restrict existing religious
or sacred uses within the potential impact
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
endcngered 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-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 fvturea
c. Does the project have irrpocts 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
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 human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Initial Study Prepared By: ( Initials ) �
Initial Study Reviewed For Findings an c en ommdation: MARYIN D. ROOS
arming Olrector.47(
Illtttttt�ltt � � �,
q I �
r
r
yl yNy
F
$❑ *� * «
*
tl qC
�I 00
��ksi
q• I V
C 0
Historic Tennis Club Neighborhood Organization
July 23, 2000
Doug Evans
Director of Planning and Building
3200 Tahquitz Carryon Way
Palm Sprigs, 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.
I 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 the
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 rural and definitely a small town feel
with our narrow streets that have been preserved without curbs and sidewalks. We also welcome the
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 0 Palm Springs, California 92262 0 778-0041
OCT-12-01 03 : 19 PM WILLOWS 760,.325 6451 P- 03
m
TIIH WILLOWS HISTORIC PALM SPRING.9 INN
August 19, 1998
Jim White
Lynwood Development
Via Facsimile(619)224-9720
(619)224.6617
Dear Mr, White,
Thank you very much for your phone call or today.As you know,The Willows has required a huge
financial and emotional investmeut,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
apparent regarding the property,
1. The entrance to the site is problematic,with limited ingress and egress,and an awkward approuch.
A reconfiguration of the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way 11 conjunction with the City of Pulm
Springs would be desirable, The schema would include limiting the"turnaround"traffic that now
occurs,placing the telephone poles/u(ililies underground,and demarcating the transition from
public to private street.The site entrance would also probably require some roconfiguration of the
t current placement of LeVallauris'trash area,as it would be Inconsistent to have the trash
immediately adjacent to the entratce of an upscale residential project. Mitigation of the increased
traffic to the site would be accomplished by it proper design of(]to site entrance and
reconfiguration of'fahquitz Canyon Way from Museum Drive to the site.
2. 'file project would be low-density,low-profile and upscale in nature.
3. In keeping with the ambiance of the neighborhood,the roollops would be high quality Spanish the
of single form,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 Ihu number and placement of trash pick up sites,or use quieter,smaller,
special trash vehicles, in order to miligate the noise of(rash 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 their mitigation would result in
an aesthetically appropriate development for the site. I 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 Tile Willows personally on September 3, 1999.
Thank you for your consideration,
Sincerely,
Tracy Conrad
F
412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way•Palm Springs •California 92262•Telephone:76w-3zo-o771.Fax:76o-}2o-0780
l ���Y
FRO^i ROSE E MIHRTR PHONE NO. : 619 320 a8E2 Feb. 23 1999 08:34RM Pi
F �
C12JJ J/'29'39 1,1:5el -1442'A9
HAI.I�.:ihlW PAGE f51
I r ; 5 I
NGRMAN J- HALLWAY
P V. Unix abon
g019F., I0AI.10 P,3107
SGIAC, 1'J.fJSi 344,9595
(�(�
!.IJN VALLEY 1TOM) Yrti•'7724
Febrtwry 17, 1999 A4M f•F(IN G'F 1 YGI 418 4.20R
To: Traffic engineer & Doug Evans
1 live at 660 Palisades Drive and ain apposed to flt.e
condo development by Mr. Doug Evans. The Traffic on
Palisade Drive cannot withstand any more use and 1 atn
uun,,r wv0 about tho tiro proteetiorx to t1'&c propme(.i project.
This project needs to be stopped now and reevaluated
Norman J, Halliday
" f
3A.7, W. Tanduitz Canyon Wg_v, This isolated residential neighborhood on like edge of Downtown
contains a unique mix 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 wi(h.
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 properties
are (o)developed to prevent the intrusion of through-traffic and to provide localized parking,
J
r
T
1
l
V )7�
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.
•w ,� ka
Page 3 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
January 09 2002
PUBLIC HEARING:
Case 5.0804—TTM 29077 (PD 267)—Application by Bergheer Califomia, Inc. for a Preliminary
Planned Development District related Architectural Approvals and Tentative 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-31R-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 September26,2001,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
1lA17 /
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 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
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.
1 Y147�
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 againstthe 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
Page 9 of 13
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2001
Case 5.0804—PD254—TTM19077—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 for a 52-unit community. He reviewed the previously reviewed elevations along with
the revised plans forthe 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
t I/d
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.
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
/ Y/4
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."
/ L` ✓ �O'3
Page 4 of 13
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2001
Case 5.0804—PD254—TTM19077—Application byBergheer California, Inc. for the subdivision
of a 6.8 acre parcel into 52 parcels for a 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 that the 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 traffic calming(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.
M ��
i •
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
project which 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
I L/ OS�
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.
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.
M/S/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, eastern, and
northern property lines.
Chairman Klatchko called a brief recess. The Planning Commission was called back to order at
4:15 p.m.
/ i 00
Council Minutes 1 b 1
10-17-01, Page 9
i
i
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 24 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 bd 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
�14 ��
l I"�
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
l L/14 lip
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.
J y���
COuncII 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 walked; 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.
l VA 9z
Council Minutes
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.
i
� � 03
May-31 -02 11 :49 McCarthy 1 818 981 3SO3 P_02
JUstortc `Tennis Club 'District Association
1 75 Snuth Ca.hui" Tacld
TaLm SprLngs, CA 92Z61
rieL (760)320-9346 Jax (760)32,s-8610
Drunk ITUsen, rJPresident
May 31, 2002
TO: Mayor Klcindicrrst and City Council Members
RE: Commitments of the Rergheer group regarding the architecture ofTAIIQUITZ
Vi LLINS a planned development of 50 units projected for the southwest corner of
'I ahqunr and Muscurrr Drive
We helieve that it is important that you arc aware of commitments regarding this
project that Mr Bergheer and his representatives including his architect made several
years ago m an initial neighborhood meeting This meeting was called by Planning
Director DOug Evans and held at the Willows Historic inn and attended by several
neighborhood roprescnratives including myself
In recognition of the historic character afottr neighborhood beinti made up of a
mixture of I020s and 19305 Spanish revival and mid century modern buildings Mr
Bergheer promised that his project would be built in the Spanish revival style: characteristic
of much ufthe neighborhood particularly ol'several immediately adjacent struetures.
SPE('IFhLALLY HIS CO.M-Ml I"MENT iNCLUDES MUDDED TERRA COT I'A
CLAY ROOI' 'i ILF, WOOD Fk/M.E WINDOWS. SMOOTH PIASTER TYPiC'AL OF
THE 1920S kND 1930S PERIOD AS WEI,I. AS THE PRESERVA'I IOC] OF MUCH
OF THE ORIGINAI. STONE WALL. AROUND "1 HE PROPERTY, Fl II{SF.
COMMITMIsNTS I IAVi-' BEEN PERIODiC•AI.1.Y REAFFiRMED U01-H iN
NIFFTiNGS WITH NUIGHRORHOOD REPRFSNN I'ATiVES AS WEL.I AS BEFORE
CITY CTOVFRNMENI°AL BOINES WHO APPROVED THEM.
IT HAS COME: TO OUR ATTLNI'ION THAT VERY RECENTLY
REPRESENTA'I iVF.S OF MR, BERGI tF.FR HAVE TRIED 1'0 CHANGE TI IUSI:
COMMITNUINT'S PNCLUDING C1IANOINCT THE. COLOR OF ROOF TILE 1"0
VARIOUS SI IADLS OF BROWN, SUBS'l 111717NG ALI. OR PAi2T OF 'ri-11- WOOD
WINDOWS TO ALI TMINI TM OR VINYL. AND ABANDONING THE SMOOTH
Pl_.ASTFRING MAKING IT A MORF. CENERI(' PROJLCT
r
W'c are deeply concerned that this prc�Jeet to be built on perhaps one of'tlre best
remaining locations in Palm Springs will properly harntonin..with the historic. character of t
OW neighborhood Our concern is further aggravated by the fact that Mr Berghecr's id
May-31 -02 X1 = 50 McCarthy 1 818 981 3503 P_03
Mayor Kleindienst and City Council Mcrtlber's
Re I.iergheer Development
May 31, 2002
Page 2
Mn ador Prolcct has been heavily criticized by home buyers in that development f'or
unprofessional and illegal pracliceti and is now subject of one or more lawsuits.
Therefirre 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. Rugheer and his representatives do live
up to these commitments which originally won them significant rteighborlrrood support At
stake are both the character of our neighborhood and our property values
We must add that since that original meeting with the Betgheer irdcresls nll
Historic Terr,ris Club building activities by private individuals have loyally followed the
Spanish revival or the mid-century modern style including the spectacular recent
restoration ol'the Andalusian Court Inn, the two Orbit !ruts as well as such private
residences av the ('ahuilla home of Mill and Trish Davie, This is in addition to previous
authentic restorations over the past several decades of the following Inns Ingleside,
Irstrella, Orchid "I rce, Desert (fills, Casa Cody, La Serena, San Marino, Korakia, I'hc
Willows, C'ovoie, Bella Villa and Desert House and the new construction and restoraton
of such magnificent homes as Ruse Milrata's and Steve Chereske's on Tahquitc, Sara and
Michelle Pishue'�, on Linda Vista, Helen I)zodto's house on Pablo and Peter 011,0n's new
1920s style horde on C'ahuilla immediately behind the Ingleside Inn.
Please alleviate our concerns
I-RANK TXSI-A, President.
Martha_Edgmon
From: SherylHamlin [sherylhamlin@earthlink net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:06 PM
To: WiIIK@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: jean ners@ci.palm-springs,ca.us; DeynaH@ci.palm-springs.ca.us, ChrisM@ci.palm-springs.ca.us;
rono@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: RE: 5.0804-PD Tahgwtz Villas
Importance: High
Sir,
The Planning Department report dated 4/24102 in no way reflects the sentiment of the 4/22/02 Design Review committee,
where all committee members found the project flawed. One Design Review committee member summarized as follows: "an
urban project without the right pieces". Issues were lack of privacy, outdoor space, shade, visual monotony, ingress and
egress problems. The planning director concurred with the privacy issue.
Furthermore, from reading the data presented in the 4/24/02 Planning Department report, the decision for no EIR appears to be
completely arbitrary, especially when the two most important issues, traffic congestion and emergency access, are"potentially
significant".
Many neighbors have spoken and written against this project. Attached is a statement by Mr. Roath.
Please send this back to the drawing board
Sheryl Hamlin
565 West Santa Rosa Drive
Palm Springs, Ca
92262
(760) 318-9344
6/5/02 t�
565 W Sonta Roev Orlvo
Pal m SPt lt17s GA
9 ] 3 6
Marshall Roa1h, Designer
Post glilce Sox 9257
rat m 5 p r l a g 5 C A
9 9 Y 6 3
April 24, 2002
Telephone 960 31B 9341
roathdorlgn0a Grtnllnk not
Palm Springs Planning Commission
City Ball
Palm Springs, California 92262
RE: Case 5,0804 PD 254/Berghoer 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
fallowing 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 the 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 1
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 stale 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
cc: Planning Director, Commissioners, RTCNO
5b SC4
1 ash
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING ? `
April 24, 2002 1:30 p.m.
Council Chamber, City Hall �nt�k�1✓L �(
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 01-02
Excused Absences
Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 17 2
Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr.** X 18 1
Ralph Raya X 17 2
Jon Shoenberger X 18 1
Jon Caffery* X 18 1
Mark Matthews X 16 3
Jerry Grence X 3 0
*Arrived at 3:20 p.m.
w Left at 3:50 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building
Dave Barakian, City Engineer
Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner
Jing Yeo, Assistant Planner
Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner
Sky Warden, Assistant Planner
Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator
i
i
Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m.
w * x w w
The April 24, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board
and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday April 19, 2002.
* x w w *
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
M/S!C (Shoenberger/Matthews, 5-0, 1 absent, 1 abstain) to approve the minutes of February 27,
2002 as presented.
rG
� K
Page 4 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
Case 5.0804— PD 267—TTM 29077—Application by Tahquitz Venture LLC and CT Realty Corp
(formerly Sergheer California, Inc.) for a Preliminary Planned Development, related architectural
approvals, and Tentative Tract Map for the Tahquitz Villas, a subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into
50 parcels for a clustered residential development within a gated community, located to the
southwest of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, R-3/R-2 Zone, Section
15,
Commissioner Caffery abstained due to a possible conflict of interest.
Page 5 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported the chronology of the project: application received in
1998, September 26, 2001 recommendation of approval by Planning Commission, October 17,
2001 direction from City Council for Planning Commission to restudy design, November 07, 2001
Planning Commission Study Session, November 17, 2001 Design Review, January 09, 2002
Planning Commission recommendation for City Council approval which was nullified by a possible
conflict of interest at that meeting, a number of additional Design Review sessions, including the
April 22, 2002 meeting at which several community members were present (concerns included
street facades, density, lack of privacy, roofing materials, quality of building materials)and today's
Planning Commission meeting. He reported that Design Review requests include wood garage
doors, hand-troweled, smooth stucco,two-piece clay tile roofs,wood shutters, detailed ornamental
iron railings, metal awnings, and colored textured paving in the project entry, driveways, and
parking court areas. He reviewed exhibits for the Planning Commission,
Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. James Jess,Arenas Road resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he feels
the report is flawed and that the perception of the Design Review group was that there are too
many homes proposed and that he agrees. He stated that he feels fewer homes could improve
the quality of the development. He stated that he feels the Initial Study is flawed because it states
there is a less than significant impact regarding public controversy. He stated that the homes uphill
do not have sewers and a sewer study needs to be done. He stated that the Initial Study states
that the project is compatible with existing land use but there is no existing land use in the vicinity.
He stated that he felt 50 homes in six acres is too much of an imposition on the area and that the
Initial Study should not state that there is minimal visual impact. He stated that he felt 19 guest
parking spaces is insufficient. He questioned the validity of several Initial Study findings and stated
that his knowledge comes from anecdotal experience. He stated that flooding and air quality
impacts could both be problems. He stated that emergency access, noise, and cultural resources
could be concerns as well. He stated that he felt the project will degrade the environment.
i
Mr. Dave Baron, applicant representative, addressed the Planning Commission to state that this
project has been in process for more than three years and has been redesigned per Design !
Review, Planning Commission, and City Council direction. He stated that the applicant has made
every possible effort to accommodate all City and community requests. He slated that the Planning
Commission has approved this project twice and that a legal anomaly resulted in it being sent back
to the Planning Commission. He stated that the project is better than was originally proposed (e.g.
elimination of two-story elements close to R-1 Zone, enhanced entranceway at Tahquitz Canyon
Way, and substantial reduction of density). He stated that the project is well within the allowable
criteria for the R-3 Zone and that the applicant could propose 114 units for this site.
Commissioner Jurasky arrived at the meeting.
Mr. Baron stated that all Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians issues have been addressed. He
stated that the developer has gone the extra mile to accommodate the neighborhood, Planning
Commission, the City, and all parties concerned. He stated that the design team is available for
questions and urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the application today.
Page 6 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
Ms. Sheryl Hamlin, representing Mr. Marshall Roath, addressed the Planning Commission to
submit a letter from Mr. Roath, dated April 24, 2002, in which he suggests that more study is
needed by the developers architects and an Environmental Impact Report is needed to define the
impact on the neighborhood (on file in the Planning Division).
Ms. Tracy Conrad, Tahquitz Canyon Way resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state
that she acknowledges that the project has been in the planning stage for three and a half years
but that she feels the land planning is unimaginative; that the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way
could be better designed; that the proposed roof tiles will be extremely stark on crystal white
stucco; and that the Conditions of Approval don't address the construction cycle and noise
mitigation. She beseeched the Planning Commission to address these issues in consideration of
the neighborhood. She suggested that the project not be started until June— after many tourist-
based businesses (e.g. small hotels) have slowed for the summer. She asked that Planning
Condition#35 be amended to include the requirement for two-piece mudded tile. She stated that
there should be no rooftop equipment whatsoever, She suggested that the neighborhood and the
Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Public Participation reviewfinal plans as the quality of this
project is of supreme importance. She stated that she wants there to be no questions remaining
regarding the structural and architectural quality of the development. She thanked staff for their
hard work on the project and urged the Planning Commission to require more study.
Mr. Tony Bruggemans, Le Vallauris restaurant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that
he concurs with Ms. Conrad and that the City and the developer have the full cooperation and
endorsement of Le Vallauris if land is needed for improvement of the Tahquitz Canyon Way
terminus.
Mr. Frank Tyson, Casa Cody, President of the Historic Tennis District Association, addressed the
Planning Commission to state that neighborhood integrity is at stake with this proposed
development and that, 16-20 years ago, the area was rundown but has now enjoyed a gradual
improvement (e.g. The Willows, The Korakia, Orbit Inn, Andalusian Inn, and the many improved
Spanish style homes such as Rose Mihata's, etc). He asked that the Planning Commission require
smooth plaster in shades of terra cotta and that the roof tiles be mudded. He asked that wood
windows be required. He submitted photographs of Casa Cody's 70-90 year-old windows. He
stated that, although the project has been delayed, he feels the developer will realize a 300%
increase in property value due to the Improvements and timing. He asked that the Planning
Commission be very specific regarding materials. He thank the Chairman for allowing more time
for Public Comments than the customary three minutes.
Ms. Rose Mihata, Tahquitz Canyon Way resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state
that she is claiming her line-of-sight easement and that her real estate appraiser told her that the
proposed project will devalue her property by 25% to 30%. She stated that she had planned to put
a pool in her yard. She asked that the City Attorney be consulted regarding a line-of-sight
easement lawsuit in Highlands, California. She stated that she does not wish to sue the City. She ;
demanded her light-of-sight. She stated that Design Review comments were that there were too
many homes proposed for the site and suggested that fewer homes be built but that each home ;
be more expensive. She stated that Planned Development Districts require the highest and best
use of the land and that the proposed use is not. She stated that she plans to pay a Fire
Page 7 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
Department from another city to review the project as she is concerned regarding emergency
access- She stated that the Environmental Assessment is flawed. She stated that the Planning
Commission represents the citizens and thatthe Planning Commission can not take away her light-
of-sight easement. She stated that she feels there are flood issues which need to be addressed.
Ms. Sheryl Hamlin addressed the Planning Commission to state that she feels fire safety is an
issue and that she lived in a condominium development in Phoenix which had only one entry and
one exit and there was a large fire which completely consumed one unit in the development
because the Fire Department could not gain access. She stated that the proposed development
looks like a fire trap and that the City could be liable.
Mr. David Ball, CT Realty, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the general
partner resigned 8-9 weeks ago and that, since then, he has met with staff and Design Review
three times and that those meetings were constructive and helpful. He stated that three people
from the Design Review group met with him on Monday and that he is in complete concurrence
with the suggestions of smooth, hand-troweled stucco, barrel tile as selected by Design Review,
custom garage doors, color pallette as recommended by Design Review, ornamental wrought iron
and wooden shutters, and fiberglass windows.
There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Caffery left the meeting.
Commissioner Shoenberger asked Director if the City could accept Mr. Bruggemans' offer of
property to improve the terminus at Tahquitz Canyon Way. Director stated that staff could craft a
Condition of Approval that would require the applicant to work with the adjoining property owner
to create an entry and parking program, increasing the number of parking spaces as part of the
final development plans.
Commissioner Jurasky abstained due to a conflict of interest.
Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium to address Commissioner Shoenberger's
i
question. i
i
Mr. Alan Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, project engineer, addressed the Planning Commission to state
that the original design was a collaborative effort between Le Vallauris and the developer and that
the Mayor's comments resulted in the currently proposed design. He stated that a median island
was the focus of the Mayor's comments and not parking. He stated that, although an existing rock
wall may be an issue, the request can be accommodated.
Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he appreciated the applicant's willingness to consider the
many requests. He stated that he would like to see an alternative for the terminus explored,
acknowledging that it would be additional work for the applicant, as this is a very important project-
He stated that solving the Tahquitz Canyon Way terminus issue would be appreciated by everyone.
Mr. Sanborn stated that he could bring further collaborative results to the Planning Commission at
the time of final review.
Commissioner Shoenberger asked Director to address construction cycle.
Page 8 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April24 2002
Direc'torstated that, ideally, grading and construction would be accomplished in summer; however,
the project is not far enough along with approved plans to build this summer. He stated that,
although building activity is disruptive, the City has Fairly restrictive construction hours.
Commissioner Shoenberger asked applicant to address construction cycle.
Mr. Ball stated that, as soon as approval is secured, he intends to begin work as soon as possible
although grading plans are not done yet. He also stated that mudded tile is not consistent with the
architecture.
Chairman Klatchko asked Director to address the line-of-sight issue that Ms. Mihata discussed.
Director stated that staff is not aware of any easements and that the fundamental issue is whether
or not the property owner has the right to build within code on his property.
Commissioner Shoenberger stated that, unless there exists a recorded easement, there is no
inherent right to view protection.
Commissioner Raya stated that he feels there is insufficient guest parking and asked staff to
address Environmental Assessment challenges made during pubic comments.
Director reported that staff prepared the Initial Study and that Engineering reviews sewer issues.
He stated that impacts to water will be mitigated and are the same concerns as the last project
proposed at this site. He reported that normal seismic activity is a citywide issue and not specific
to this site and that soils testing at the Mercado, Desert Fashion Plaza, and Downtown Parking
Structure all show nothing unusual. He stated that there is no roof-mounted equipment proposed.
I
MIS (Raya/Grence) to approve project subject to Conditions of Approval; and
1. Roofs be mudded or a 10'x10' sample of proposed unmudded material be presented for
Planning Commission review;
2. 10 additional guest parking spaces be created;
3. Windows be Milgard true divided light.
Director stated that a 10'x10' sample could be difficult to transport.
Motion amended as follows:
MIS (Raya/Grence) to approve project subject to Conditions of Approval; and
1. 10 additional guest parking spaces be created;
2. Windows be Milgard true divided light.
Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he does not support the addition of 10 more guest parking
spaces as it may not be possible and asked applicant to address feasibility.
Mr. Sanborn staled that 30% to 50% of the spaces are guest parkable and are not reflected in the
guest parking count.
Mr. Baron stated that the offer made by Mr. Bruggemans could help solve the issue for on or offsite
Page 9 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
parking but it is not feasible to add 10 more spaces.
Motion amended as follows:
M/S (Raya/Greece 5-0, 2 abstain) to approve project subject to Conditions of Approval; and
1. Ten additional guest parking spaces be allowed in driveways per CC&Rs which will need
the City"s prior approval to amend;
2. Condition No. 35 to include Milgard Craftsman grid, true divided light windows.
3. New Condition: No. 37—"Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, the Conditions
of Approval as set forth in the letter dated April 02, 2002 from Mr. Tom Davis, Director of
Planning for the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to the Drown Foundation shall be
satisfied either by conveyance or so noted by separate lot and easement of said final tract
map."
Commissioner Shoenberger stated to Ms. Mihata that common law does not provide any right to
view protection; however, that does not mean that the Planning Commission not sensitive to view
issues and has considered this issue on this application.
Case 6. 1 —Application by the City of Palm Springs Police Department for a Va4rce to build a
shade stru re near the south property line at 200 South Civic Drivx1othightting.
e9, Section 13.
M/S/C (Shoenbe r/Raya 4-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to appro to Conditions of
Approval in Staff Rep and relocation or redesign of existing par
i
i
i
CONSENT AGENDA: None '
Sign Program—Applicationb est Signs for a Sign Program for ultiple business center located
at 310-320 North Palm C you Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15
M/S/C ( Raya/Gren 5-0, 2 absent) to approve as presented.
MISCE ANEOUS:
i
i
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 Palm Springs, in conjunction with Case No, 5.0804-
PD 254, Tentative Tract Map 29077, for the Tahquitz Villas, 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
15'h day of May 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 same in the U.S. Mail at
Palm Springs, California.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
(17
Sp ' g lifor th 5 day of May 2002.
PATRICIA A. SANDERS
City Clerk
is
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
Case No. 5.0804-PD 254
Tentative Tract Map 29077
i
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 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-31R-2, Section 15.
,
,
Applicant: Tahquitz Venture LLC, and CT Realty Corp. (formerly Bergheer California, Inc.)
i
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold
a public hearing at its meeting of June 5, 2002.The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the
City Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California.
i
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for an environmental assessment, a
preliminary planned development district, and a tentative tract map.
i
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 i
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
i
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,
I
I
Publish- May 14, 2002 Patricia Sanders
The Desert Sun City Clerk
VIGINTY 11AP
N.T.S.
2
I
i
Tahquitz Canyon Way
SITE
- I
I
I
I
G p �
I
SARISTO ROAD j
t
r
i
a t
t
t
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. Case No 5.0804-PD-267 DE 7RIPTION
Tentative Tract Map 29077 -
q Preliminary Planned Development District and
,APPLICANT r the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel Into 50 parcels,
located to the south west of the intersection of
Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive,
Applicant. Bergheer California, Inc. Zone R-31R-2, Section 15
WL096S Jasel sjagel ssaippb ®AUNAV92
d'Ao
{ ago
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
I
I
i
i
.09Is aol a4etdwat asg w1s;aa4s paal q;vows
J . U$Q t, fM Z1077
y
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
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
; I
Elena Stancill Steve Cheroske Stan Amy
TKD Associates 530 West Tahquitz Canyon Way 41098 Northeast 19'"
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 Cahuilla 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 500 West Arenas Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
Bill Davis Jane Smith Lola Rossi
600 West Arenas Road The Movie Colony Association 227 South Cahuilla Road
928 Avenida Palmas
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264
i
i
Michael Atencio '
A.0.B.C.1, Hope V. Sullivan ;
600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Principal Planner
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Douglas R. Evans
Director of Planning & Building
I
W110965 aase7 stages ssaaPPV @AU3AN S*
Neighborhood
Coalition
Labels
Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter
280 Camino Sur 1155 S. Camino Real P.O. Box 2824
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263
Philip Tedesco Tim Hohmeier Frank Tysen
1303 West Primavera Drive 1387 Calle De Maria 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
• i
YW 4-bet-
S.vgoy- PD- zs`
rat 1077
513 110 002 513 110 005 513 110 020
Paul Marut&Tracy Conrad Steven Chcroske&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 Marut&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 Miliata Harold&Dorothy Meyerman Dorothy&Harold Meyerman
468 W Talquitz 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
1535 Shoreline Dr#110 500 Madeline Dr 500 Madeline Dr
Boise,ID 83702 Pasadena, CA 91105 Pasadena, CA 91105
513 120 010 513 120011 513 120 012
David&Trudy Johnston David&Trudy Johnston David&Trudy Johnston
147 S Taltqultz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 120 013 513 120 015 513 120 016
David&Trudy Johnston David&Trudy Johnston Johnston
147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Talquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
I
I
513 120 025 513 120 026 513 120 029
Keith Sondrall&Luc Bal Wahoo-Cal Hotels Lic Richard Hirsch
544 W Arenas Rd 4109 NE 19Th Ave#13 606 W Arenas Rd �
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Portland, OR 97211 Palm Springs, CA 92262 t
513 120 029 513 120 040 513 120 041 t
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
513 120 042 513 120 045 513 120 046
Johnston 1999 Johnston 1999 Johnston 1999
147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 120 047 513 120 048 513 120 049
Johnston 1999 Johnston 1999 Johnston 1999
147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Talquitz Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 120 050 513 120 051 513 120 052
Johnston 1999 Johnston 1999 Johnston 1999
147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 141 S Tahquitz Dr
Pahn Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs,CA 92262
513 120 053 513 121 001 513 121 002
Palm Springs Tennis Club Owners Ass Ellen Verger Brenda Farrar
NO STREET NAME or NUMBER PO Box 2037 32 Easifield 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 Cedillo&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&Jean Forrer
Wilda Looff Taueher 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 Manion&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 Lie 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 OXO
CANADA
I
513 134 007 313 134 008 513 134 009 i
Eugene&Adrian Rossi Neil Graham Ludwig Uri
Fa Rossi 20992 Brookburst St#201 625 N Canon Dr
3215 E Ocean Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Long Beach, CA 90803 i
1
513 134 010 513 134 011 513 135 001 1
1
Roland&Sandra Trucx Kalsman&Associates Jean Smallwood
411 W Arenas Rd#10 47 N Paseo Laredo 555 W Arenas Rd#3 t
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 135 002 513 135 003 513 135 004
Joan Twohey Russell&Alice Yensen George&Karen Whicker Ellis
555 W Arenas Rd#2 1 N Sl'onington 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
Harald&Helen Penner Bette Dedrick&Donald Walken Harold&Helen Penner
290 S San Jacinto Dr#1 34424 Walnut Lit 290 S San Jacinto Dr#3
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Creswell,OR 97426 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513135011 513135012 513135013
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
513 135 014 513 135 015 513 135 016
Harold&Bolen 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 Bruggemam&Michel DeVras
290 S San Jacinto Dr 290 S San Jacinto Dr 385 W Tahquitz 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 Wahoe-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 Llc Casa Cody B&B Country Inn
1555 S Palm Canyon Dr#0106 175 S Cahuilla Rd 15012 Del Gado Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Sherman Oaks, CA 91403
i
i
i
513 142 001 513 142 003 513 151 002
William Mcwethy Jr, Craig Blau Larry&Sharon Kramer i
11839 Sorrento Valley Rd 200 W Arenas Rd 1909 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92121 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Redwood City, CA 94063 j
513 151 006 513 151 007 513 151 010
William&Trisha Davis Virginia Berardini Donald Stratton&Shannon Bartley
1187 Coast Village Rd#1209 237 S Cabuilla Rd 2412 Glendower Ave
Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Los Angeles, CA 90027
513 151 013 513 151 014 513 151 015
Joann McClure William&Sharon Simon Coleman Dennis Devermonl
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
Sharon Young Louis Miller&Matthew Miller Community Church Of Palm Springs
307 W Arenas Rd 1155 Tiffany Or 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 Cluistense&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 Cahuilla 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&Joaa Boose John&Jean Metzger Area Common
1808 NB Knott St F Metzger NO STREET NAME or NUMBER
Portland, OR 97212 600 Arbolado Dr CA
Fullerton, CA 92835
511470 013 513 470 014 513 501 001
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
513 501 005 513 501 006 513 501 007
Joan Levine R K Miller Inv Co Inc R K Miller Investment Co Inc
500 W Arenas Rd#5 Phibp Thompson Jr. 554 l lTh Ave
Palm Springs, CA 92262 554 11Th Ave Sall Lake City,UT 84103
Sall Lake City,UT 84103
'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&Carmann 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
513 501 Ol l 513 560 009 513 560 009
Lot Common Excel Legacy Corp Paquitz&Fashion Plaza Desert
PO Box 2002 17140 Bernardo Center Dr#3 17140 Bernardo Center Dr#300
Palm Springs, CA 92263 San Diego, CA 92128 San Diego, CA 92128
it
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
i
ATs-��
i
I
OR SL SFH 70
p�F °�A
ctl�
I
1;Jr �N LSl3'spl pp (,`r 's• "'.4 171 _
e
�.5 rO �, Ta 2
00 me A,ya k qre
C .C CAd 22 - ... �-..,
26
r1hG � S13 1
3 F772
/
Carle r. are tes
a n CA
Y,
9Z23
15 P,;AY cad,') .�
pOL
513 470 009
Randall&loan Boose
1808 NE Knott St
Portland,OR 97212
Oy'
i0
6gtlu50B 971712�G6 \�\t\ .d O�\ve U2�VN9V ry\'�
µo°aStVw�127W nVF Sher,J�INSan��Gpg2262 a2aFN�°��p�p�R
- PUR TLAIV» 65 Vv• i�ng5' ta' P�� 4 Kp ����
P
Cogan \
324 Southall -
1 palm springs, CA
g 92262Drive
.._� LpGA3,"4
R 'TLe1gNSENDgR 47�L l
sT
- 0
S,,�lti�es�e[
>>e$off
4p —�
^• � F 1 1
h CYP Architects
Don Corbin
170 Newport Center Dr. #225
Newport Beach, CA 92660
oq
�?` �q' - FORWARD 111 FIXP 1
Pc"TN1 5YGO1 SEND
; CYP XERNlTONF�
3366 VIA LIDO
G SI18/Gc�
AM-.
Nt WF`Uk l' BEAM-. CA q966-�3
" :_ ti � O ;.ti'i�j/ •tee -w..Y.-•—
zzr Ross;
M s palm Sprjh CaOuth l�Ro f
^, r "gs, C ad
h r ` 64 fitr;'
rV .� Pie✓' r�4' 5.o Il�?.`,�`.`. ___ ._
S
OS WA;c7
R�q SS A:Rn
p,yl/gQSpRSN�S A�'P �R�•N,3,pG S^Nbsr,�
s
RZ
�... . .. - SSNb�R
I
I
I Y I /r'
IrJ.
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This 1s spare for Cattily Clerks Piling Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
No.1405
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
Case No. 5.0804-PD 254
Tentative Tract Map 29077
1 am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Applicant. Tahqwtz Venture LLC, and CT Realty
the County aforesaid;lain over the age of eighteen Corp (formerly Bergheer California Inc)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council
years,and not a party t0 OY interested In the of the City of Palm Springs, Catforma,,will hold a
above-entitled matter.I am theprincipal clerk of a public hearing at Its meeting of June 5,2002 The
City Council meeting begins at 700 p.m in the
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING City Council Chamber at City Hap, 3200 E Tah-
q
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, uitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an re-
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, Plleanon eoi an environmental assessment, a pry
Count of Riverside,and which newspaper has been i,ninary planned development district, and a ten-
ytative tract map
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the - - •-- ...
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,Slate of
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller
than non pariel,has been published in each regular ,^
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: ��1
May 14th - _
_ ClIr OF PALM SPRINGS_
All in the year 2002 r __
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the '` ^
foregoing is true t. Pursuant to Section 1506J of the California Envi-
g g rue an correct. ionmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Dec-
17th lcoition has been prepared At this meeting, the
City Council is expected to approve the proposed
Dated at Palm Springs,California this--------------day Mitigated Negative Declaration.
May The proposed map, Initial Study and related doc-
uments are available for public review daily, be-
of--------------------------------------2002 tween 6 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs
in the Planning and Building Department, located
at 3200 l'ahquitz Canyon Way
ll ,�1 � If any individual or roil challenges the action in
--____r_/_„ ---- _i✓` -_ can issues issues raised gm%be limited to only those
issues raised at the public hearings described m
Signature this notice or in written correspondence at or pn- r
or to the City Council meeting. r
Notice of Public Hearing Is being sent to all pro
only untlre d y owners within four h (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 di-
rected to Alexander P. Meyerhoff, Principa Plan-
ner, Department of Planning&Building, (p60)323
6245
Patricia Sanders
PUB May 14, 2002 City Clerk
I
Martha Edgmon
From: SherylHamlin [sherylhamlin@earthlink.net]
Sent: Wednesday, June 05, 2002 4:06 PM
To: WiIIK@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Cc: jeanners@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; DeynaH@ci.palm-springs.ca.us; ChrisM@ci.palm-springs.ca.us;
rono@ci.palm-springs.ca.us
Subject: RE: 5.0804-PD Tahquitz Villas
Importance: High
Sir,
The Planning Department report dated 4/24/02 in no way reflects the sentiment of the 4/22/02 Design Review committee,
where all committee members found the project flawed. One Design Review committee member summarized as follows "an
urban project without the right pieces". Issues were lack of privacy, outdoor space, shade, visual monotony, ingress and
egress problems. The planning director concurred with the privacy issue.
Furthermore, from reading the data presented in the 4/24/02 Planning Department report, the decision for no EIR appears to be
completely arbitrary, especially when the two most important issues, traffic congestion and emergency access, are"potentially
significant".
Many neighbors have spoken and written against this project. Attached is a statement by Mr. Roath.
Please send this back to the drawing board.
Sheryl Hamlin
565 West Santa Rosa Drive
Palm Springs, Ca
92262
(760) 318-9344
(l
6/5/02
565 W, Santa Rosa Drive
Palm Springs, CA
9 2 2 6 2
Marshall Roath, Designer Post Office B o x 9257
Pa l m S p r i n g s C A
9 2 2 6 3
April24, 2002 Telephone. 760 318,9344
roa lhd asrgnQo ar Ih link,no t
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
cc: Planning Director, Commissioners, HTCNO
5 .d Sb14
-p-� Pb ash
TTM �Ra77
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS n
PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
April 24, 2002 1:30 p.m.
Council Chamber, City Hall
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
ROLL CALL Present this Meeting Present to Date FY 01-02
Excused Absences
Philip Klatchko, Chairman X 17 2
Jeffrey Jurasky, V. Chr.* X 18 1
Ralph Raya X 17 2
Jon Shoenberger X 18 1
Jon Caffery* X 18 1
Mark Matthews X 16 3
Jerry Grence X 3 0
*Arrived at 3:20 p.m.
* Left at 3:50 p.m.
STAFF PRESENT:
Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning & Building
Dave Barakian, City Engineer
Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner
Jing Yeo, Assistant Planner
Todd Mierau, Assistant Planner
Sky Warden, Assistant Planner
Michele Boyd, Administrative Coordinator
Chairman Klatchko called the meeting to order at 1:39 p.m.
The April 24, 2002 agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board
and the Department of Planning & Building counter by 4:00 p.m., Friday April 19, 2002.
* * * * *
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
M/S/C (Shoenberger/Matthews, 5-0, 1 absent, 1 abstain) to approve the minutes of February 27,
2002 as presented.
Page 4 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
Case 5.0804— PD 267—TTM 29077 —Application by Tahquitz Venture LLC and CT Realty Corp
(formerly Bergheer California, Inc.) for a Preliminary Planned Development, related architectural
approvals, and Tentative Tract Map for the Tahquitz Villas, a subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into
50 parcels for a clustered residential development within a gated community, located to the
southwest of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, R-3/R-2 Zone, Section
15.
Commissioner Caffery abstained due to a possible conflict of interest.
Page 5 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported the chronology of the project: application received in
1998, September 26, 2001 recommendation of approval by Planning Commission, October 17,
2001 direction from City Council for Planning Commission to restudy design, November 07, 2001
Planning Commission Study Session, November 17, 2001 Design Review, January 09, 2002
Planning Commission recommendation for City Council approval which was nullified by a possible
conflict of interest at that meeting, a number of additional Design Review sessions, including the
April 22, 2002 meeting at which several community members were present (concerns included
street facades, density, lack of privacy, roofing materials, quality of building materials)and today's
Planning Commission meeting. He reported that Design Review requests include wood garage
doors, hand-troweled,smooth stucco,two-piece clay tile roofs,wood shutters, detailed ornamental
iron railings, metal awnings, and colored textured paving in the project entry, driveways, and
parking court areas. He reviewed exhibits for the Planning Commission.
Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing.
Mr. James Jess, Arenas Road resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state that he feels
the report is flawed and that the perception of the Design Review group was that there are too
many homes proposed and that he agrees. He stated that he feels fewer homes could improve
the quality of the development. He stated that he feels the Initial Study is flawed because it states
there is a less than significant impact regarding public controversy. He stated that the homes uphill
do not have sewers and a sewer study needs to be done. He stated that the Initial Study states
that the project is compatible with existing land use but there is no existing land use in the vicinity.
He stated that he felt 50 homes in six acres is too much of an imposition on the area and that the
Initial Study should not state that there is minimal visual impact. He stated that he felt 19 guest
parking spaces is insufficient. He questioned the validity of several Initial Study findings and stated
that his knowledge comes from anecdotal experience. He stated that flooding and air quality
impacts could both be problems. He stated that emergency access, noise, and cultural resources
could be concerns as well. He stated that he felt the project will degrade the environment.
Mr. Dave Baron, applicant representative, addressed the Planning Commission to state that this
project has been in process for more than three years and has been redesigned per Design
Review, Planning Commission, and City Council direction. He stated that the applicant has made
every possible effort to accommodate all City and community requests. He stated that the Planning
Commission has approved this project twice and that a legal anomaly resulted in it being sent back
to the Planning Commission. He stated that the project is better than was originally proposed(e.g.
elimination of two-story elements close to R-1 Zone, enhanced entranceway at Tahquitz Canyon
Way, and substantial reduction of density). He stated that the project is well within the allowable
criteria for the R-3 Zone and that the applicant could propose 114 units for this site.
Commissioner Jurasky arrived at the meeting.
Mr. Baron stated that all Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians issues have been addressed. He
stated that the developer has gone the extra mile to accommodate the neighborhood, Planning
Commission, the City, and all parties concerned. He stated that the design team is available for
questions and urged the Planning Commission to recommend approval of the application today.
Page 6 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
Ms. Sheryl Hamlin, representing Mr. Marshall Roath, addressed the Planning Commission to
submit a letter from Mr. Roath, dated April 24, 2002, in which he suggests that more study is
needed by the developers architects and an Environmental Impact Report is needed to define the
impact on the neighborhood (on file in the Planning Division).
Ms. Tracy Conrad, Tahquitz Canyon Way resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state
that she acknowledges that the project has been in the planning stage for three and a half years
but that she feels the land planning is unimaginative; that the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way
could be better designed; that the proposed roof tiles will be extremely stark on crystal white
stucco; and that the Conditions of Approval don't address the construction cycle and noise
mitigation. She beseeched the Planning Commission to address these issues in consideration of
the neighborhood. She suggested that the project not be started until June—after many tourist-
based businesses (e.g. small hotels) have slowed for the summer. She asked that Planning
Condition #35 be amended to include the requirement for two-piece mudded tile. She stated that
there should be no rooftop equipment whatsoever. She suggested that the neighborhood and the
Office of Neighborhood Involvement and Public Participation review final plans as the quality of this
project is of supreme importance. She stated that she wants there to be no questions remaining
regarding the structural and architectural quality of the development. She thanked staff for their
hard work on the project and urged the Planning Commission to require more study.
Mr. Tony Bruggemans, Le Vallauris restaurant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that
he concurs with Ms. Conrad and that the City and the developer have the full cooperation and
endorsement of Le Vallauris if land is needed for improvement of the Tahquitz Canyon Way
terminus.
Mr. Frank Tyson, Casa Cody, President of the Historic Tennis District Association, addressed the
Planning Commission to state that neighborhood integrity is at stake with this proposed
development and that, 16-20 years ago, the area was rundown but has now enjoyed a gradual
improvement (e.g. The Willows, The Korakia, Orbit Inn, Andalusian Inn, and the many improved
Spanish style homes such as Rose Mihata's, etc). He asked that the Planning Commission require
smooth plaster in shades of terra cotta and that the roof tiles be mudded. He asked that wood
windows be required. He submitted photographs of Casa Cody's 70-90 year-old windows. He
stated that, although the project has been delayed, he feels the developer will realize a 300%
increase in property value due to the improvements and timing. He asked that the Planning
Commission be very specific regarding materials. He thank the Chairman for allowing more time
for Public Comments than the customary three minutes.
Ms. Rose Mihata, Tahquitz Canyon Way resident, addressed the Planning Commission to state
that she is claiming her line-of-sight easement and that her real estate appraiser told her that the
proposed project will devalue her property by 25%to 30%. She stated that she had planned to put
a pool in her yard. She asked that the City Attorney be consulted regarding a line-of-sight
easement lawsuit in Highlands, California. She stated that she does not wish to sue the City. She
demanded her light-of-sight. She stated that Design Review comments were that there were too
many homes proposed for the site and suggested that fewer homes be built but that each home
be more expensive. She stated that Planned Development Districts require the highest and best
use of the land and that the proposed use is not. She stated that she plans to pay a Fire
Page 7 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
Department from another city to review the project as she is concerned regarding emergency
access. She stated that the Environmental Assessment is flawed. She stated that the Planning
Commission represents the citizens and that the Planning Commission can not take away her light-
of-sight easement. She stated that she feels there are flood issues which need to be addressed.
Ms. Sheryl Hamlin addressed the Planning Commission to state that she feels fire safety is an
issue and that she lived in a condominium development in Phoenix which had only one entry and
one exit and there was a large fire which completely consumed one unit in the development
because the Fire Department could not gain access. She stated that the proposed development
looks like a fire trap and that the City could be liable.
Mr. David Ball, CT Realty, applicant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the general
partner resigned 8-9 weeks ago and that, since then, he has met with staff and Design Review
three times and that those meetings were constructive and helpful. He stated that three people
from the Design Review group met with him on Monday and that he is in complete concurrence
with the suggestions of smooth, hand-troweled stucco, barrel tile as selected by Design Review,
custom garage doors, color pallette as recommended by Design Review, ornamental wrought iron
and wooden shutters, and fiberglass windows.
There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Caffery left the meeting.
Commissioner Shoenberger asked Director if the City could accept Mr. Bruggemans' offer of
property to improve the terminus at Tahquitz Canyon Way. Director stated that staff could craft a
Condition of Approval that would require the applicant to work with the adjoining property owner
to create an entry and parking program, increasing the number of parking spaces as part of the
final development plans.
Commissioner Jurasky abstained due to a conflict of interest.
Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium to address Commissioner Shoenberger's
question.
Mr. Alan Sanborn, Sanborn A&E, project engineer, addressed the Planning Commission to state
that the original design was a collaborative effort between Le Vallauris and the developer and that
the Mayor's comments resulted in the currently proposed design. He stated that a median island
was the focus of the Mayor's comments and not parking. He stated that, although an existing rock
wall may be an issue, the request can be accommodated.
Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he appreciated the applicant's willingness to consider the
many requests. He stated that he would like to see an alternative for the terminus explored,
acknowledging that it would be additional work for the applicant, as this is a very important project.
He stated that solving the Tahquitz Canyon Way terminus issue would be appreciated by everyone.
Mr. Sanborn stated that he could bring further collaborative results to the Planning Commission at
the time of final review.
Commissioner Shoenberger asked Director to address construction cycle.
Page 8 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
Directorstated that, ideally, grading and construction would be accomplished in summer; however,
the project is not far enough along with approved plans to build this summer. He stated that,
although building activity is disruptive, the City has fairly restrictive construction hours.
Commissioner Shoenberger asked applicant to address construction cycle.
Mr. Ball stated that, as soon as approval is secured, he intends to begin work as soon as possible
although grading plans are not done yet. He also stated that mudded tile is not consistent with the
architecture.
Chairman Klatchko asked Director to address the line-of-sight issue that Ms. Mihata discussed.
Director stated that staff is not aware of any easements and that the fundamental issue is whether
or not the property owner has the right to build within code on his property.
Commissioner Shoenberger stated that, unless there exists a recorded easement, there is no
inherent right to view protection.
Commissioner Raya stated that he feels there is insufficient guest parking and asked staff to
address Environmental Assessment challenges made during pubic comments.
Director reported that staff prepared the Initial Study and that Engineering reviews sewer issues.
He stated that impacts to water will be mitigated and are the same concerns as the last project
proposed at this site. He reported that normal seismic activity is a citywide issue and not specific
to this site and that soils testing at the Mercado, Desert Fashion Plaza, and Downtown Parking
Structure all show nothing unusual. He stated that there is no roof-mounted equipment proposed.
M/S (Raya/Grence) to approve project subject to Conditions of Approval; and
1. Roofs be mudded or a 10'x10' sample of proposed unmudded material be presented for
Planning Commission review;
2. 10 additional guest parking spaces be created;
3. Windows be Milgard true divided light.
Director stated that a 10'x10' sample could be difficult to transport.
Motion amended as follows:
M/S (Raya/Grence) to approve project subject to Conditions of Approval; and
1. 10 additional guest parking spaces be created;
2. Windows be Milgard true divided light.
Commissioner Shoenberger stated that he does not support the addition of 10 more guest parking
spaces as it may not be possible and asked applicant to address feasibility.
Mr. Sanborn stated that 30% to 50% of the spaces are guest parkable and are not reflected in the
guest parking count. ;
Mr. Baron stated that the offer made by Mr. Bruggemans could help solve the issue for on or offsite
Page 9 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
April 24, 2002
parking but it is not feasible to add 10 more spaces.
Motion amended as follows:
M/S (Raya/Grence 5-0, 2 abstain) to approve project subject to Conditions of Approval; and
1. Ten additional guest parking spaces be allowed in driveways per CC&Rs which will need
the City's prior approval to amend;
2. Condition No. 35 to include Milgard Craftsman grid, true divided light windows.
3. New Condition: No. 37—"Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, the Conditions
of Approval as set forth in the letter dated April 02, 2002 from Mr. Tom Davis, Director of
Planning for the Ague Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians to the Drown Foundation shall be
satisfied either by conveyance or so noted by separate lot and easement of said final tract
map."
Commissioner Shoenberger stated to Ms. Mihata that common law does not provide any right to
view protection; however, that does not mean that the Planning Commission not sensitive to view
issues and has considered this issue on this application.
Case 6. 1 —Application by the City of Palm Springs Police Department for a V lance to build a
shade stru re near the south property line at 200 South Civic Drive, CC Z Section 13.
M/S/C (Shoenber r/Raya 4-0, 1 abstention, 2 absent) to approve ubject to Conditions of
Approval in Staff Rep and relocation or redesign of existing par i g lot lighting.
CONSENT AGENDA: None
Sign Program—Application b est Signs fora Sign Program for ultiple business center located
at 310-320 North Palm C on Drive, CBD Zone, Section 15
M/S/C ( Raya/Gren 5-0, 2 absent) to approve as presented.
MISCE ANEOUS:
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's riling Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
No 7044
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NOTICE OFPUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING
G COMMISSION --
Case No. 5.0804-PD 254 ----
Tentative Tract Map 29077
A preliminary Planned Development(ED No.254),
related architectural approvals and tentative tract
map,for the Tahquitz Villas, a subdivamn of a 6 8
acre pparcel(APN k513-121-035 and 513-141-012)
into 50 parcels for clustered residential develop-
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of ment within a gated community, located to the
southwest of the intersection of Taicq Rz Canyon
the County aforesaid, I am over the age of eighteen YSay and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section -_
years,and not a party to or interested in the Applicant Tahgmtz Venture LLC, and CT Realty
above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a Corp. (formerly Bergheer California, Inc.)
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, Commission of the City of Palm Springs, Califor-
nia, will hold a pubbc hearing at its meeting,of
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, April 24,2002.The Planning Commission meeting
begggins at 1.30 p.m.(Public Hearings begin at 2:0
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been pm) e the City Council Chamber at City Hall,
32 0 E Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs,
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the California.
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of The purpose of the hearing is to consider an ap-
California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case ppbcal for an environmental assessment, a pre-
' liminary planned development district, related ar-
Number 191236;that the notice,of which the chitectural approvals, and a tentative tract map.
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller vrwn.r..
than non pariel,has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any IT
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit:
April 3rd
----------'---------'---------'---------------------------------
All in the year 2002
I certify(or declare)Under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct
3rd --clrr oiJ 'WINGS"
y
Dated at Palm Springs,California this--------------da -April
tl
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Envi-
of---------------------------------------2002 ionmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative Dec-
laration has been prepared. At this meeting, the
'Planning Commission at expected to recommend
that the City Council approve the proposed Mrti-
- ---'-__ gated Negative Declaration.
The proposed map, Initial Study and related dbe-
SlguatUre be-
tween n are available for public review dotty, be-
in the B am and 5 on at the De of Palm Springs
in the Planning and rayonRurali Department, located
at 2300 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 pn-
or to the Commission meeting.
Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all prop-
arty 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 di-
rected to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, De-
partment of Planning & Building, (760)323-8245.
/a/Douglas R.Evans
Director of Planning and Building
i Pi
RESOLUTION NO.
OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE 5.0804-PD (PD 254) ADOPTING
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVING CASE
NO. 5.0804-PD-254, A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT,
RELATED ARCHITECTURAL APPROVALS, AND TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP (TM 29077) FOR A GATED 50-UNIT MULTI FAMILY,
CLUSTER RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY LOCATED SOUTH WEST
OF THE INTERSECTION OF TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY AND
MUSEUM DRIVE, R-2 AND R-3 ZONE, SECTION 15.
WHEREAS,Tahquitz Venture, LLC. and CT Realty Corporation, (the"Applicants"),filed an application
with the City pursuant to Sections 9403.00 and 9402.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Planned
Development District and Preliminary Development Plan for a 50-unit multi family cluster residential
project for the property located on Tahquitz Drive between Tahquitz Canyon Way and Arenas Road,
east of Cahuilla Road, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 15; and
WHEREAS, the Tahquitz Venture, LLC. and CT Realty Corporation, (the "Applicants"), filed an
application with the City pursuant to Section 9.62.00 et. seq. of the Municipal Code for a Tentative Tract
Map for the subdivision of a 6.5 acre parcel into a 50 numbered lots and an number of lettered lots for
the property located on Tahquitz Way, west of Museum Drive, R-2 and R-3 Zones, Section 15; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to
consider an application for a Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Development District 5.0804(PD 254)
was issued in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS,said Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map were submitted to appropriate
agencies as required by the subdivision requirements of the Palm Springs Municipal Code, with the
request for their review, comments and requirements; and
WHEREAS, on September 12, 2001 and September 26, 2001, a public hearing on the application was
held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on September 26, 2001 the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City
Council approve said project; and
WHEREAS, on October 17, 2001, a public hearing on the application was held by the City Council in
accordance with applicable law, and at that meeting the City Council voted to referthe case back to the
Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has revised the project plans, increased th amount of usable open space,
reduced the project density from 52 units to 50 units, eliminated two-story buildings and substituted
single story buildings adjacent to Tahquitz Canyon Way and the R-1-A zoned properties, added
additional guest parking,eliminated bay parking and increased the size of the landscape median along
Tahquitz Canyon Way; and
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2002 and April 24 2002, a public hearing on the application was held by the
Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented
in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and
oral testimony presented and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the proposed project;
and
WHEREAS, on April 24, 2002, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council
approve the proposed project, subject to the attached conditions of approve; and
WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider the
subject applications was issued in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, on June 5, 2002, a public hearing on the application was held by the City Council
Commission in accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in
connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral
testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the City Council finds that, with the incorporation of proposed
mitigation measures, potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from this
project will be reduced to a level of insignificance, and therefore adopts a Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the project.
Section 2: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 9402.00, the City Council finds that:
a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a
Planned Development District is authorized by the City's zoning ordinance.
Pursuantto the Zoning Ordinance, multi-family residential is a permitted use within both the R-2
and R-3 zones.
b. The said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is in
harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to
the existing or future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be
located.
The proposed project consists the subdivision of 6.54 acres into 50 lots and the development
of a 50 unit, one and two story, attached and detached, multi-family cluster residential
development. The use is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, and numerous
improvements have been proposed in conjunction with the subject application(s). The project
will therefore not be detrimental to the existing orfuture uses permitted in the zone in which the
use is located.
C. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, including
yards,setbacks,walls or fences, landscaping and other features required in order to adjust said
use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood.
The applicant has revised the project and reduced the number of units, eliminated two-story
buildings from Tahquitz Canyon Way and abutting R-1 zoned properties, increased the amount
of guest parking, provided for a greater range of building separation,eliminated bay parking and
increased the size of the landscape median on Tahquitz Canyon Way. The site is adequate in
size and shape to accommodate the proposed uses, and the proposed density complies with
zoning regulations.
d. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved
to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use.
The proposed project includes a number of off-site improvements to Tahquitz Canyon 6,4
including a planted landscaped median, on street parallel parking and entry monuments.
Additional on-site improvements include colored paving, additional landscaping, sidewalks
and an area for vehicles to turn around. No turn around area currently exists, and thus is a
problem in the area. The proposed improvements are consistent with General Plan Policy
3.4.7, W. Tahquitz Canyon Way. The proposed project will contribute to the improvement of
the existing street system that will serve the site, and with said improvements, the public street
system will be adequate to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed
use.
e. The conditions to be imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and
general welfare, of the existing neighborhood in which this project is situated.
The conditions imposed are necessary to bring the project into compliance with applicable
zoning, building, and other regulations to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare
of the existing neighborhood in which this project is located.
Section 3: Pursuant to 9.62.010 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code and Section 92.01.00 et. sec.
of the Zoning Ordinance, the City Council finds that:
a. The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with all applicable general and specific plans.
The proposed Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the goals and objectives of the H43/30,
High Density Residential, General Plan designation which governs the subject property as well
as all property adjacent to the subject site.
b. The design and improvements of the proposed Tentative Tract Map are consistent with the R-2
and R-3 zones within which the property is located.
The Zoning Ordinance allows a density of one dwelling unit per 3,000 square feet and 2,000
square feet of lot area, respectively. The proposed project is consistent with existing
development in the immediate vicinity of the proposed project,particularly the existing two-story
and three-story residences located directly north of the site across Tahquitz Canyon Way and
multi-story multi family residential development located directly to the south of the property.The
adjacent residential development to the north of Tahquitz Canyon Way are single family
l d Cam' 3
residential units and a historic resort property.These existing multistory residences to the north
of the project 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 Desert Fashion Plaza and the Desert Museum are also located within 600' of the project
area.
C. The site is physically suited for this type of development.
Although significant slopes exist adjacent to the subject property, the project site is level and
each lot contains adequate developable building area. There are no bodies of water, ravines,
or significant topographic features on the subject property.
d. The site is physically suited for the proposed density of development.
The site is physically suited for the proposed number of lots, and the density of the subdivision
is consistent with that allowed by the General Plan.
e. The design of the subdivision is not likely to cause environmental damage or substantially and
avoidably injure fish, wildlife, or their habitats.
The Initial Study prepared for the project determined that the project is an in-fill development
and surrounded by development. All utilities and services are available on site. The site is
vacant and contains sparse vegetation. The site was previously developed with single family
residents and apartments and inhabited. Prior to that, the site was developed with a portion of
a golf course.There are no bodies of water on the subject property and therefore no fish will be
disturbed. The project will have no impact to endangered species of their habitats. Therefore,
the project will not individually or cumulatively have an adverse effect on wildlife, as defined in
Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code, and therefore a De Minimus impact
finding is appropriate.
f. The design of the subdivision ortype of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired
by the public at large,for access through or use of the propertywithin the proposed subdivision.
The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through or use of the
property.A number of easements,which are not plottable, transect the property; however,the
proposed subdivision will not interfere with these easements.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby
approves Case No. 5.0804-PD-254, (Planned Development District#254), and Tentative Tract Map
29077, subject to those conditions set forth in the attached Exhibit A, which are to be satisfied prior to
the issuance of building permits unless otherwise specified.
ADOPTED this 6th day of June, 2002.
AYES
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Clerk City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED AS TO FORM
EXHIBIT A
CASE NO. 5.0804-PD-254 AND TM 29077
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
June 5, 2002
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee,
depending on which department recommended the condition.
Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by
the City Attorney.
PLANNING DEPARTMENT:
1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the
Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and
resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations.
1a. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents,
officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs
or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City
of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning
Case 5.0804-PD-254 and TTM 29077. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the
applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the
applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs
or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm
Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to
cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend,
indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City
retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do
so, the City shall waive further indemnification hereunder, except, the City's decision to settle
or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a
waiver of the indemnification rights herein.
2. If, within two (2) years after the date of approval by the City Council of the preliminary
development plan,the final development plan, as indicated in Section 94.03.00(I), has not been
approved by the planning commission, the procedures and actions which have taken place up
to that time shall be null and void and the planned development district shall expire. Extensions
of time may be allowed for good cause.
3. The final development plans shall be submitted in accordance with Section 9403.00 of the
Zoning Ordinance. Final construction plans shall include site plans, building elevations, floor
plans, roof plans, grading plans, landscape plans, irrigation plans, exterior lighting plans, sign
program, mitigation monitoring program, site cross sections, property development standards,
West Tahquitz Canyon Way street improvement plans and other such documents as required
by the Planning Commission. Final construction plans shall be submitted within two years of
the Planning Commission approval.
4. The applicant priorto issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of covenants,
conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning and Building for approval in
a form to be approved by the City Attorney, to be recorded prior to issuance of occupancy
permits. The CC&R's shall be enforceable by the City, shall not be amended without City
approval, shall require maintenance of all property in a good condition and in accordance with
all ordinances.
B. The CCR's shall have a disclosure statement regarding the location of the project
relative to roadway noise, City special events, roadway closures for special events and
other activities which may occur in the Central Business District, Desert Museum and
Desert Fashion Plaza. Said disclosure shall inform perspective buyers about traffic,
noise and other activities which may occur in this area.
C. The CC&R's shall include a provision requiring City approval to amend the CC&R's.The
CC&R's shall also include a provision dedicating guest parking spaces in front of
garages dedicated to those individual units.
D. The applicant shall submit to the City of Palm Springs, a deposit in the amount of
$2,500 for the review of the CC&R's by the City Attorney.
4. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval
by the Department of Planning and Building prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape
plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to
submittal.
5. The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The
applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document Package to the Director of
Planning and Building for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer
to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements.
6. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or
curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering
specifications.
7. All roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage points both
existing and future per Section 9303.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. The screening shall be
considered as an element of the overall design and must blend with the architectural design of
the building(s). The exterior elevations and roof plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures
or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of
screening. Parapets shall be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening
8. No exterior down spouts shall be permitted on any facade on the proposed building(s) which
are visible from adjacent streets or residential and commercial areas.
9. The design, height, texture and color of building(s), fences and walls shall be submitted for
review and approval prior to issuance of building permits.
10. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height.
11. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 93.21.00, Outdoor
Lighting Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning &
Building prior to the issuance of building permits. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior
lighting shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning and Building prior to
issuance of a building permit. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, shielded down-
lights shall be utilized.
12. The detention basins and archeological sites shall be landscaped, to the extent possible.
13. Plans meeting City standards for approval on the proposed trash and recyclable materials
enclosure shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
14. Details of pool fencing (materials and color) and equipment area shall be submitted with final
landscape plan.
15. Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location of
handicapped parking spaces, the main entrance to the proposed pool structure and the path
of travel to the main entrance. Consideration shall be given to potential difficulties with the
handicapped accessibility to the building due to the future grading plans for the property.
18. The applicant shall construct the proposed Tahquitz Drive off-site improvements as part of
Phase I.
19. Restricted pool hours shall be posted. The pool shall not be used between the hours of 10 pm
to 7 am.
20. The maximum building height shall be 24'.
21. The applicant shall revise the grading plan to lower the grade in the easterly portion of the
project, with the objective of minimizing grade differences on site and off-site, to the greatest
extent possible.
22. The applicant shall prepare a parcel map or lot line adjustment map which will divide the
cemetery property including the drainage ditch from the rest of their property so that a legal
parcel which could be included in a grant deed to the Tribe at the time of conveyance.
23. Any and all cost related to any conditions imposed by the City of Palm Springs on the tentative
map to obtain the final map which conditions are related to the parcel to be conveyed to the
Tribe would be at the expense of the Tribe.
24. The applicant shall supply an easement for pedestrian and vehicular access for the ten feet
immediately to the east of the drainage ditch which easement will also be conveyed to the Tribe
at the time of the above conveyance.
25. Such conveyance and the easement shall be deemed a gift conveyance to the Tribe. The land
and easement to be used only for the protection and preservation of cultural and natural
resources of the Tribe, preservation of historic cemetery grounds, preservation of open space,
and the preservation of in place or respectful public display of archeological and cultural
resources of the land.
i l�O
26. The applicant shall not have to take any further action with respect to which of the various
possible access routes the Tribe would select.
27. The applicant shall prepare a legal description of the portion that will be included within the
parcel, and order a title commitment from a title company to be selected by the Drown
Foundation. If based upon that title commitment the Tribe elects to have title insurance issued,
the expense of a title policy will be absorbed by the Tribe.
28. The conveyance above described will take place no later than sixty days after final approval by
the City of Palm Springs of a development project approved by the Drown Foundation on the
remainder of the property.
29. If the conveyance does not occur within one year of the written acceptance by the Tribe of the
proposal contained in this letter, then the Tribe can request that the applicant proceed with
completion of a parcel map at the cost of the Tribe and when such map is recorded in the
Riverside County records, the applicant will deliver the conveyance within ten days thereafter.
30. The Tribe may approve the title commitment and no conveyance will be sent to the Tribe until
and unless the applicant receives a written response from the applicant that the title
commitment has been approved. The title commitment will include copies of any and all
exceptions to title recited therein.
31. 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 the Palm Springs Public Cemetery for an additional period of seven (7)
days. If the Tribe has not acted to take possession of the remains within that time period, the
remains can then be buried at the Palm Springs Public Cemetery.
32. The gift to the Tribe is conditioned on the applicant establishing to its satisfaction that a gift to
the Tribe is deductible for income tax purposes.
33. If there is a sale of remaining property,the applicant will require the Contract of Sale to contain
a provision obligating the buyer therein to comply with the provisions contained herein. The
Tribe will be given written notice of such sale and thereafter any underperformed provisions of
this agreement shall become the obligation of the buyer therein and our client shall have no
further obligation of performance.
34. The applicantwill hire,at their expense,archaeological monitor(s)recommended and approved
by the Tribal Council, for all subsequent work involving any excavation related to the
development of the remaining property.
35 The project materials shall include mudded two-piece clay tile roofs, smooth finished hand-
troweled stucco, wooden 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.
36. The applicant shall provide a sample panel of roof tile, 10'x 10' minimum size for review by the
Design Review Committee prior to approval of the Final Planned Development District.
10
37. Prior to approval of the final subdivision map,the Conditions of approval as set forth in the letter
dated April 02, 2002 from Mr. Tom Davis, Director of Planning for the Agua Caliente Band of
Cahuilla Indians to the Tahquitz Venture, LLC. (formerly Drown Foundation and Bergheer
California, LLC.) shall be satisfied either by conveyance or so noted by separate lot and
easement of said final tract map.
38. The applicant shall restudy the termination of Tahquitz Canyon Way, prior to approval of the
Final Planned Development District. The restudy shall include the relocation of the Le Vallauris
trash area, provide additional parking and augment the landscaping, paving and
monumentation.
MITIGATION MEASURES
W-1. The applicant shall construct on site detention areas and related facilities as depicted on
Tentative Tract Map 29077. This includes, "Lot F", 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 "G" on Tentative Tract Map 29077.
The "Lot G" detention basin, which measures approximately one quarter of an acre in area
(15,176 square feet) and 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 orderto prevent on-going problems with erosion,the detention
basins shall be landscaped. These basins shall be subject to regular landscape maintained.
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.
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 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.
CR-1. In regards to the Native American Cemetery, if construction within the area northwest of the
Tahquitz 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 Agua 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 determined to be
related to the Tahquitz Ditch, the applicant shall submit an application to the City of Palm
Springs for historic designation of the structure.
d Y ��
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT:
The Public Works & Engineering Department recommends that if this application is approved, such
approval is subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City
standards and ordinances:
Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
STREETS
1. Any improvements within the street right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment
Permit.Work shall be allowed according to Resolution 17950-Restricting Street Work on Major
and Secondary Thoroughfares.
2. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering
Department.The plan(s)shall be approved by the City Engineer priorto issuance of any grading
or building permits.
Minimum submittal shall include the following, IF applicable:
A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department.
B. Street Vacation plat and all agreements and improvement plans approved by City
Engineer, IF applicable.
C. Proof of processing dedications of right-of-way, easements, encroachment
agreements/licenses, covenants, reimbursement agreements, etc. required by these
conditions.
TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY WEST
3. Construct project entry improvements and entry drive to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
3A. Six(6) inch curb and gutter shall be constructed 7 feet south of the base centerline of the street
along the Le Vallauris frontage per CPS Std. Dwg. No. 200.
3B. Three(3)parking bays(numbered 6 through 8 on TTM 29077) may be constructed with a 5 foot
wide sidewalk going around the perimeter of the parking bays and continuing westerly to the
project entry.
3C. Driveways for La Vallauris shall be extended to the new curb and gutter location and driveway
approaches constructed per CPS Std. Dwg. No.204.
3D. The 36 foot long, 5 foot wide decorative, raised median island on the west side of the
intersection with Museum Drive may be constructed. Details shall be approved by the City
Engineer and the Director of Planing and Building.
ON-SITE STREETS (PRIVATE)
4 Construct a 6 or 8 inch curb and gutter(as required by the hydrology study), 14 feet both sides
of centerline along on-site streets, per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 200.
/ �� �(
5. On-site vehicular turnarounds(hammerhead or similar configuration)shall be constructed at the
end of all driveways accessing Lots 2 through 4, 7 through 10, 13 through 16, 19 through 22,
25 through 28, 31 through 34, 37 through 40, 43 through 48, and 50 through 52 to the
satisfaction of the Fire Chief and City Engineer.
6. The minimum pavement section for all on-site streets/parking areas shall be 2-1/2 inch asphalt
concrete pavement over 4-inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95%
relative compaction, OR equal. The pavement section shall be designed, using 'R" values,
determined by a licensed Soils Engineer and submitted with the Fine Grading Plan to the City
Engineer for approval.
7. The following requirements for a gated entry shall be met to provide adequate setbacks and
turning movements for vehicles entering the primary parking facilities of this project:
A. Provide a minimum curb cut of 60 feet
B. Provide a minimum 50 foot setback to the access gate control mechanism.
C. Provide a turnaround after the mechanism for vehicles unable to enter the project
D. Security gates shall be a minimum of 14 feet clear width in each direction.
8. On-street parking on the on-site private streets shall be prohibited by the HOA, except for
parking in designated spaces off of on-site streets. The HOA shall monitor and enforce 'no
parking'via the installation of'no parking'signs and painting of red curb along all on-site private
streets.
SANITARY SEWER
9. Connect all sanitary facilities to the City sewer system. Lateral shall not be connected at
manhole. Sewer mains and laterals in Private Streets shall be maintained by the HOA.
GRADING
10. A copy of a Title Report prepared/updated within the past 3 months and copies of record
documents shall be submitted to the City Engineer with the first submittal of the Grading Plan.
11. Submit a Grading Plan prepared by a Registered Professional to the Engineering Department
for plan check. Grading plan shall be submitted to the Planning Department for comments prior
to submittal to the Engineering Department. The PM 10 (dust control) Plan shall be submitted
to and approved by the Building Division priorto approval of the grading plan.The Grading Plan
shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Minimum submittal includes the following:
A. Copy of Planning Department comments regarding the grading plan.
B. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department.
C. Copy of Site Plan stamped approved and signed by the Planning Department.
1 �i�l
D. Copy of Title Report prepared/updated within past 3 months.
E. Copy of Soils Report, IF required by these conditions.
F. Copy of Hydrology Study/Report, IF required by these conditions.
G. Copy of the General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State Water
Resources Control Board (Phone No. 916 657-0687) to the City Engineer prior to
issuance of the grading permit.
12. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks-3'wide and 6"deep-
to keep nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways, or gutters.
13. Developer shall obtain a General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit from the State
Water Resources Control Board (Phone No. (916)-657-0687) and provide a copy of same,
when executed, to the City Engineer prior to issuance of the grading permit.
14. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.00, the developer shall
post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per acre for mitigation
measures of erosion/blowsand relating to his property and development.
15. A soils report prepared by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer shall be required for and
incorporated as an integral part of the grading plan for the proposed site. A copy of the soils
report shall be submitted to the Building Department and to the Engineering Department along
with plans, calculations and other information subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to
the issuance of the grading permit.
16. Contactthe Building Department to get information regarding the preparation of the PM10(dust
control) Plan requirements.
17. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the California
Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading
permits involving an engineered grading plan and the export of native soil from the site will be
required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture
representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within
Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties' (RIFA Form CA-1) or a
verbal release from that office prior to the issuance of the City grading permit. The California
Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive,Palm Desert.
(Phone: 760-776-8208)
DRAINAGE
18. The developer shall accept all flows impinging upon his land and conduct these flows to an
approved drainage structure. On-site retention/detention or other measures approved by the
City Engineer shall be required if off-site facilities are determined to be unable to handle the
increased flows generated by the development of the site. Provide calculations to determine if
the developed Q exceeds the capacity of the approved drainage carriers.
19. The project is subject to flood control and drainage implementation fees.The acreage drainage
fee at the present time is$9,212.00 per acre per Resolution No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior
to issuance of a building permit.
GENERAL
20. Any utility cuts in the existing off-site pavement made by this development shall receive trench
replacement pavement to match existing pavement plus one additional inch. See City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. Pavement shall be restored to a smooth rideable surface.
21. All proposed utility lines on/or adjacent to this project shall be undergrounded prior to issuance
of a Certificate of Occupancy.
22. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading/street plans. The existing and proposed
service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. The approved original
grading/street plans shall be as-built and returned to the City of Palm Springs Engineering
Department prior to issuance of the certificate of occupancy.
23. All existing and proposed utility lines that are less than 35 kV on/or adjacent to this project shall
be undergrounded.The location and size of the existing overhead facilities shall be provided to
the Engineering Department along with written confirmation from the involved utility company(s)
that the required deposit to underground the facility(s) has been paid, prior to issuance of a
grading permit.
All undergrounding of utilities shall be completed prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
24. The developer is advised to contact all utility purveyors for detailed requirements for this project
at the earliest possible date.
25. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the corner cut-off area of any driveway which does
or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing No. 203.
26. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or
curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering
specifications.
MAP
27. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property, the traverse
closures for the existing parcel and all lots created therefrom, and copies of record documents
shall be submitted with the Final Map to the Engineering Department.
28. The Title Report prepared for subdivision guarantee for the subject property and the traverse
closures for the existing parcel and all areas of right-of-way or easement dedication shall be
submitted to the City Engineer for review and approval with the Grant Deed.
29. The Final Map shall be prepared by a licensed Land Surveyor or qualified Civil Engineer and
submitted to the Engineering Department for review. Submittal shall be made prior to issuance
of grading or building permits.
TRAFFIC
30. The developer shall provide a minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk clearance around all street
furniture, fire hydrants and other above-ground facilities for handicap accessibility. The
developer shall provide same through dedication of additional right-of-way and widening of the
sidewalk or shall be responsible for the relocation of all existing traffic signal/safety light poles,
conduit, pull boxes and all appurtenances located on the TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY WEST
frontage of the subject property.
31. The developer shall re-stripe the northbound and westbound approaches to the Tahquitz
Canyon Way/Belardo Road intersection to provide for two-lane approaches. The developer
shall provide traffic striping plans for City Engineer approval.
32. The developer shall pay its"fair share'amount of$12,000.00 toward a future Tahquitz Canyon
Way/Belardo Road traffic signal.
33. Separate striping plans are to be prepared and submitted along with street improvement plans
for review and approval by the City Engineer.
34. Street name signs shall be required at each intersection in accordance with City of Palm
Springs Standard Drawing Nos. 620 through 625.
35. The developer shall install a 30 inch "STOP" sign and standard "STOP BAR" and "STOP
LEGEND"fortraffic exiting the project site per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing Nos.620
through 625 at the following locations:
SE COR. PROJECT ENTRY @ TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY WEST
36. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required
by City Standards or as directed by the City Engineer.As a minimum, all construction signing,
lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of
Transportation, "MANUAL OF TRAFFIC CONTROLS FOR CONSTRUCTION AND
MAINTENANCE WORK ZONES"dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of
construction.
37. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee based on the MULTI-
FAMILY ITE Code B land use.
FIRE
1. Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location of
handicapped parking spaces, the main entrance to the proposed structure and the path of
travel to the main entrance. Consideration shall be given to potential difficulties with the
handicapped accessibility to the building due to the future grading plans for the property.
2. Construction shall be in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code, 1998 California Building
Code, Desert WaterAgency standards, NFPAstandards,plus UL/CSFM listings and approvals.
3. Addresses shall be in accordance with the 1998 Building Code.
4. Palm Springs fire apparatus require an outside turning radius of 43 from centerline. An inside
turning radius of 30' is required.
5. Construction site fencing is required; access gates shall be at least 14" in width and equipped
with a frangible chain and lock.
6. All water supplies, standpipes, and fire hydrants shall be installed in accordance with the 1998
California Fire Code and Desert Water Agency standards.
7. An automatic fire sprinkler system with 24 hour monitoring shall be required.
IY�/S --"'
8. Portable fire extinguishers are required in accordance with the 1998 California Fire Code.
9. Vertical Fire Apparatus Clearance: Palm Spring Fire apparatus require an unobstructed vertical
clearance of not less than 14' -6".
10. Road Design: Fire Apparatus access roads shall be designed and constructed as all weather
capable and able to support a fire truck weighting 67,500 lbs., per the 98 CFC, Art. 9, Sec
902.2.2.2 and City of Palm Springs Ordinance 1570.
11. Building or Complex Gate Locking Devices: Gate(s) shall be equipped with KNOX key switch
device or key box. Contact Fire Inspector for a KNOX application form.
12. Driveway Width: Driveways shall be a minimum of 12' of unobstructed width.
13. Site Plan: Provide Fire Inspector with two 8.5"x 1 T'site plans.Approved locations for the Fire
Department connection and fire hydrants will be marked on this site plan, with one copy being
returned to the applicant. The second copy will be retained by the Fire Department.
14. Because of the narrow width of the roadways, parking will only be allowed on one side. Red
curbs restricting parking on the opposite side of the streets will be required.
BUILDING
1. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured.