HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/6/2002 - STAFF REPORTS (9) Date: March 6, 2002
To: City Council
From: Director of Planning & Building
CASE 5.0804-PD(PD 254)APPLICATION BY TAHQUITZ VENTURE,LLC.AND CT REALTY
CORPORATION, FORMERLY BERGHEER, CALIFORNIA INC., 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:
The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council file a mitigated negative
declaration and approve Case No. 5.0804-PD-254 for Planned Development District and
Tentative Tract Map(TTM 29077)for the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel into 50 residential lots
and seven common area lots for development as a gated 50-unit multi-family cluster residential
community, located on the south side of Tahquitz Canyon Way,west of Museum Drive(APNs
513-121-035 and 513-141-012), subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
A revised application has been received for 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-A 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 held a public hearing, reviewed the revised
application, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the project.
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.
Five models are proposed,two single story and three two story,which feature variations of the
great room concept.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.The five single story units would
be 18 feet in height, with the remaining two story units at 24'. Proposed on-site recreational
facilities for the project consist of a pool, spa, and accompanying restrooms/pool building.fiq
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.
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 fora 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,forthe purpose of this analysis,staff has utilized the R-3 development
standards.
If the applicantwanted to developthe 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 oftheZoning 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 18'-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'to 24' Side-20'
(10' or equal to building
height if height if over 12')
Rear- 10'to 24' 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 zone. However, variations to certain
development standards have been proposed.These include deviations with respect to side and
rear yard setbacks and building separation as noted above.
fA3
BUILDING HEIGHT AND SETBACKS
In response to the City Council direction, the applicant revised the plan to eliminate two-story
buildings adjacent to the R-1 zone boundary along Tahquitz Drive. In their place, single story
buildings have been substituted. In compliance with the R-3 zone,the two story buildings which
are 24' in height, are 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/City Council 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 one 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 lir,cited 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.
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 prn 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 the traffic analysis demonstrated Saturday afternoon traffic conditions to be the worst-
case condition forthis 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.
By2010,based on"Build Out"traffic projections,all study intersections exceptTahquitz 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. qer
WEST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY/TAHQUITZ DRIVE TRANSITION
In response to City Council direction,the applicant revised the plan to eliminate bay parking, re-
orient on-street 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. 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 20'wide primary entry driveway, designed in accc,rdance
with Fire Department specifications.Ateardrop shaped,16'wide landscaped median separates
the primary entry lane and the 18'wide exit lane. The median was designed with a tear drop
shape to accommodate fire truck and large vehicle turning movements into the proposed
project. A second 8' landscaped median will provide a buffer between the primary entry drive
and guest entryway,and will also allow for mis-directed vehicles to turn around and the.The 16'
wide guest lane will be equipped with a phone and address board for guests to call their hosts
and announce their arrival.
PROJECT DESIGN
Sincethe October 17,2001 City Council public hearing on this project,the applicant hasworked
with the Planning Commission to incorporate revisions request by the City Council into the
project.Staff is of the opinion that the proposed site plan and architectural design of the project,
as depicted in the site plan, landscape plan, project elevations, cross sections and materials
board,is consistent with both the high standards established within the City of Palm Springs and
existing development in the area.
The project materials include two-piece tile roofs,smooth finish, hand troweled stucco,wooden
garage doors, iron grillwork, and decorative shutters and awnings.
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 prepared by staff for the Planned Development and Tentative Tract Map was
revised on December 19, 2001. In the Initial Study, the Planning Commission 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, the Planning Commission feels that any environmental issues will be
mitigated to a level of insignificance. The proposed mitigation measures are included in the
conditions of approval.
The Planning Commission concurred with the determination of the Initial Study and the
appropriateness of the mitigation measures, and voted to recommend issuance of a Mitigated
Negative Declaration by the City Council.
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
to this report.
DOUGLAS WEVANS
Director of Planning and Building
City Manager
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Vicinity Map
2. Initial Study
3. Correspondence
4. General Plan Policy 3.4.7, W. Tahquitz Canyon Way
5. Planning Commission minutes, September 12, 2001 and September 26, 2001
6. Planning Commission minutes January 9, 2002
7. City Council minutes, October 17, 2001
8. Resolution
9. Conditions of Approval 1?#7
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 Cs. 5.0804, a
Preliminary Planned Development District(PD No.267)and Tentative Tract
Map 29077, for subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel, located to the southwest of
intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way & Museum Dr., applicant Bergheer
California,Inc.,was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on
the 1 Ith day of February, 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.
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 110h day of February, 2002.
ATRICIA A. SANDERS
City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
Case No. 5.0804, a Preliminary Planned Development District (PD No. 267) and Tentative Tract
Map 29077, for 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, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15.
Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California,will hold
a public hearing at its meeting of March 6, 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.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary planned development
district and a tentative tract map.
The proposed project is a 50 unit clustered residential development within a gated community.
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared. At this meeting, the City Council is expected to approve the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The proposed map, Initial Study and related documents are available for public review daily,
between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Building Department,
located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way.
If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those
issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior
to the Commission 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 maybe directed to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department
of Planning & Building, (760) 323-8245.
Patricia A Sanders
City Clerk
VICINITY MAP
N.T.S.
i'FT-hquit Canyon Way
SyTE
BAPoSTO ROAD
CIJY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE
NO. Case No.5.0804-PD-267 DESCRIPTION
Tentative Tract Map 29077
APPLICANT A Preliminary Planned Development District and
the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel Into 50 parcels,
- located to the south west of the intersection of
TAHQUITZ VENTURE,LLC.AND Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive,
CT REALTY CORPORATION Zone R-3/R-2,Section 15.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
INITIAL STUDY
Revised: December 19, 2001
Application No(s:): Case No. 5.0804, Planned Development District No. 254
and Tentative Tract Map 29077
Date of Completed Application: 8/15/01
Name of Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc.
Project Description: Planned Development District and Tentative Tract Map for a gated
50 unit, one and two story, multi-family residential development.
Location of project: APN # 513-121-35 and 513-141-12; Tahquitz Canyon Way, south
west of the corner of Museum Drive, west of Cahuilla Road.
General Plan Designation(s): H43/21 (High Density Residential)
Proposed General Plan Designation(s): No change proposed
Present Land Use(s): Vacant
Existing Zoning(s): R-3 (Multiple Family Residential and Hotel)
'A small portion of the southwest corner of the project site is zoned
R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential)
Proposed Zoning(s): No change proposed
I. Is the proposed action a "project" as defined by CEQA? (See
section 2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is
present in the same area, cumulative impactshould be considered). ®Yes ❑No
II. 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" Qn III., does the project fall under any of the Statutory ❑Yes ®No
Exempt iMs 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 Developmen: 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.
Vill. Surrounding Zoning and Land Uses:
North: R-1-A(Single Family Residential); Single Family Residential
South: R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential) and R-3 (Multiple
Family Residential and Hotel); Apartments and Hotels
East: R-3 (Multiple Family Residential); Hotel, Restaurant
West: R-2 (Limited Multiple Family Residential); Vacant
Surrounding General Plan:
North: L-2 (Low Density Residential)
South: H 43/21 (High Density Residential)
East: H 43/21 (High Density Residential)
West: L-2 (Low Density Residential)
94010%m
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 mN/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 mN/A
Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan ❑Yes ❑No mN/A
X. Are there any of the following studies required?
1. Soils Report []Yes ®No
2. Slope Study ❑Yes ®No
3. Geotechnical Report ❑Yes mNo
4. Traffic Study ®Yes []No
5. Air Quality Study ❑Yes mNo
6. Hydrology ®Yes []No
7. Sewer Study ❑Yes mNo
8. Biological Study ❑Yes mNo
9. Noise Study ❑Yes mNo
10. Hazardous Materials Study ❑Yes mNo
11. Housing Analysis ❑Yes mNo
12. Archaeological Report mYes ❑No
13. Groundwater Analysis ❑Yes mNo
14. Water Quality Report ❑Yes mNo
15. Other ❑Yes mNo
10413
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 H43130 on the City's General Plan.In the opinion of the
Planning Division,the project is compatible with the City's General Plan and 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 q)f 1
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 multifamily 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 of Tahquitz Canyon.From
the photo simulation,it is evident that views of the back ofthe 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-esult 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 of the project.The proposed project includes 24'tall, two story residential buildings with an average setback of 203'to abutting R-1
zoned property, (four buildings with a setback of 173'and two building with a setback of 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 closer to 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 of which 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 or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading and fill? ❑ ❑ ❑
6
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
g) Subsidence of the land? ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Expansive soils? ❑ ❑ ❑
1) Unique geologic or physical features? ❑ ❑ ❑
j) Is a major landform, ridgeline, canyon, etc.
involved? ❑ ❑ ❑
3. a-j)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 complywith 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 specific 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 4?A/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? Cl ❑ ❑
c) Discharge into surface waters or other
alternation of surface water quality
(e.g. temperature, dissolved oxygen or
turbidity)? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any
water body? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction
of water movements? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
f) Change in the quantity, of ground waters, either
through direct additions or withdrawals,or through
interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations,
or through substantial loss of groundwater
recharge capability? ❑ ❑ ❑
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of
groundwater? ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? ❑ ❑ ❑
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of
groundwater otherwise available forpublicwater
supplies? ❑ ❑ ❑
j) Are there any on-site or any proposed wells? ❑Yes ®No
4.a,e) POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATION INCORPORATED. The subject site is vacant and sporadically covered with
native vegetation. The development of the proposed 50-unit condominium project will increase the amount of hard surface and will
therefore result in some additional storm water run-off,but this should not be significant Hydrology calculations provided by by Sanborn
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 cfs 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 of the project.
This is depicted as Lot"E"on Tentative Tract Map 29077(dated September 2001).Tentative Tract Map 29077 indicates that the proposed
detention basin,"Lot E",measures just over half an acre in area(23,213 square feet).The basin is designed with a 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
8 494*18
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 462,the top of the basin is located at an elevation of 459.On-site storm flows
will be directed to a proposed retention basin located along the property's eastern boundary,which is depicted as Lot"F"on Tentative Tract
Map 29077.The"Lot F"detention basin,which measures approximately one quarter of an acre in area(15,176 square feet)and features
a slope of2:1,or a slope angle of50%.The basin is located as a buffer along the south eastern boundary of the project.In orderto enhance
views from the surrounding hillside areas and in orderto prevent on-going problems with erosion,the detention basins shall be landscaped.
These basins shall be subject to regular landscape maintained.
4.b,c,d,f,g,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,alterthe flow of groundwater,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. Therefor,:,the project will not be impacted by water and flood related issues nor create impacts on water related
issues.
5. AIR QUALITY
Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to
an existing or projected air quality violation? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Alter air movement,moisture,or temperature,or
cause any change in climate? ❑ ❑ ❑
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)CEQAAir 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 ofthe project. Shortterm impacts,such as odors and pollution created bydiesel
engines of large equipment during construction and grading operations,may occur as a result of the development of the site but due to
their short term nature these are considered less than significant.
6. TRANSPORTATIONURCULATION
Would the proposal result in:
a) Estimated Average Daily Trips generated by the
project? (S.F=10; M.F. = 6; or from ITE):
In Out Total
Saturday Midday
Peak Hour 31 26 57
AM Weekday
Peak Hour 12 34 46
PM Weekday
Peak Hour 38 22 60
Saturday Daily: 277 277 554
Weekday Daily 284 284 568
b) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
c) Hazards to safety from design features(e.g.,sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses(e.g.,farm equipment)? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
d) Inadequate emergency access or access
to nearby uses? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
e) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-
site? ❑ ❑ ❑
f) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or
bicyclists? ❑ ❑ ❑ 19
g) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting
alternative transportation (e.g.bus turnouts,
bicycle racks)? ❑ ❑ ❑
h) Rail,waterborne or air traffic impacts? ❑ ❑ ❑
6. b-d)POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT UNLESS MITIGATED. A Traffic Impact Study for the Tahquitz Villas Project in the City of Palm
Springs was prepared for the project by Albert Grover&Associates(July 5,2001).The traffic study indicates that the future development
of this subdivision will create approximately 568 daily 2-way trips. The report further notes that the project is expected to generate
10
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
approximately 57 trip ends(31 inbound and 26 outbound)during the Saturday afternoon peak hour The most critical combination of project
traffic and adjacent street traffic within the study area will occur between 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 forthis 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.
Traffic conditions for 2002"Opening Year'without the addition of traffic from the project are notexpected to change from existing conditions.
With the addition of project traffic during"Opening Year, all Levels-of-Service at each study intersection will remain unchanged from
existing conditions.Therefore,no improvements are necessary to maintain acceptable 2002 traffic operations either without or with the
project.
By 2010,based on"Build Out"traffic projections,all study intersections except Tahquitz Canyon Way and Belardo Road will continue to
operate at acceptable levels of service,although typically one"Level of Service'lower than for existing/2002 traffic. No roadway traffic
control improvements are recommended to accommodate"Build Out"2010 traffic or as a consequence of the proposed development.
The intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and 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 lane and the 18'wide exit lane.The median was redesigned
as a tear drop shape to facilitate fire truck turning and entry movements into the proposed project.
MITIGATION MEASURES:
T-1.The developer shall pay the"fair share'cost of a two phase signal to be located at the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and
Belardo Street. The fair share is to be calculated as a percentage of overall traffic growth from 2001 to 2010 at the intersection.Based on
a fair share percentage of 12%,the developers contribution of the cost of the new signal is$12,000.
T-2. The western terminus of 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 of the proposed project,nor will it conflict
with adopted policies supporting alternative transportation. The proposal will not impact rail,waterborne or air traffic.
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 (inducting but not limited to plants,fish,
insects,animals, and birds)? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Locally designated species? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Locally designated natural communities(e.g.
oak forest,coastal habitat,etc.)? ❑ ❑ ❑
d) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and
vernal pool)? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? ❑ ❑ p
f) Is consultation with the California Fish and Gan•=
or the Department of Fish and Wilu fe
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? ❑ ❑ ❑
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 q4#Ob
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? ❑ ❑ ❑ IR
e) Increase the risk of fire hazard in areas with
flammable brush,grass or trees? ❑ ❑ ❑ tA
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
6-F of the Palm Springs Municipal
Airport F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility
study? ®YES ❑NO
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? ❑ p ❑
Distance to nearest fire station(1/4 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? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Communications systems? ❑ ❑ ❑
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities? ❑ p ❑
d) Sewer or septic tanks? ❑ ❑ ❑
e) Storm water drainage? ❑ ❑ ❑
14 4711a Y
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 a building permit.All lighting shall be designed to protect
the night sky,through the use of shielded and directed down lighting If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings,down lights will
be required to be utilized. Compliance with the Lighting Ordinance will reduce impacts due to lighting or glare to a level of less than
significant.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? ❑ ❑ ❑
b) Disturb archaeological resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
c) Affect historical resources? ❑ ® ❑ ❑
15 fAC �r
Potentially
Significant
Potentially Unless Less Than No
Significant Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change
which would affect unique ethnic cultural value0 ❑ ® ❑ ❑
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 foraddressing 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 Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians defined a location of an Indian Burial Ground on the westernmost portion
of the site. Resolution 51-00 of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians direct tribal staff to act on behalf of the tribe to take the
necessary steps to accomplish the tribes goal of obtaining title to the area determined to be sacred ceremonial burial grounds.The Ague
Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians has provided the City with evidence in the form of correspondence between the tribe and the applicant
that the tribe is moving forward on obtaining the cemetery property and Tahquitz Ditch. Therefore, there should be no impact to
paleontological resources as a result of this project.
MITIGATION MrASURES
CR-t.ln 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 ofthe 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 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-b)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-tens 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.
is. LISTED BELOW THE PERSON OR PERSONS WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION OF THE
INITIAL STUDY:
Douglas R Evans, Director of Planning&Building
Hope Sullivan,Planning Manager
Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner
David Barakian,City Engineer
19. DETERMINATION
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
❑ I find the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
® 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,there will not be a significant
effect in this case because of the mitigation measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
❑ I find the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment,and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
is required.
❑ 1 find that the proposed project is consistent with the Program EIR on:
_ December 20,2001
Douglas . Ev s Date
Director of PI nning&Building
18 ��
FROM ROSE-MIHATA FAX NO. : 7663209395 Feb. 22 2002 12:20FM P1
Rose E.Mihata
468 West Tahquitz Canyon Way
Patin Springs
CA. 92262
Phone: (760) 320-0982 Fax. (760) 320-9395
December 27,2001
City Clerk
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
3200 East Tgxpdtz Canyon Way
Palm Springs
CA.92262
Re:Case 5.0804-PD 254/Eergh=Caftmia,Inc
Bear Council Members,
Unfortunately, I am unable to attend the City meeting on January 9,2002,as I
will be out of the country. I hope my interests and those of the other City
Residents concerned,will be considered,
As I expressed in my earlier letter,I was concerned that a Full Environmental
Impact Study had not been obtained and 1 strongly recommend this because of
the following incidents:
At the last City meeting on October 17,2001,I voiced another concern and put a
scenario to yourself and the other Council Members. This was with regard to the
increase in the traffic congestion and how this could hamper the Fire Dept,
Paramedics and Police Dept,in the evert of an emergency. On the night of the
Palm Springs Christmas Light Parade,traffic was being diverted around Palm
Canyon through Museum Drive. There were coaches with people attending the
The Follies,parked along Tahquit7 Canyon Way. The Le Valluris Restaurant
FROM ROSE-MIHRTR FAX NO. : 7663209395 Feb. 22 2002 12:21PM P2
1
was then busy,with dinner guests. My Daughter had put her children in the car
to leave,when she reached The Willows Hotel, she was eonfronted with a fire
truck and two paramedic trucks that were attending an emergency at the hotel,
which had completely blocked the entranco%uit. They sat in the car for ten
minutes before, a paramedic returned and moved a vehicle to enable them to
squeeze past,but in moving their truck to the side, they were then blocking Le
Valluris.
When talking to your Attorney David ALshire at the last city council meeting,I
told him my concerns. If I had an emergency,as I have a pre-existing health
problem,which could require paramedic assistance at anytinne. If the road was
blocked,it could be the difference between life and death and that the SAFETY
of the residents in the area is paramount and should be the fast thing to be
considered when a project is put to the planning Dept. Again,this is the sort of
thing that would be highlighted in the Full Environmental Impact Study. David
Alshire agreed with my concerns and understood them as,he himself had come
very close to having an accident two weeks prior at Le Valluris and that it was
obvious to anyone who had driven in that area that increasing the traffic would
only worsen an existing dangerous traffic zone. Please review the enclosed
photographs.
yours trtily,
CJ K
�Q '
Rose E.Mihata
cc. Alex Meyerhoff
Planning Commission
OCT 17 �001" D LETTER OF SUPPORT PLANNING DIVISION
TAHQUITZ PROJECT — BERGHEER CALIFORNIA
OCTOBER 17, 2001
Dear Mayor and City Council Members,
I have met with Karl Bergheer over the past year to discuss the
development adjacent to Le Vallauris and it's effect on our entry area.
I have watched the plan develop to its current configuration.
I believe the Developer has been generous and sensitive to the
surrounding neighborhood and property owners. The most recent
changes to the set backs and drainage certainly indicate this approach.
I am in support of the Project and believe the quality of Buyer will
benefit the area and business owners.
chi
Brugge ans
Le Vallauris
10/12/2001 00:03 7603201428 SGD PAGE 06
SCD
teven Cheroske Design
ASID
530 West TahWltz Canyon Way Phase:760.320,4020
Patin SPdngs,California 92262 Fax:760.320.1428
October 12, 2001
Jeanne Spurgin
City Hall J3200 E. Tahquitz C inyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
ROL Case 5.0804-PID 54 Bergheer California Inc.
Dear Ms. Spurgin,
I live at 530 W.Tahquitz Can on way and face the proposed development of 53
condominiums, by Bergheer California Inc.
1 am strongly opposed to this development for the following reasons,
1. It is not compatible with the million dollar single family homes facing this
project. I know that this proje I could impact the value of my property, if it is not
re-designed to a higher scale
2.The development does NO r meet current set back and separation codes set
by our city. Ether we are goir g to conform to codes or we are not. What good
are the codes, if we do not fol ow them?
3. There is only one way in af d one way out of this project. If the 8'separations
are approved it will be a majo fire hazard. If one condo catches fire it could .
endanger the entire complex, homes and hill side. I would find it hard to believe
you could get the necessary I re trucks in to this area,while trying to get people
out of danger.
4. The current area cannot handle the traffic this project would bring. Just last
week the Willows Inn had a p irly of 50 cars. It took me 10 minutes to get down
my street, to home. What will happen when we add 53 homes, pool men, mail
men, repair people, utility pea ple, the restaurant , the Willows, catering trucks,
sed445%te-net
4?03X
10/12/2001 00: 03 76032" 420 SCD PAGE 07
Steven Cheroske Design Page 2 October 12,2001
deliveries, the Museum? Jus think about it and the new Desert Fashion Plaza
Traffic.
A$E SEND IT BAGS,
10 PLANNING UNTIL WE !AN ET IT RIGHT. WE-Wfl4JJAYRjkLff.E
WITH IHIS FOR DECADES TO COME. IF WE RUSH IN ON AN APPROVAL.
WE WILL
1 sincerely hope you will revi w this project very closely. 1 will be at the meeting
on thW17th of October and hope you will send this project back to planning.
Sincerely
Steven Cheroske &Timothy Helyer
sea446@gt9.not q44 33
1O-12-201 3:54PM FROt 'NSLTNTSINTL WEITHRN 1 760 32.- 13O9 P. 1
F PA(,j
RC�lb` EE CNN s,
a 193Oa• dEagct gat�leri aet�eat ��T J p ci��
t . V�
U CYO . / a I
/I. fY1 f�wt S .� i��E 2 f-v� C t UK c
J ) 1.
�Pv°� K�arn•.;X r-ew. Y
e
d +�7 GY'� 6S.\
����� -ei�Ccc.cG� `f`ri,.�,�. -�IG�c-�.t-�j1(•2+a .:� � Lim '
{ �' 7""'� �d� �"".�' �� q �,�^^ ,^, f"V��✓%few �f/.?
>
92262
(7 SOUTH BELAFAX flOA3• PALM SPRINGS. CALIFORNIA800) 73 -3435
(760) $25-2751 FAX(760)325-3655 Reservation (800) 733-3435 /r`_J-
10-12-201 3:54PM FRO -NSLTNTSINTL WEITHRN 1 760 32' 1309 P. 2
CA• `� y9yf�v3--fIYL Td /�� (G //V��
6 L.
Ll
• --fin n �-,-u.,/�,c 7 �. �t•�=�•',a'-�eC .! c?�
--14Y
�� ° � -�"��� . .. .��- C��d�tAa. c%G�� Gam.•,
1p
R35
10-12-201 3:55PM FRC ;NSLTNTSINTL WEITHRN 1 760 32 7309 P. 3
Ll"AA
'l w ea� cA � v� �
J
Y&� //l}It�
� a"/1 / �!�(/y'z L�`-vt ✓J6�.� �.2a.G^.P.�LF�c. �-+� rt�.�p�' . `i'��. `"'
.. // vim• ��' . J��=�'� ./�-Pam!//�w., CAI ,. Uka¢���tati� Ot.:--�
1� qR
ROSE MIHATA
468 WEST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 92262
619-320-0882
121h October 2001
Mr Jim Jones
City Hall
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA. 92262
Dear Mr Jones,
RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California Inc
With reference to the above project, I would like to bring to your
attention, certain issues. I have retained Mr Marvin Roos to review
the project for me, a copy of his review is attached. I am not apposed
to a quality development being built on subject land, so long as they
adhere to codes and restrictions. The builder was aware of the codes
and restrictions, during his due diligence, before escrow closed. Why
is (Doug Evans) bending these codes and restrictions, to
accommodate the builder?. From the onset Mr Evans has tried
constantly, to intimidate the neighbors. Stating that if the
neighborhood apposes this project,they could have a project similar
to the unsightly one previously proposed. Another main concern is
we are aware that the land is already back in escrow again for the
second time, so it is doubtful that Mr Bergheer, will be the final
builder on this development. Please also note that Ralph Raya at the
Planning Commision, motioned to turn down the project, Doug
Evans immediately requested they withdraw the motion, it barely
passed 3 to 2. Doug Evans is using his position to push through, a
project that will grossly affect the neighborhood. I am deeply upset
that the Planned Development District and Zoning Ordinance
requirements are not adhered to. Could I ask you to please read the
enclosed letter from Marvin Roos and letter I had previously sent.
This project is coming before you on October 17a' , we will be M�
requesting a complete Environmental Impact Study Report, before the
Council makes any decision this project.
2 /Rose E. Mihata
- OCT-12-01 03 . 12 PW WILLOWS 760 325 6451 F. 01
OF pALM S,o
Trri WILiows Hisrortic PALM SPnrNr.s IrjN U ff 122W1 �
RECEIVED
CLEp�
October 12,2001
Mayor Will Kicindienst
Mayor Pro Tem Ron Oden
Councihnentber Jeanne Reller Spur.-In
Councilm6nbcr Deyna Hodges
Councilmcrnbcr Jim Jones
Dear Mr. Mayor and Councilmentbers,
1 am writing regarding the proposed project for the Drown Foundation property at the western terminus of
Tahqultz Canyon Way. I am In favor of a quality development for the site,but have several concerns
regarding the proposed project. 1 would like to enter these into the record.
1. The project is too dense currently and the site plan is unimaginative.
2. Traffic and noise generated from the project have not been adequately addressed.
3. Lighting needs to be high-quality,down-lighting and not light polluting.
4. Timing for implementation of theconsuuctionn and earth-moving needs to avoid our high season.
3. The current owner will not be the developer of the project. As die current owner has promised many
agreed upon details,such as the architectural qualities and specific design elements,we need assurance
that these agreements will be honored by the subsequent owners. These elements are outlined in
previous letters regarding the project which I append here for your review. They include the old-world
Spanish architecture with two-piece barrel tile and cement roofs,minimalist lighting,lush landscaping,
wooden,recessed windows and more. The architecture as presented now in this project is very
attractive and Is appropriate for the neighborhood. These details are expensive and we need to make
sure no revision would occur with subsequent owners.
6. The terminus of Tahqultz Canyon must be improved. I believe that the current proposal is better than
what now exists.
7. There should be a more substantial portion of the project that has one-story elements.
8. The CCRs for the project should address noise,trash,gardening and pool hours.
This proposal has improved with every iteration. It needs further improvement. 1 agree that a Planned
Development District with single family homes is an appropriate use for the site.
Thank you for your attention and consideration.
Si rely, V
Tracy Conrad
9
412 West'1'ahgnrtz Canyon Way•Palm Springs•California 92262•'Ielephotte:760-320-0771 Fax:76o Stu-oyifo
Sharon Rogers
468 W. Tahquitz Cyn Way
Palm Springs
CA. 92262
12s`October 2001
City Members
Palm Springs City Hall
Dear Council Members
RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California, Inc
I am writing with reference to the above proposed project, as I live in
the neighborhood in question. On a daily basis I deal with the
ongoing traffic problem,that exists around the area of the proposed
development. When passing the Willows hotel and Le Vallauris I
have to manouvre around catering vehicles and valet parking. Not
only that, but when the Follies show is running, the large buses come
to the end of Tahquitz Canyon,to turn round. As you can see there is
already an existing Traffic Congestion Problem,the proposed project
will only increase the traffic, therefore making the problem worse.
I urge you to have an Environmental Impact Study Report carried out.
Yours truly,
S.Rogers. 9�3
9
Albert Duren
P.O.Box 312
Palm Desert
CA. 92260
12s'October 2001
City Council Members
Palm Springs City Hall
RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Begheer California, Inc.
With reference to the above project,that I am apposed to for the
following reason. I am a Real Estate Agent that works with Rose
Mihata and whenever we have had to meet for business,I always
encounter traffic problems. On one occasion I had to reverse back, to
allow traffic through and because of the congestion my Mercedes was
hit and badly damaged. From a real estate point of view, I would be
strongly against the project as it would seriously devalue the
surrounding homes, especially the home of Rose Mihata.
Yours trul ,
Albert Duren
qi4 �U
f `•(�f
IDMainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. fJ
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@mainicrosmith.com • www.mainierosmith.com
October 12, 2001 �qP�SpRGy� OCT 12 2COi
N
Mr. Will Kleindienst GE���r
Mayor
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
Re: .Gase 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California, Inc.
Dear Will:
Mainiero, Smith and Associates represents Ms. Rose Mihata and she has engaged us
to represent her in the current. City hearings concerning the `proposed condominium
development immediately adjacent to her residence at 468 West Tahquitz Canyon
Way:, My purpose in this letter-is to inform the Council as to-,our concerns about the
overall site plan and the many variances being requested in the Planned Development
District application currently before the City Council on October 17, 2001.
In summary, we continue to feel the quality of this project is not yet at a high enough
level to justify a reduction in standards by the Council. The Planning Commission's
narrow 3-2 vote certainly should be seen as evidence that not all of the issues have
been fully resolved.
The Process: . The Planned Development District (PDD). process is designed to
improve the quality of development by allowing flexibility in development standards. To
that end, the proposed 'development is seeking reduced setbacks and reduced
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 the 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 on the PD site boundary shall be compatible with the existing
or potential development of the surrounding neighborhoods." We believe that these two
objectives of the ordinance have not been met and strongly point to further study and
refinement of the plan.
Site Plan: . The site plan that the Planning Commission approved by a 3-2 vote still
reflects a lack of sensitivity to the single family pattern that exists.on the north side of
the project. The buildings form a virtual wall with only 6 feet of clear opening between
the 24-foot tall structures.
Mr. Will Kleindienst
October 12, 2001
Page Two
There is no meaningful view corridor through the central portion of the project. The
setback to two-story construction has been increased from 25 to 50 feet but is still far
short of the 200-foot setback required under normal zoning considerations. The site
plan has failed to integrate the project with its location by virtually ignoring views nor
has it fulfilled the mandate of the Planned Development District requirement to adjust
the project design at its boundaries to match the surrounding neighborhood.
Circulation: The, access to the-area remains a significant concern,,particularly.with the
newly proposed angled parking in front of Le Valluris restaurant. The current design
would be confusing to the folks that are forever wandering around in their "discovery
mode, as it does not create an easy turn-around area and fails to resolve•a'difficult
situation once and for all. This is the last chance we may have_to cure this problem.
'Once the subject property is developed, we will be living with the results essentially
forever. .This solution is required in conjunction with the approval of this development.
Summary: While some improvements to the project have been made,, the unique
nature of the subject property has hardly been capitalized on. The City Council is being
asked to reduce several important development standards and we don't believe the
overall design of the project is at a high enough level to justify an approval by the'City
Council. We understand and encourage a high quality development for this property
but believe that that level has not been achieved. And finally, inherent in the approval
of this development is that this will be the last opportunity we will have to resolve the
already impacted nature of the local traffic circulation patterns that everyone agrees are
a problem. We seek the Council's concurrence that a development for this property
should be one that solves these problems and isn't just "a development."
Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with the staff,
Commission and Council to resolve these several issues.
Very truly yours,
Marvin Roos, AICP
Director of Planning Services
MDR/cm
cc: Rose Mihata � ♦/�
4^ Mainiero, Smith and Associates, Inc. Y
777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way,Suite 30611/Palm Springs,California 92262-6784/Telephone(760)320-9811/FAX(760)323-7893
e-mail info@mainierosmith.com•www.mainierosmith.com
Z 90'77
S.ogoq
RECEIVED •�J 1 �I h I
N
OCT $ ZDOI the palm springs modern oasis
PLANNING DIVISION
10/11/01
VIA FACSIMILE: 760-322-8360
TO: Alex Meyerhoff
Principal Planner
Department of Planning&Building
City of Palm Springs
FROM: Stan Amy
Orbit In, LLC
RE: Case No. 5.0804 (PD No. 254)
Bergheer California, Inc. Project"In Tennis Club Historic
District"
Per our phone conversation, I would like to identify and establish standing
with regard to the following issues of concern:
1. The appearance (material, finish and color) of the walls to be
constructed on the south perimeter of the project, particularly
where it abuts our property located at 370 W. Arenas.
2. The specific location along the south perimeter of any
landscape materials which will attain a height of greater than 7
feet. My concern is to preserve a mountain view corridor to the
north and west particularly from the northeast corner of our
orbitin.conn property.
mail@orbilin.com
Alex, regarding these two issues, I request the opportunity to review and
562 w. arenas comment on specific designs following their submission and prior to their
palm springs,co 92262 approval.
phone(760) 323-3585
fax(760) 32M599 toll free (877)99-orbilqtf
(7-877-996-7248) J
Alex Meyerhoff
Principal Planner
Department of Planning & Building
City of Palm Springs
Page 2
Finally, although I did not mention it in our conversation, I would like to
express concern and establish standing regarding the broader issue of the
compatibility of this project with the character of the Tennis Club Historic
District and the project's effect on the opportunity to maximize property
values and tax base over the long term. I am particularly concerned with
the issues of density and side yard setbacks.
Alex,thank you again for responding quickly and informatively to our
questions. Your helpfulness and even-toned manner inspire confidence in
the public process.
Sincerely, 1
i/�v-
Stan Amy
CC: William G. Kleindienst, Mayor
Ronald Oden, Mayor Pro Tem
Deyna L. Hodges, Council
Jim Jones, Council
Ronald Oden, Council
Jeanne Reiler-Spurgin, Council
y
9.04 41
bvrothy C. & Harold J. Meyerman ZRECEIVED550 Palisades Drive
Palm Springs, California 92262Tel.: (760) 318-6674 Mr. Douglas Evans, Director Sept r+lNNING
City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
P.O. Box 2743, Palm Springs, Ca. 92262
Dear Mr. Evans:
Be: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Drown Foundation
We were unable to attend yesterday's meeting in person nor, for that matter, will we be
able to attend the follow-up meeting scheduled for September 26.
As residents of the area, we are not opposed to a high quality project which may well
be contemplated for the acreage in question. We are strongly opposed, however, to a
number of features which appear to be part of the present plans. I would summarize our
concerns as follows:
1.) Insufficient setbacks from the 400 block of West Tahquitz. The very high
quality and historic significance of the present homes along Tahquitz will be
diminished unless setbacks are increased significantly;
2.) Height of the proposed structures adds to the "tunnel" problem which was
referred to by one of the participants. As a result, the developer will need to
consider single story structures along West Tahquitz in addition to (1) above;
3.) The fieldstone wall along Tahquitz should remain as an important and
desirable feature for both the existing as well as the new residents;
4.) Density will need to be reduced as setbacks are increased, distances
between structures increased and single story homes contemplated, and
5.) The new development will make congestion, which is already an issue, only
worse.
The City should also be assured by the developer that the property will not be "flipped"
once again.
Finally, the City has an unusual opportunity to extend the high quality of the existing
neighborhood by approving a project which is consistent with the surrounding area,
comprising notable landmarks such as the Willows, Vallouris, the existing homes
referred to above as well as the home of Mr. Albert Frey, Mr. Halliday's home and our
own residence inspired and designed in large part by the late Mr. Frey.
Sincerely,
cM/ uce Page / lmf�
1tlaiuietb, Smith gnd Assocxates, Lxc,
Planning/C"ivitEngieeehng,/Lwid,14,'rvcyivg„ .
777 East Tahquiti'Canyan':Way,Suite 301 9 Paltti$pz hp,,Ca1ifa1Ma,92262-6%4 >
'; .. ''Ti;lephozde'(76(1`j`320=9$I'1'lFAX(760j.�23-7893•d'-niailinf'o�mainnerosm{ih.com�wmx,aiainiezosatith.com
r 12 z00 5eptemb6 ... 1. . .
R. Doug Evans
bjreotor ot;Qianning and'Building.
:CITY, F PR4[ iV15PRINGS.
320`O.Easf Tahq ult� Canyon Way,
P O;Box 2743 "
P.alin rings Sp ; Ciiifornia 92262`
-Rer".Ca'se.5.. p. 0e
Ca„'li Oi3Q ...D 254! rghet3r, fgMia iiiq::
Vile;reprAse�t,Ms..Rose Miitiata'dnd she,.klas asked uS.tC;levlew_the plopQsed 52;tinit,
�•.• �cdndomihluin project prgpased�tm'rtledi'atel}r.adja'Fenf to;her:persaiial:casl,'degoe;-$fi.41i8
West,TahquitiDany6n'u1lay She ha5,'ilready s'ent'a latter.to yo'u,rei uesting. e mere.
detailed envrror(meritak analySiB iia'the.fbrrn oF'ar4' �Rr My Purpose Is.to,delye:iito Erie
overall.site plan,and the variances tieing.'regtiested: to summery, we vvould,bequest
some'.resttidy,of ;the', plAns. iri' hope.ihat fife,, jitdject proponenfe be .afforde¢.4tie,
op)�ortUnity.tp�.esdtve the areas Of, id . -,. '•
1rhe�ess.:-". .The 'Planned. b idvmppmeht District {PDO}. process,.is :designe f.,.to
improve,the,quallty'tif d`evelop{frieht by'alloW ng flelcibG ty in devsloprrient s#andards. 7g
•..that'.e6d• th6 proposed,devalopment ;{5:'•segking ,r`edUced setbaoks 'a'ntl 'reduced'.
dictances'befweian.b4irdngs among bfher requests,, Wa agree.kliat 4he ODD affords,the
city an8'the.developer,;the:.bes€opporfUnifyao #orge a.qualityrplart:fgr this site, Ore of
#h'e,:6bjactives'pf..the P:DD,has:been,tb;ehsure tbat'the:r suiting development,ezceeds
,, right-of.-zone.standards,..Ah.pther'(eq,rlireinent inth6 ZohM4 Qrdinarice'is that ';`the.torm
and,tytie.of.`development of the suft6unding nelgb8;6r66ods:" We'beGeVe,that these
;two 6bfeotives':havo.not,beerl met:3nc ppintto`furthe.r s#udy an'rl'iefriemen#of fhe plan_
`Site l n`.,;`The site plan J'ssues that;we believe-need fprth4i'study are:the height aAd '
design`of hi,::units ,facing•,Tahq'ukz' Canyon; ay ;require.ments' 'of,.ttie:coning'
orilinance;Y6r F2-2,dnd'R,3 properties abutting R '1 zbries mciude a 2QQ46ot setback f6r
any two-story;buiidings;, The current design shows•two story stri{otures with only;a 25
foot �etback.f�om'the•north property llne:'.,;tn adddliln;the building`s'stiotJfd;all"be;single_ „
story,and shoiild'be§eParafed by at leasfcthe;ortlfrience`rninirnttm,
Meat, w ich rdould be the .sirigie-family s"tandard.,' The• grsater t is4ance be#wee'n,
tiulldiiigs'wauld allow some view c6rridors through'the dev�lopmerit and'ttie.singlestory
limit would insure aFiaf there were nb second 'story Windows booking do'Wn into .the,.
exisiing;devolgpment.
Ntr, Doug Evans,
Page Twc
Ah alternative,�.thdt.might. alas wolk:would:be.'ao.ext'end the retention basin along the
hortt>edy .propbfty. line 'tljer, increasingIhe setback from.the, north property;line.
`concerning the proposed,refentian design; it seems {ike an 60poituriity for m'ftltiple use
IS being'lost for th'e onlysignlficarit opei5 space on the site: ,
:Circulatidn:., ;The acc6ss,to the'area realalns a.Concern', perticularfy with:'tli2;newly. '
propo od glpd par(ung in•front of Le:Valluri�'restaurani. The' currertt:desig'h would be
wrifusing .toahe foN(s that are wandering.a[dund:in:their "discovery' mode, as k does
not broafe an: easy:turn-around area-and 'drk. frpm tfiat'palnL•'The. copditiorls,of '
appibVal.ait6 indite that anew traffic light.is being prpposed for the'.tes=intArsecHon..
of-TahgAz:Ganyon,'W,ay:and �el'ardo Road: Thissigtia( should'only;be`en't U-nei if
the''entry to tk�e A$hlon PW!a.parking is,t6locateo to;altgn with.l3elatdo,Ftoas3, .
.. . ': .. .' '• '... ., '. '; •. ♦ ':.'r - ; e•' .:.' ems' .
alas: The.:W(rnal'requ rementi.for perimeter wails.w�i 'R-3.or R-2 properties abut
single-falnify,properties,is.for,a siX'fo6t rfl�sonry wall. `.5ince.:the szisting`historic arid'. '
unique .ieldstane wall_along...the 'north--:,prop oy.Gne is:oniy:approximatety:40 +f- in
„ height, a new 6-foot wall'woulc!•appear.out-of-piece ifplaced-immediately adjacent to it:
,Nfe -Would suggest-ellrriinating.the requlrerrieriYfor 'a. six-fool: 'wall along thi:,'north
property line and If a'priyaGy wall is.desiet:d,`thatlt:be,limited.to the patio.;afeas,of those,.
units.
in stimrnary we believe,the site plan should•be restudied to come closer to meeting .the
iriterit"„of, ttle'?Planried DeVeloprrien3`.{listrigt•.:requ{rernent for •ocinsisten�y `with"tfie,
adjacentrproperties;:to'increase;th&setbaox fo'r two story developnient'adj'acent•to T-1
zones; to open,•up thie;.distance: between buildings;.and to' rdsolverthe,terminus. of
Ta{ quitY:Canyon'way
.. .
Very tivly'yours,
r
Marv' :' .
` m:Pods:,
17i ador.of'Planning Services
MDR:cm
cc: Rose Miliafa
Ma;ntego;Smith and Associates;,inc.
777 EastTahquitz CZyoa Way,Suite 301(Palm$pr ags,'California 92262-6784 l4ele hone(760)320-9811 (760)323-7893
' , . .irmail;afC®meinle[osuvtkkcom-wwv[.�?�axiezosm[th.com ' , .
OCT-12-01 03 : 18 PM WILLOWS fhb 615 caoi
TILE Wit LOWS 1-It S'roRic PALM SPRINGS INN
September 5,2001
Alex Meyerhoff
Principal Planner
City of Palm Springs
PO Box 2743
Palm Springs,CA 92263
And Viaracsimlle322-8360
Dear Alex,
I and very concerned about the proposed Planned Development District for the Drown Foundation property
at the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon,Case No.5.0804,Planned Development District No.254 and Tentative
Map 29077.
1 have been involved in discussions for several years regarding this property. Attached please find a copy
of a letter sent to Jim White,representing Karl Bergheer and Bergheer California in 1998 regarding our
concerns,which have not changed. Mr.Bergheer did respond with changes to the architecture of which we
wholeheartedly approve,
We still do not want two-story elements along Tahquitz Canyon or Palisades Drive,we feel that the lowest
possible density is appropriate and are concerned about the building schedule disrupting our tourist-based
business.
We are also concerned that Mr.Bergheer himself will not,in the end,be the developer of this property. We
would like any plan that is approved to be specific to Mr.Bergheer or direct an assignees regarding the
quality of workmanship and the aesthetic points that Mr.Bergheer has guaranteed us personally throughout
our numerous discussion and during the public discourse at the previous Planning Commission Study
Session.
Thank you for your consideration and for entering the specific concerns detailed on the following page into
the formal record.
n
ly,
/L) ?c
Tracy Conrad
/q (v
412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way-Palm Springs-California 92262-Telephone!760-32o-OV, •Fax!76o-32u-0780
OCT-12-01 03 : 19 PM WILLOWS
TIIF. WILLOWS HISTORIC PALM SPRING; 1NN
August 18, 1998
Jim White
Lynwood Development
Via Facsimile(619)224-9720
(619)224-6617
Dcar Mr,White,
Tbank you very much for your phone call of today.As you know,The Willows has required a huge
financial and emotional investment,and we are very concerned about anything that might deleteriously
impact its value or viability.I appreciate the opportunity to express our concerns regarding any
development of the Drown Foundation property. There are several aesthetic issues which are readily
apparent regarding the property.
1. The entrance to the site is problematic,with limited ingress and egress,and an awkward approach.
A reconfiguration of the terminus of Tahquitz Canyon Way in conjunction with the City of Palm
Springs would be desirable. The schema would include limiting the"turnaround"traffic that now
occurs,placing the telephone poles/utilities underground,and demarcating the transition from
public to private street.The site entrance would also probably-equire some reconfiguration of the
current placement of LeVallauris'trash area,as it would bo inconsistent to have the trash
immediately adjacent to the entrance of an upscale residential project. Mitigation of the increased
traffic to die site would be accomplished by it proper design of die site entrance and
reconfiguration of Tahquitz Canyon Way from Museum Drive to the site.
2. The project would be low-density,low-profile and upscale in nature.
3. In keeping with the ambiance of the neighborhood,the rooftops would be high quality spanish tile
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 the number and placement of trash pick up sites,or use quieter,smaller,
special trash vehicles,in order to mitigate the noise of trash pickup and contribution to noise
pollution.
Implementation of the development is also of concern.Heavy construction would avoid"high season"of
January through May and avoid Saturdays and Sundays,to limit the negative financial impact on the
tourist-based businesses adjacent.
Again,I appreciate the opportunity to express these concerns. I believe that their mitigation would result in
an aesthetically appropriate development for the site. 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 The Willows personally on September 3, 1998.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Tracy Conrad 44 Y
412 West Tahquitz Canyon Way•Falm Springs-California 92262-Telephone:760-320-0771.Fax:76o-320-0780
<* Rose Millata
468 West Tahquitz Canyon
Palm Springs, California 92262
Office (760) 320-0882
Fax (760) 320-9395
2 1"June, 2001
EJUN
C� odC�MR. ALEX MEYERHOFF D
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 21 2001CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NG DIVISION
RE : CASE NO. 5.0804—BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC.
The attached is self-explanatory—please present a copy of this correspondence to the
Design Review Committee at the meeting scheduled for 9te July, 2001 at 3 p.m.
I thank you in anticipation of your co-operation in this matter.
Sincerely,
ROSE E. MIHATA
9/95z)
��� .Rose Mihata
468 West Tahquitz Canyon
17'' June, 2001 Palm Springs, California 92262
Office (760) 320-0882
Fax (760) 320-9395
City of Palm Springs,
Planning Department
P.O. Box 1786
Palm Springs
CA 92263
Dear Sirs,
RE : BERGHEER CALIFORNIA INC.
—GATED COMMUNPI'Y
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 fatal accident in the intersection of the said
property. I witnessed this accident and took the man to the hospital but unfortunately he
q1751
died from his injuries. Lets not allow another person to die because our planning
department failed to carry out an adequate traffic study.
The volume of traffic that would be created by this project spells a nightmare of
congestion. This would also assist in adding to the traffic-flow problem that already
exists in the neighborhood. The Desert Fashion Plaza is practically closed at the present
time, therefore it is only going to get worse when it re-opens for business. For these and
other reasons a thorough traffic study is viable,imperative and necessary in order to
safeguard the integrity, safety and history of this neighborhood.
In closing,l want you all to know that I love this city_ It goes without question that all of
you feel the same way, however, we owe it to ourselves to take a closer look at this
proposed project. Not only for those of us whom it will affect now,but for all of those it
will affect in the future of this beautiful city.
Enclosed is a copy of a`Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
from Doug Evans dated August 18, 1988.
1 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,
"J4-
ROSEE-MMNTA
Property Owner
468 West Tahquitz.Way
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
TO: Distribut_io_n 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 descripLion, location, and the probable environmental effects
are contained in the attached materials. A copy of the Initial Study
VX) is, ( ) is not, attached.
Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be
sent at, the earliest possible date but not later than 30 days after
receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to Douglas R. Evans at the address
shown above. We will need the name for a contact person in your agency.
Project Title: Planned Development District 196 (Case 5.0466).
Project Applicant: Mel Haber Enterprises, Inc.
DATE August 18, 1988 Signature fQ/
Title Planner III
Telephone 619 / 323-8245
Area Code
(Revised 6-87)
-29- WS3
-uY
NOTICE OF PREPARATION
CASE 5.0466 - PD-196 - Haber Project
Project Description:
A Planned Development District (POD) 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,
recreationFareas, underground parking, and extensive landscaping.
The project is located at the west end of Tahquitz Way west of Museum Drive
and the site abuts the base of the San Jacinto Mountains. The site is
surrounded by single-family residences and a restaurant on the north, small
hotels, apartments and condominiums on the east and south, and single- and
multiple-family residences on the west. The subject property is zoned and
planned for medium and high-density hotel or residential uses. Existing
zoning would permit up to 183 residential units or up to 390 hotel rooms.
Probable Environmental Affects of the Project:
FLOOD CONTROL/WATER.
Approximately 75 acres of watershed lies tributary to the proposal site.
Currently storm runoff is concentrated in two watercourses which discharge
onto the site. The western portion of the site currently retains storm flows;
therefore, downstream properties are not affected by this tributary runoff. A
preliminary drainage plan will be prepared by the applicant. and incorporated
into the Draft EIR. (3.B&C)
NOISE.
The project, being a 104-unit residential development, will increase noise
levels in the surrounding area during construction and during operation of the
project. The Draft EIR will address construction related noise impacts and
operational impacts of the project. (6.A&B)
LAND USE.
The Draft EIR will address surrounding and proposed land use. The project,
being 2 to 5 stories in height, may affect adjacent properties.
TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION.
A traffic study is being prepared and will be incorporated into the Draft EIR.
The study will address average daily traffic, peak hour traffic volume,
existing roadway design, signs and other concerns. (13.d&f)FIRE PROTECTION. q44V/
The emergency service concerns regarding a 4 to 5-story building will be
discussed. (14.a)
NOTICE OF PREPARATON Page 2
Case 5 .0466 - PD-196
AESTHETICS/SCENIC VISTAS.
The proposed 4 to 5-story apartment complex may disrupt existing views from
adjoining properties. The Draft EIR shall include visual impact analysis,
site crossections and a narrative discussion.
CULTURAL RESOURCES.
f
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.
q44 ZOW
WP/PLNG CORRES
NOTICE OF PREPARATON Page 3
Case 5.0466 - PO-196
Focused EIR.
The information contained in this document, including the initial study, shall
be used to focus the Draft EIR on significant issues. In addition, impact
areas and concerns raised during the MOP process will be incorporated into the
Draft EIR.
WP/PLNG CORRES
s. _ ..
3 N ,F.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS -
Environmental Check List Form -'_' _ • -p-rr
(Explanations of off "yes" and "maybe" answers ore required on attached sheets.) `
Yes Abe No
I. - Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes J
in geologic substructures? T
b. Disruptions, displacements, convoction
or overcovering of the soil?
c. Change in topography a 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
soils, either on or off the site?
f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach
scnds, 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 hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
of ambient air quality?
b. The creation of objectionable odors?
c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any choNe in climate, , T
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in crrrents, or the-course of di-
rection of water movements, in either
marine or fresh waters?
b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat-
terns, or the rate and amount of surface V
nv na f f?
c Alterations to the course or flow of flood �/
p ••�'S\ 5. ..L r ..
~Yes y:N
y
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
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h. Substantial reduction in the amount of
water otherwise available for public water
supplies?
i. Exposure of people or property to water re-
lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or
rxwmber of any species of plants (including
trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic
plcnts)? _
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of plants? _
c. Introduction of new species of plants into
an 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, benthie organisms or insects)? — A--
b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique,
rare or endangered species of animals?
c. Introduction of species animals into a
on area, or resultIt in a bonierer a the
m
migration or movement of animals?
d. Dete. ioration to existing fish or wildlife
hcbitat?
li
Yes.
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in -^+_
a. Increases in existing noise levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? _
7, t. 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. Stbstantial depletion of any nonrenewable x
natural resource? —_
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve:
'a. A risk of an explosion or the releas-
of hazardous substances (including, but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an occident or
upset conditions?
b. Possible interference with on emergency
response plan or on emergency evacuation
plan?H. Population, Will the proposal alter the location,
distribution, density, or growth rate of the
human population of an area?
12. F•iousing. Will the proposal affect existing hous-
ing, or create a demand for additional housing?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result in:
a. Generation of substantial additional v
vehicular movement? —A—
b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or
demand for new parking?
c. Substantial impact upon existing trcispor-
tation systems?
d. Alterations to present patterns of circula-
tion or movement of people and/cc goods?
C. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestricns? qft5i
14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an Yes - Maybe- : No -
effect upon, or result in a need for new or
altered governmental services in any of the
following areas: - -
a. Fire protection? -
b. Police protection? - _
r
d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _
,e. Maintenance of public facilities, including
roads? Y
f. Other governmental services?
15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: -
c. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist-
ing sources of energy, or require the y
development of new sources of energy?
14. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need
for .-)ew systems, or substantial alterations to
the following utilities:
a. Power or natural gas?
b. Communications systems? _Y
c. Water?
d. Sewer or septic tanks? X
1 e. Storm water drainage? �-
f. Solid waste and disposal? X
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the
obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to
the public, or will the proposal result in the,
creation of an aesthetically offensive site open
to public view?
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in on
impact upon the quality or quantity of existing
recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources.
a. Will the proposal result in the alteration
of or the destruction of a prehistoric or
historic archaeological site?
Yes M�be No
y
b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical
or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or
historic building, structure, or object?
c. Ooes the proposal have the potential to
cause a physical charge 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
endangered plant or animal or eliminate
important examples of the major periods
of California history or prehistory?
b. 0oes 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 future)
e. Does the project have impacts which are
individually limited, but cumulatively con-
sidercble? (A project may impact on two
or more separate resources where the impact
on each resource is relatively small, but
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) +�
tt a CZE
Initial Study Reviewed For Findings and Recommendation: MARVIN 0. ROOS
Planning Director
I�I
FRO'I ROSE E NIHRTR PHONE NO. : 619 320 O8E2 Feb. 23 1999 00:34RN P1
62/I ?/I 9'd9 1d:64 -;,14 95 H4l..1 ;4hr1`�
bi
,l O RNIAN J. H'ALLIDAY
6 O. [36-X HSo6
C+ol;r:, IUAI-0No 17d�o7
6C, AC (`" QB) 344,RS9S
SUN VALI,EI' li 04)
Februu.ry 17, 1999 ALM f if 4 «or Alo.4zeR
6'
To: Traffic Engineer & Doug Evans
I live at 600 Palisades Drive and auk apposed to dl.e
condo dcvelopment by Mr. Doug Evans, The Traffic on
Palisade Drive cannot withstand any more use and I atn.
uuuuumvO about the f5ro protection to the proposed project.
This project needs to be stopped now and reevaluated
Norman 7, Halliday
qA &A
Steve Cheroske
530 W.Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA, 92262
Fax Cover Sheet
DATE: February 18, 1999 TIME: 6:34 PM
TO: Mr. Doug Evans PHONE:
City Planner FAX: 750.322.8360
FROM: Steve Cheroskee PHONE: 760.320.1058
FAX: 750.320.1327
RE: Proposed Development of W. Tahquitz Canyon Way
CC: Traffic Engineer
Number of paper! Including cover sheet: (1]
Message
For the record, 1 am opposed to any development of W Tahquitz Canyon Way, located directly across
from my home.
1 have a large financial investment in this historic property; and feel any development in this area would
de-value my property.
Furthermore, due to existing commercial businesses located due oast of my property,the area cannot
support additional traffic. We struggle daily with the inability to move in and out of our property .
An estimated 645 automobiles entering and exiting this proposed property daily would create a
congestion disaster.
Sincerily,
Steve Cherdske
3
.ui. rtuoc c iunHirt HHUN6 NU. b19 320 0862 Feb. 16y1999 06: 11PM P1
,
(�.c5�-kt i hwtt
�68'W 7�hyv',Yx
Palm ,SPI1,1�CA 921)2
February 10, 1999
1'U 'll Nfflc. falgineel,
City of Palm Springs
I would likt to bring to your ettontion that the traffic on 'I'ahquitx between Palm C anyou and the viaranca of
Palisades Drive has become extremely 1wardous due to the in-leased traffic siruatium Approaclliag
Tahquitz from Bellardo Road and trying to turn left requires one to pull onto T'ahquitz before,vau can
clearly see, Several times I have either observed or actual)y been the driver whet a potential accident leas
been closely averted T urge you to investigate this situation horrt(diately to avoid unnecessary loss of life.
I ant also strongly opposed to putting 64 condominium units at the West End of Tahyuitz. According to
Doug Evant, of the Palm Springs planning department, the addition of these wnduminium units will resuit
in 600 more cars accessing thit. area each day. The street is already cortgvmd because of people accasstug
the Fashion Plaza, the Desert lvtuboum, the Vailaris Restaurant, and various hotels. Prior to t<llowia g this
building project to be approved the City needs to do a traffic environnwntal study.
Yours Sincetety,
i" I
�r
Rose Mihata
�. r
3.4.7. W. Tahauitz Canyon Way. This isolated residential neighborhood on the 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 with
the Downtown redevelopment policies; the low-density residential character of the neighborhood
shall be retained. The development of a master plan for circulation is encouraged as properties
are (re)developed to prevent the intrusion of through-traffic and to provide localized parking.
Page 4 of 13
Planning Commission Minutes
September 12, 2001
Case 5.0804—PD 254—TTM 19077—Application by Berg heer California, Inc. forthe 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 52 lots 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 reter„ion area. He reported thatthe site is currently
vacant and that an earthen swale crosses the northwest corner of the property. He stated that the
proposed condominiums will be two-bedroom, detached units ranging in size from approximately
1,600 sq.ft. to 2,100 sq.ft. and will be offered in three different models. He stated that the key
issues for review are the proposed setbacks to single family residences, yard minimums,
separation of buildings, lot coverage, landscaping and open space percentages. He reported that
the proposed project exceeds parking requirements (two-car garages for each condominium and
a total of ten guest parking spaces). He reported that the project design features the grouping of
residential units around central driveway courtyards which minimizes vehicular driveway areas and
accompanying garage views. He stated that lot sizes will likely preclude the construction of
individual pools, but that a single common pool and spa facility will be located at the westerly end
of the project site. He reported that the applicant has proposed improvements to Tahquitz Canyon
Way, west of the intersection with Museum Drive, in order to resolve current traffic and driveway
conflicts and to provide 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. qA
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
Yfts7
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.
q A&V
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. q)*5
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.
7V
Page 7 of 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26 2001
. . � 71
Case 5.0804—PD 254—TTM 19077—Application by Bergheer 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. 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
Page 8 of 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26, 2001
with the revised plans for the Planning Commission. He stated that the new plans include an
additional setback area and the relocation of the pool to directly west of the entry. He stated that
the maximum building height has been reduced to 24 ft. from 26 ft. He reported that the City
Engineer has recommended the removal of 3-4 bay parking spaces in the area of the terminus
of Tahquitz 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 phases was 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 that the 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 traffic study 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.
I? a
Page 9 of 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26 2001
Mr. John Sanborn,SanbornA&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
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 pie,-sed 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
4.ef73
Page 10 of 12
Planning Commission Minutes
September 26 2001
the remains, the remains can then be buried at the Palm Springs Public
Cemetery."
Council Minutes
10-17-01, Page 9
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 3/2 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 be 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 MOO#
9A?s
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 aL eady 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
qA7&
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. 477
COWICl1 1V11uiutes
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 d years ago the roadway
was dedicated to the City and subsequently vacated; that none have voiced the
desire for a full public roadway and that in this case the private driveway is
preferable.
Mayor stated that the intent seems to be to serve the citizens with a county type
of road; and added that right-of-zone projects do not come before the Council;
that in the case of access, the Fire Chief has stated that the ingress and egress
is agreeable; that Andreas Hills for example only has one street in or out; that the
number of units in the project seem agreeable, but that the increased height and
setbacks are bothersome; that all the homes located on the north internal road
should stay one story; that the other side of the street could be two story; that the
drainage areas should be landscaped; that the bay parking is of concern; that
buyers need to know that they are purchasing property in the downtown area; that
buyers do need to be aware that the purchase of these properties will experience
noise, traffic, street closures due to special events in the downtown; that the
buyers need to know that they are purchasing property in the downtown area; that
there is concern on the scale of the project; that there is concern on the open
space and view; that the density of the project is questionable; that the project
does seem to be too stretched; and that the units on the north side are of concern
and recommended the matter be referred back to the Planning Commission for
review.
Director of Planning & Building stated the referral would require additional
hearings on the part of the Planning Commission.
Council 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.
9�-
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 Cs. 5.0804, a
Preliminary Planned Development District(PD No.267)and Tentative Tract
Map 29077, for subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel, located to the southwest of
intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way & Museum Dr., applicant Bergheer
California,Inc., was mailed to each and every person on the attached list on
the 1It' day of February, 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.
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 11t' day of February, 2002.
`QZ-ATRICIA A. SANDERS
City Clerk
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
Case No. 5.0804, a Preliminary Planned Development District (PD No. 267) and Tentative Tract
Map 29077, for 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, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15.
Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold
a public hearing at its meeting of March 6, 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.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary planned development
district and a tentative tract map.
The proposed project is a 50 unit clustered residential development within a gated community.
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared. At this meeting, the City Council is expected to approve the
proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The proposed map, Initial Study and related documents are available for public review daily,
between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Building Department,
located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way.
If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those
issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior
to the Commission 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 Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department
of Planning & Building, (760) 323-8245.
Patricia A Sanders
City Clerk
VIGINTY MAP
N.T S.
Tahquitz Canyon Way
SIT6RIS'110
e
ROAD
a
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. Case No,5.0804-PP-267 DE CRIPTION
Tentative Tract Map 29077
APPLICANT th Preliminary Planned Development District and
subdivision
the subdivision of a 6.8 acre parcel intotoSo parcels,
located to the south west of the intetsection of
Tahqumtz Canyon Way and Museum Drive,
Apphoant: Bergheer California, ]no, ,Zone R•31R-2,Section 15
W10965 jasel stagel ssaippy ®wa3AV Qy
q?e�� �
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
GYP Architects AEI - CASC T.K.D. Associates Inc.
Don Corbin Tom Nievez Tom Doczi
170 Newport Center Dr. 9225 937 S. Via Lata #500 2121 E. Tahquitz Cyn. Way#1
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Colton, CA 92324 Palm Springs, CA 92262
eo9i5 ao;a3eidwal ash mriaiIS p. I it
Smooth Feed Sheets TM Use template for 51600
513 120 050 513 120 051 513 120 052
David Johnston Johnston David Johnston rudy Johnston bavid&T ton
147 S T r 147 S r 147 quitz Dr
P rings, CA 92262 pnngs, CA 92262 n Springs, CA 92262 -
513 131 023 513 132 003 513 132 007
Petty Enterprises Inc Pilgcr Assoc Inc Patencio Estates
601 W Arenas Rd 221 S Patencio Rd 28640 Landau Blvd#1
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Cathedral City, CA 92234
513 132 017 513 132 018 513 133 001
Roger Malone&Eugene Milligan Albert Carl Taucher Rose Mihata&Rose Mihata
529 W Arenas Rd Wilda LootlTaucher 487 W Arenas Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 280 Corona Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262
Long Beach, CA 90803
513 133 002 513 133 004 513133013
Emil &Joan Forcer George Marion&Louisa Sanborn Men Don Arthur Kuzma&Dale Burr
PO Box 198 231 S Lugo Rd 6506 NE Highway 99
Tahoe Vista, CA 96148 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Vancouver, WA 99665
513 133 014 513 134 001 513 134 002
Herbert&Mary Hodson Christy Eugenis Francis&Evelyn Bushman
701 Texas St 411 W Arenas Rd#1 5515 Inner Circle Dr
Redlands, CA 92374 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Riverside, CA 92506
513 134 003 513 134 004 513 134 005
Jerry&Janice Tippin Mario Hernandez&Michael Ross Frances Nadoldski&Dianne Sluzas
PO Box 8171 68725 Panorama Rd 411 W Arenas Rd#5
Tahoe City, CA 96145 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 134 006 513 134 007 513 134 008
Fay Lecerf&Jacqueline Alp Eugehe&Adriana Rossi Neil Graham
Box 114 Eckville Fa Rossi 20982 Brookhurst St#201
AB TOM OXO 3215 E Ocean Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646
CANADA Long Beach, CA 90803
513 134 009 513 134 010 513 134 011
Ludwig Uri Roland&Sandra Truex Kalsman&Associates
625 N Canon Dr 411 W Arenas Rd 610 47 N Paseo Laredo
Beverly Ilills, CA 90210 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cathedral City, CA 92234
513 135 001 513 135 002 513 135 003
Jean Smallwood Joan Henry Twohey&Tempe Twohey Russell&Alice Yensen
555 W Arenas Rd #3 555 W Arenas Rd 42 1 N Stonington Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Laguna Beach, CA 92651
513 135 004 513 135 005 513 135 006
George&Karen Whicker Ellis Robin Sharp E Alan Petty&Petty
12285 Woodley Ave 4316 Marina City Dr 3480 Torrance Blvd#212
Granada Bills, CA 91344 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Torrance, CA 90503
..3 AVERYo Address Labels I "� nTM
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600
513 141 001 513 141 0041013 513 141 005
Paul Bruggemans&Michel Despras John Wessman Frances Winter
385 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr 4G106 904 N Rexford Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Beverly Fulls,CA 90210 `
513 141 Oil 513 141013 513141015 1 C)1lP
Wahoo-Cal Llc John Wessman Casa Cody B&B Con Inn Llc
4109 ve#B 1555 you Dr#G106 175 S Cahuilla Rd
d, OR 97211 pdngs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 141 016 4 513 142 001 513 142 003
Casa Cody B Inn William Mcwethy Jr. Craig Blau
1501 o Dr 11839 Sorrento Valley Rd 200 W Arenas Rd
Oaks, CA 91403 San Diego, CA 92121 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 151 002 513 151 006 513 151 010
Larry&Sharon Kramer William&Trisha Davis Steven Weiland
1909 El Camino Real 1187 Coast Village Rd#1209 316 NE 24 M Ave
Redwood City, CA 94063 Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Portland, OR 97232
513 151 017 513 151 020 513 470 001
Louis Miller&Matthew Miller E;5WAnas
de r David&T on
1155 Tiffany Cir N 3 Rd 147 quitz Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 PSprings CA 92262 Springs,CA 92262
513 470 002,013, O 1 ( 513 470 003 513 470 004
John Gerard Jr. Barney&Phyllis Parker Marc Herbert&,Groth Ric VonHungen
20533 Rancho La Floresta Rd 931 Argyll Dr 2864 Tice Creek Dr#4
Covina, CA 91724 Boise, W 83702 Walnut Creek, CA 94595
513 470 005 513 470 006 513 470 007 1 p I G
Wanda&J Richard Walker Paul Marks&Paul Marks John&Jcan Metzger
Walker Wand Es 34597 Via Catalina 600 Arbolado Dr
3512 Ross Rd Capistrano Beach, CA 92624 Fullerton, CA 92835
Palo Alto, CA 94303
513 470 003 513 470 009 513 470 010
Peter Phillips Randall&Joan Boose John&Jean
PO Box 115 1808 NE Knott St F Metz
Fawnskin, CA 92333 Portland, OR 97212 60 lado Dr
llerton, CA 92835
513 470 011 513 470 013 513 470 014
Are�mojj
John Gerard J a Belem Gerard John Gerard 7r.
NO or NUMBER PO B 20533 oresra Rd
na, CA 91722 C A 91724
513 501 001 513 501 002 513 501 003 1l fiU,ClC 1 CG3.G ,C> Gc
Robert Barthel&Vinetta Barthel Lisle Taaje R K Miller Inv Co&Susan Lse Bennet
123 NW 4Th St#412 500 W Arenas Rd#2 500 W Arenas Rd#3
Evansville,IN 47708 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
�!� AVERY�v Address LabelsqTM t
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600
513 110 002 1036 513 110 005 513 110 020
Paul Marut&Tracy Conrad Steven Cheroske&Timothy 1lelyer Springs Desert Museum Palm
412 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 530 W Taltquitz Way 686 Palisades Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262-
513 110 034 513 110 035 513 110 036
Palm Springs Desert Museum Inc Paul Marut onrad Rose Mihata
PO Box 2310 412 uitz Way 468 W Tahquitz Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263 prings, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 110 042 513 110 043 513 120 002 1 DO 3
Harold&Dorothy Meyerman Harold&Dorothy Moyerman Rashad Wasef&Eva Wase£
2234 E Colorado Blvd 935 Hillcrest PI 500 Madeline Dr
Pasadena, CA 91107 Pasadena, CA 91106 Pasadena, CA 91105
513120003 513120010,011,Oi2,06,Diu,PgO,Oy1, 513120011
Rashad W va Wasef David&Trud Johnston mar Oq5,�' David&Trud 70
500 the Dr 147 5 Tahqu tz Dr > oqej 147 S T y
dens, CA 91105 Palm Springs, CA 92262 '3' 41 001 rings, CA 92262
513 120 012 513 120 013 513 120 015
David&T on Lee&Teryl Coi[ ;'�a�d;k Tru147 uitz Dr 1806 Avenida Salvador wrz Drm Springs, CA 92262 San Clemente, CA 92672 Springs, CA 92262
513 120 016 513 120 017 513 120 025
David&Trud ston James Manion Keith Somdrall&Luc Bal
147 Dr 151 S Taltquitz Dr 544 W Arem is Rd
woOffm'—Sp,ings, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 120 026/ 513 I y I-a 1 513 120 028 513 120 029
Wahoo-Cal Hotels Llc Ridhard Hirsch Paul&Deena Brand
4109 NE 19T1t Ave 606 W Arenas Rd David Dore
Portland, OR 97211 Palm Springs, CA 92262 2403 Crest View Dr
Los Angeles, CA 90046
513 120 035 513 120 040 513 120 041
Joseph Drown Foundation David&Tn on >147S
nsto n
MEL HARBOR ENTERPRIS 14 wtz Dr tz Dr
1999 Avenue Of The Stars#1930 m Springs, CA 92262 ngs, CA 92262
Los Angeles, CA 90067
513 120 042 513 120 045 513 120 046
David&T ton David&T ston David Jolmsto 0 on
14 quitz Dr 147 unz Or 147 Dr
m Springs, CA 92262 m Springs, CA 92262 ➢Rf Springs, CA 92262
513 120 047 513 120 048 513 120 049
David&Trud on David&T son David&T
147 S T Dr 147 quitz Canyon Way 14 quitz Canyon Way
P rings, CA 92262 Springs, CA 92262 m Springs, CA 92262
NP.A AVERY8 Address Labels I -- r .^TM
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600
513 501 004 513 501 005 513 501 006
R K Miller Co Inc Joan Levine R K Mil Tnc
Katlil ghsmi[h NO T NAME or NUMBER P ' hompson Jr.
5 est Glen Tn SW Springs, CA 92262 4 11Th Ave _
aroma, WA 98498 Salt Take City,UT 84103
513 501 007 513 501 008 513 501 009
R K Miller Inv ent Co Inc R K Miller Inve o Inc R IC Mill c&Terry I3auswir
554 11 a 1450 La ve 19 va Dr
S e City,UT 84103 Lo ch, CA 90815 dill By The Sea, CA 92007
513 501 010 513 501 011 513 560 008 j C�
R K Miller o Inc& Carmann Bre Lot Common Fashion Plaza Desert
1447 up Dr PO Box 2002 563 W 500 S 4440
Siffb Rosa, CA 95403 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Bountiful, UT 84010
513 560 009
Fashion FI
563 W 40
B LrI 84010
//� AVERY® Address Labels car r
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600
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
Stan
Elena ll Steve Cheroske Stan Amy
TKD Associssooi ates 530 West Tahquitz Canyon Way 41098 Northeast 191
2121 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Portland, OR 97202
Tracy Conrad Frank Tysen Rose E. Mihata
412 West Tahquitz Canyon WayCasa Cody
q y 175 South Cahuilla Road 468 Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92252
Bob Weithorn Christy Eugenis Trisha Davis
Orchid Tree Inn Orbit Inn Hotel 500 West Arenas Road
261 South Belardo Road 532 as West Arenas Road Palm Springs, as 92262
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
Bill Davis Jane Smith Lola Rossi
500 West Arenas Road The Movie Colony Association 227 South Cahuilla Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262 928 Avenida Palmas Palm Springs, CA 92264
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Michael Atencio
A.C.B C.I Hope V. van Michele o
600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Prince fanner Asses Planner
Palm Springs, CA 92252
000
Douglas R ns
Director lanning & Building
7�nw Y1 ,
hov,
A� AVERYe Address Labels I -- TM
S oot Fed Stets'" Use template for 51600
Smooth Feed Sheets*M Use template for 516000
NEIGHBORHOOD
COALITION
LABELS
Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter
280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.O. Box 2824
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263
Philip Tedesco Sharon took Frank Tysen
1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264
175 South Cahuilla Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Bob Weithorn Jane Smith 8 LABELS PER SET
261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas 3 SETS OF LABELS
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 1 SET MAILED
.P1VArza7;° P�dress Lab yls I - - r ., .,ATM
m:a
Page 3 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
JanusH 09, 2002
COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM:
Director asked the Planning Commissi to appoint a Subcommittee for the Section 14 Master Plan
review. He reported that the env' nmental documents are almost complete and that most City
concerns have been incorpor d. He stated that a formal hearing will likely be scheduled within
the next 60 days. Com . ioners Raya, Jurasky, and Shoenberger volunteered to participate;
however, conflict of i rest issues were discussed and it was not determined whether those
commissioners wo have to abstain from discussions regarding Section 14- Director stated that
he would conf with City Attorney and report back to the Planning Commission when that
information ' available.
w w w w +
PUBLIC HEARING:
Case 5.0804—TTM 29077 (PD 267)—Application by Bergheer California, 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-3/R-2, Section 15.
Commissioner Shoenberger abstained due to a conflict of interest- Commissioner Caffery stated
that,when this application was heard previously by the Planning Commission, he believed he had
a conflict of interest; however, he does not believe that conflict exists currently. In order to confer
with City Attorney,the Director and Commissioner Caffery left the meeting and Chairman Klatchko
called an informal recess. Upon returning to the meeting, Commissioner Caffery stated that he
does not believe he has a conflict. Director stated that it is recommended that Commissioner
Caffery sit for the purpose of establishing a quorum; however, abstain from voting as additional
legal research is necessary to determine absolutely that there is no conflict. Chairman Klatchko
confirmed that three votes would be necessary for a successful motion on this application.
Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that at its meeting of 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
Page 4 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
January 09,2002
and Breakfast Inn) have been similarly conditioned to participate in improvements at the terminus
of West Tahquitz Canyon Way and that refinement to the plans is needed to provide adequate
sight distances as part of the Final Development plans.
He reported that the proposed Tentative Tract Map includes a number of lettered lots which will be
used forcommon area improvements and amenities such as driveways,guest parking,a swimming
pool, spa area with accompanying restrooms, pool building, project roadways, sidewalks and an
onsite retention area. He reported that the proposed 50 units (originally 62) range in size from
1,615 square feet to 2,100 square feet, with attached and detached one and two-story structures
(which include five different models).
He reported that the building height complies with the R-3 Zone and is consistentwith 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 projects 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 Studyto the Planning
Commission which clarifies findings and has been incorporated into the Conditions of Approval.
Chairman Klatchko opened the Public Hearing.
Page 5 of 10
Planning Commission Minutes
January 09, 2002
Mr. Robert Van Etten addressed the Planning Commission to state that he feels the application
should be denied because he feels that the applicant's performance on the project will not meet
requirements. He submitted photographs and plans for the Colony at El Mirador(another project
of this applicant)for the Planning Commission to review which are on file in the Planning Division.
He stated that, on his El Mirador home, materials (such as stucco vs. block walls) do not adhere
to plans and that landscaping has not been completed. He stated that he has had difficulty
reaching the applicant to address these concerns and that, most recently, mail sent to the
developer's office was returned by the Post Office as "Undeliverable— No Forwarding Address."
He stated that he felt there were dozens of deviations to generally accepted building standards and
codes and that he understands that there is one active lawsuit against the applicant and three other
people contacting attorneys regarding these issues. He urged the Planning Commission to visit
the Colony at El Mirador in order to review the applicant's work.
Mr. Frank Tyson addressed the Planning Commission to state that he felt the revisions to the
proposed project are a decent compromise and urged the Planning Commission to require quality
materials(e.g.wood window frames and mudded tiles). He thanked the Planning Commission for
its attention to detail to this point of the project.
Mr. Thomas Van Etten addressed the Planning Commission to read a letter from Dr. Russell
Christopher to the applicant that describes problems with the building of his home at the Colony
at El Mirador which is on file in the Planning Division.
Chairman Klatchko called the applicant to the podium. The applicant had no comment.
There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed.
Director reported that the Building Division has been to the Colony at El Mirador project on
numerous occasions and that there are disagreements between some homeowners and the
developer regarding finishes and materials but that the areas inside project walls are not subject
to Architectural Approval by the City. He stated that landscape issues are also disputed by some
homeowners. He stated that the proposed Planned Development District which will have.exterior
design review of the buildings, walls, landscaping, etc. and that all must comply exactly with
Planning Commission and City Council requirements. He clarified that any substitution of materials
must be approved by staff or Planning Commission and that, unlike the development at the Colony
at El Mirador, staff will have individual inspections for materials, colors, finishes, exterior lighting,
and landscaping on each home. He reported that the Planned Development District application
under consideration today is very specific and includes a site plan, preliminary landscaping
concept,floor plan, roof plan,exterior materials and colors,and preliminary grading. He stated that
aesthetic control of a Planned Development District is similar to commercial development—that
staff watches progress closely throughout development. He stated that, at the time of Final
Planned Development District application, there will be an exact landscaping plan (including
contours, berming, lighting, and walkways)for Planning Commission review.
Dave Barakian, Director of Public Works, reported that drainage is alleviated by storm drains for
this area and that the proposed project will not add more water to Tahquitz Canyon Way but some
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. Dan 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.
CONSENT AGENDA: None.
w w w w w
Gene Autry Trail/Ramon Road Median Design.
Director presented a model of the sculptural elements, mock sail el nt, and metal materials for
Planning Commission review. He stated that RGA, project d gner, is not available for today's
meeting. He reported that the proposed sculptural an ail elements will be submitted as an
alternate within the bid documents in order to assure dget adherence. He stated that the sails
would actually be 10 feet in height and that the f e would be rebar and carbon steel mesh.
Marcus Fuller, Civil Engineer, reported th a proposed color of the sail elements is an off-white
and showed proposed location of sa' (not clustered)_ He stated that fiberoptic lighting is a
possibility and that staff is researc ' g maintenance issues. He stated that tubular steel will be
used to outline mountain peaks
Commissioner Raya stat that he would be concerned if flourescent lighting was used such as
was installed along R on Road for the airport landscape design. He stated that there should be
a subtle wash of li t with no hot spots and should be lit from the inside to specifically illuminate
the mesh mou in. He asked Mr. Fuller to call him to further discuss consultant's lighting plans.
Commis ' nerJurasky suu
ggested that layering/clustering and lighting from within will be necessary
iM 2 `1 7 5� 0 � 0 ;-�i� 254
SHE
__- FED
o -~- �
February 26, 2002 r, :: , •0 . z-CDavid L. Ball AMERICA'S BUILDER OF THE YEARDIVISION
CT REALTY CORPORATION
20151 S. W. Birch, Suite 200
Newport Beach CA 92660 i
MAR 5 M
Re: Palm Springs Tahquitz Development
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 OLSON COMPANY
Paul R, Edwards r,
3020 OLD RANCH PARKWAY,SUITE 400,SEAL BEACH,CA 90740 ! (562)596-4770 / FAX(562)596-4703
www.theolsonco.com
Jan 4 2Jp2 +I
'..cev�
i
Rose E. Mihata Office (760) 320-0882
468 West Tahquitz Canyon Way Fax (760) 320-9395
Palm Springs �
CA. 92262 jr r
February 21, 2002
Jeanne Spurgin(Council Member)
City Of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs
C.A.. 92262
RE: Case 5.0804-PD 254/Bergheer California, Inc
Dear Jeanne Spurgin,
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 9u'2002.
We believe that their action was violative of California Government
Code See 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
Cormnissioners.
a
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
bad 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
�. — , I. -I I J I b11.L 11V 1011 Y 1 L 'I GI IHw\1 I /�'1 riur' 0.+L�lry P. 2
FPB1 R05E—M11agTR TAX 11 : '56-ZM,395 Fet, 2' 2002 11. 5`wm PI
The c9tmaitsion wast4 war utcguhe is the 11Qr,Ina CaEkry
taCluawi YieNa�'htAauaeofwomeialtor>kti9aawidtthe
pftkimm.Undo W IM7 me 229.090.the 99mmimim Uckwf sae
t>wj9.�Sar�goneum but vaned m the iante kar wb:'i14 Cary '
hadrCer.��imaa+e �c�r��e S'
h3<U9aQ Evans 6aad to ad(rew u the xmsv&the mm aaafeg•
Um that hd bon ww"m is anca6m w@h pd9tnmaphr as
eridaroa and wan akw to ara�,a the aamto:Ni9ax. rdio�the
oDmenm efdo .
8o9;ty wyck dn9io mubdt to reard iese ofappoviw the
project,b"to dwphmwv99aaia wx6 for pope woos and for a
to prs�iPs sapmPKq-WO4�
7'hoc am Cadufnk appdm dwi om wbrb do not allow APMY
pmnmeja yQm1i wboawiffia smtaka wa mmsmym
awtw as V9a.
TM i w vdit he bdwo)ou an Much 02M, Tioae do net tegwm .
wb aceicm.adtrrtr.
b roes.
��QncAeruK�
.� cee,
(� -0 z
Van Eisen Robert R.Van Etten Thine: (760) 323-4755
]Palm
Springs, C Place a-mail:
Palm Springs, CA 92262.4974 rnhcrt_r.vancttcn@vcxizon.net
Wednesday, March 5, 2002
City Council
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743
Dear Council Members,
1 am addressing you this evening regarding the recommendation by the Director of Planning &
Building that you approve the project proposed by Tahquitz Venture, LLC. (Formerly Bergheer
California, Inc.). As you can probably guess, based on my last two appearances before you, I
strongly suggest that you NOT approve this project.
Shortly after we purchased our home in The Colony of El Mirador, I asked Jim White for the
name of the Corporate entity under which the development was being built and the contractor
license number. I was told that it was being built by Karl O. Bergheer (License #554183) doing
business as Bergheer California, Inc. I mention this because I noticed that the Notice of Public
Hearing for tonight's meeting refers to the applicant as Bergheer California, Inc. I find this very
interesting because the California Contractors State License Board shows that license #334183
expired on 01/31/2002. As of this morning, his status was shown as: "This license is expired
and not able to contract at this time."
It therefore appears that we have a government official who has been aggressively promoting an
unlicensed developer. Since one home in The Colony of El Mirador closed in February and
another home has not yet closed, it also appears that we have a developer who is actively
operating in Palm Springs without a valid Contractor's License!
This is the same developer who allegedly does not pay his bills. I don't know about all of this
alleged stuff, but I do ]mow that we, along with the owners of five other homes in The Colony
of El Mirador have all been named in a lawsuit which includes in it's complaints:
Damages for Breach of Contract
Damages for Common Counts
Foreclosure of Mechanic's Lien
Enforcement of Bonded Stop Notice
Three of us discovered that it can be very interesting to go to the Riverside county offices and
peruse the public data bases. We found the following Mechanics Liens filed against Bergheer.
Note: We included only those which pertain to homes in The Colony of El Mirador and did
not list those filed against homes in his last project, Viento, in Rancho Mirage.
• Lasco Bathware
Lots: 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 26, 32
• Lasco Bathware
Lots: 15, 24, 25, 26
• Lasco Bathware
Lots: 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 33, 34, 35
• Atrium Door &Window
Lots: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31
• Sierra Landscape Company
Lots: 6, 7, 8, 10, 18, 19, 20, 21
• Estrada Painting
Lots: 4, 6, 7, 8, 27
• County Line Framing
Lots: 7, 23
• JT Tile & Marble, Inc.
Lot: 1
With these potential encumbrances on our titles, it means that we may have difficulties selling
or even refinancing our properties. In addition to issues regarding clouded titles, we have many
other concerns with any project in which Karl Otto Bergheer is involved.
We contracted to purchase our home in June of the year 2000. Today, 21 months later, we still
have major building code violations which have not been corrected. Yesterday I received a
phone call from the Palm Springs Planting and Building Department informing me that they
had just received revised drawings for our home from the architect. This is a home for which an
occupancy permit was issued over 11 months ago!
It turns out that a little over 50% (63 feet) of the required soffit vents (125 feet) as shown on
the original.plans were impossible to install as specified, and the remaining vents were never
installed. Obviously the architect did not adequately check his plans before submitting them to
the planning department, the planning department did not do its job during either the plan
check phase or the enforcement phase, and the builder ignored the whole thing.
It appears to me that Mr. Doug Evans and Mr. Karl Otto Bergheer are a deadly combination
for the city of Palm Springs. Mr. Bergheer ignores the law, Mr. Evans fails to enforce the law,
and the consumer loses.
Page
I simply cannot understand the apparent mutual admiration society between Mr. Evans, Mr.
Aergheer, and the City of Palm Springs. I strongly urge the City Council to initiate an
immediate divorce. Mr. Bergheer has consistently misled us in the past, and I see no reason to
believe that he will not continue to do so in the future!
I sincerely hope that you do nothing that will subject additional residents to suffer from the
business practices of Karl Otto Bergheer!
Sincerely,
Robert R. Van Etten
page 3
License Detail Page 1 of
CALIFORNIA CONZir ACTORS STATE LICEN$T 50ARC
r�_ _ I
License Detail
Contractor License # 554183
❑I$CLAIMER
A license status check provides information taken from the C51.8 license data base Before relying on this information,you should be aware of the rollowing
limitations
• CSL 3 is prohibited by law from disclosing complaints until they are referred for legal action
• Per B&P 7071.17 only construction related civil judgments known to the CSLB are disclosed.
• Arbitrations are not listed unless the contractor fails to comply with the terms of the arbitration.
• Due to workload,there may be relevant informaton that has not yet been entered onto the Board s license data base.
Extract Date: 03/06/2002
Business Information
ICARL O 13ERGREER
1601 DOVE STREET SUITE 170
NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92660
Business Phone Number: (949) 756-8400
Entity: Sole Ownership
Issue Date: 01/18/1989 Expire Date: 01/31/2002
* * '* License Status
This license is expired and not able to contract at this time.
* * * Classifications sr
KkRl Description
® GENERAL BUILDING CONTRACTOR
* * * Bonding Information * x
CONTRACTOR'S BOND: This license filed Contractor's Bond number 970971C in the amount of$7,500
with the bonding company
I1NDE_MN1_7LCOMPANY OF CALTFORNIA.
Effective Date: 07/01/1994
nntraptor_'s 3ondins, History
' Workers Compensation Information
This license is exempt fxom having workers compensation insurance; they have no employees at this time.
Effective Date: 09/23/1991 Expire Date: None
http://www2.cslb.ca.gov/CSLB LIBRARY/License+Detail.asp?LicNum=00554183 3160009
COC
606 ly 8 v
CR y22
01
SAI
-1 Wl�
�•��-^s vim, ��* \ ,- .
Stan 48
09
Pa Northeast 1s'h
land, i
pR 97202
_ 513 134 011
---___ - Katsmun Msociates
47 N Paseo Laredo ^�
Cathedral City,CA 92234
C
kr ' tl13S49
SoolerdlVV2 y �.
c L v' A a./e
313 470 009
Randall&Joan loose
1808 NE Knott St
Portland, OR 97212
23L6RTN 141. E
T Nrjp�/.ts/otia
POR6vARD ' f�IE
>.P YD S E'
`•� 4
0
b8
NW
s "'RAN7?ALL
RORTLANDZr�! AVM Apr Z03
OR 47209-,2g44 '
r, RETURN ro SENoa
R
f r_
FEB 14 2002 .�
ecp�l'
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Cle,tfs Frling Stan,
(2015.5.C.C.P) �ff✓tcynwct
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
No.e591
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
Case No.5.08041,a Prolimanary Planned Develop.
mont Dlstnct (PD No. 267) and Tentanve Tract
Map 29077,for ma subdivision of 1 6.8 acre ow-
the and a Citizen of the United St.- and a resident of Cel into 50 parcels located to the south west of
the Count aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen the Intersection of i'shquilz Canyon Way and Mu-
Y $ �' -eum Drive, 2one R-3iR-2, Seeovn 15.
years,and not a party 10 or interested in the Applicant. eerghver California, Inc.
above-entitled matter.I am the principal cleric of a NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVFN that the City Council
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING, of the City of Palm Springs California, will hold a
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, public hearing m its meeting
pp of March 6, 2002.
g hhe City Council Chamber a City Hall 3200 E,
printed and published in tllc city of Palm Springs, Tahqultz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California.
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been The purpose of the hearing is tp consider an ap•
adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the plicailon for a dLstrict and a tentative tra map.prellmirw7 ct planned development
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of The ropo;cd
California under the date of March 24,1988.Case d p project is a 50 unlr owtcrod real-
enfial development within a gutod community.
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 tbereef on the following dates,to wit:
February llIII
I
All in the year 2002
I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. 01Ir ui VALN st clot;
72th
Dated at Palm Springs,California this d:ry
FebruaryPursuant to Section 15063 of the California a Coo-
of ronmonth sQualitybeen Act, a Mtng t h Negative. the
City C has been prepared p this meetn0, the
of —---------- ---,2002 City Council is ex acfod to e
Mitigated NegaOrvc Declaration,prove the proposed
The proposed map, Initial Study and related doc-
'� umcnts are available for public review daily br,
--- --- tween 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs
-- in ilia Planning and ouildinp Departmunt, located
Signatureal 3200 Tahqwt; Canyon Way,
If any individual or group challenges the action In
court, issues raisud may be hrrntcd To only these
issues raised at the public hearings deccribcd in
Tills nelice or In written comesponencc at or pri-
or to the Commission meeting,
Nobcu of Public Hearing is being sent to all prop-
erty owners within four hundred (400) feet of the
subject property. An opportunity will be given at
•aid heerin,is for all ntarested persons to to
heard. Cuusgivns regarding this case may be di-
ieCTPd to Alex Mnyerhoff, Princlpll Flannel' De-
partment of Planning &Budding, (760)323-5245.
'- Polriaa A. Sand(,`
City Clo;a
�PIJB. Feloruary 11, 2002
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
I,the undersigned,say: 1 am and was at all times herein mentioned,a citizen of the United States and
employed in the County of Riverside, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within
action or proceeding; that my business address is 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, Palm Springs,
California; that on the 181h day of December, 2001, 1 served the within (NOTICE OF PUBLIC
HEARING) on PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 5.0804(PD No.267)/TTM 29077 (APN#513-
121.035 and 513-141.012) to consider an application for a preliminary planned development
district and a tentative tract map by Bergheer California, Inc., to subdivide a 6.8 acre parcel
into 50 parcels for clustered residential development within a gated community, located to the
south west of the inersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Museum Drive, Zone R-31R-2,
Section 15, on persons contained in Exhibit "A" attached hereto in said action or proceeding by
depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a
mailbox, sub-post office, substation or mail chute, or other like facility, regularly maintained by the
Government of the United States in the City of Palm Springs, California, addressed to the list of
persons or firms indicated on the report received from and certified by the City's Planning Technician
on August 22, 2001 and attached hereto as Exhibit"A
"-
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
aj C"t-�_ 4_; �
Anita C. Graves '
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 19"day of December, 2001.
Ok PALM Sq*
City of Palm Springs
.,.• Department of Planning & Building
�� FORN.r
MEMORANDUM
Date: August 22, 2001
From: Yoav Shernock
Planning Technician
Subject: Mailing Labels for Case No. 5.0804/TTM 29077
This is to certify that the attached labels were created on August 22, 2001 using the most current
information available. To the best of my knowledge, the labels are complete and accurate.
�2 lqt2�-
Yoav SKernock
/ZLl0
Date
/clr
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
Case No. 5.0804, a Preliminary Planned Development District (PD No. 267), related
Architectural Approvals and Tentative Tract Map 29077, 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 south west of the intersection of Tahquitz Canyon Way
and Museum Drive, Zone R-3/R-2, Section 15.
Applicant: Bergheer California, Inc.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California,
will hold a public hearing at its meeting of January 9, 2002. The Planning Commission meeting
begins at 1:30 p.m. (Public Hearings begin at 2:00 p.m.) in the City Council Chamber at City Hall,
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for a preliminary planned development
district and a tentative tract map.
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared. At this meeting, the Planning Commission is expected to
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The proposed map, Initial Study and related documents are available for public review daily,
between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Building Department,
located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way.
If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those
issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior
to the Commission 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 forall interested persons to be heard.
Questions regarding this case may be directed to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department
of Planning & Building, (760) 323-8245.
'S44 jl�
Douglas R. ans
Director of lanning and Building
Mailing: December 19, 2001,
Fax to Desert Sun: December 17, 2001
Printed in Desert Sun: December 20, 2001
Bergheer California, Inc. GYP Architects AIE-CASC
Attn: Karl Bergheer, President Attn: Don Corbin Attn: Tom Nievez
1601 Dove Street, #170 170 Newport Cntr Dr. #225 937 South Via Lata, #500
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Colton, CA 92324
TKD Associates, Inc.
Attn: Tom Doczi
2121 E. Tahquitz Cny Way, #1
Palm Springs, CA 92262
I
513 110 002 1 035 513 110 005 513 110 020
Paul Marut&'Tracy Conrad Steven Cheroske&Timothy Helyer Springs Desert Museum Pahn
412 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 530 W Taliquitz Way 686 Palisades Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pahn Springs,CA 92262
513 110 034 513 110 035 513 110 036
Palm Springs Desert Museum Inc Paul Marut omad Rose Mihata
PO Box 2310 412 itz Way 468 W Tahquitz Way
Palm Springs,CA 92263 prings, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 110 042 513 110 043 513 120 002 ,003
Harold&Dorothy Meyerman Harold&Dorothy Meyerman Rashad Wasef&Eva Wasef
2234 E Colorado Blvd 935 Hillcrest PI 500 Madeline Dr
Pasadena, CA 91107 Pasadena,CA 91106 Pasadena, CA 91105
1513120003 513120010ON,0i2,D15,014F,ok0.�1, 513120011
ashad W va Wasef David&Trudy Johnston W3r°y''C1,' David&Trudy JOINOW
00 me Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr OK'I,�Kf1,G a'
q o,o ty,1,c>,a 147 S T
Jena, CA 91105 Palm Springs, CA 92262 53=+17o-Ooi rings.CA 92262
513 120 012 513 120 013 513 120 015
David&T on Lee&Teryl Coil David&Tru
147 uitz Dr 1806 Avenida Salvador 147 tz Dr
119 Springs, CA 92262 San Clemente, CA 92672 Springs, CA 92262
513 120 016 513 120 017 513 120 025
David&Trud ston James Manion Keith Sondrall&Luc Bal
147 Dr 151 S Tahquitz Dr 544 W Arenas Rd
n Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 120 026/513-14 I-Ct l 513 120 023 513 120 029
Wahoo-Cal Hotels Lie Richard Hirsch Paul&Deena Brand
4109 NE 19Th Ave 606 W Arenas Rd David Dore
Portland,OR 97211 Palm Springs, CA 92262 2403 Crest View Dr
Los Angeles, CA 90046
513 120 035 513 120 040 513 120041
Joseph Drown Foundation David&T on David Johnsto on
MEL HARBOR ENTERPRIS 14 mtz Dr 147 S tz Dr
1999 Avenue Of The Stars*1930 d m Springs, CA 92262 Springs, CA 92262
Los Angeles, CA 90067
513 120 042 513 120 045 513 120 046
David&T to
David&T ston David Johnsto on
14 quilr Dr 147 uitz Dr 147 Dr
m Springs, CA 92262 m Sprirpgs, CA 92262 Springs, CA 92262
513 120 047 513 120 048 513 120 049
David&Trud on David&T son David&T
147 S T Dr 147 qultz Canyon Way I4 quitz Canyon Way
P rings, CA 92262 Springs, CA 92262 m Springs, CA 92262
I Ca
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
Elena Stancill Steve Cheroske Stan Amy
TKD Associates 530 West Tahquitz Canyon Way 41098 Northeast 191h
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 500 West Arenas Road
261 South Belardo Road 532 West Arenas Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
Bill Davis Jane Smith Lola Rossi
500 West Arenas Road The Movie Colony Association 227 South Cahuilla Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262 928 Avenida Palmas Palm Springs, CA 92264
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Michael Atencio
A.C.B.C.I. Hope V. van Michele o
600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Princi fanner Assis Planner
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Douglao s
Direct nn g & Building
Lcz�e.�s �'fisr�
513 120 050 513 120 051 513 120 052
David Johnston y Johnston David Johnston mdy Johnston David&;F0010ton
147 S TAW r 147 S r 147 quitz Dr
P nngs, CA 92262 P-1i CA 92262 Springs, CA 92262
513 131 023 511 132 003 513 132 007
Petty Enterprises Inc Pilger Assoc Inc Patencio Estates
601 W Arenas Rd 221 S Patencio Rd 28640 Landau Blvd#1
Palm Springs,CA 92262 Pahn Springs, CA 92262 Cathedral City, CA 92234
513 132 017 513 132 019 513 133 001
Roger Malone&Eugene Milligan Albert Carl Taucher Rase Mihata&Rose Mihata
529 W Arenas Rd Wilda Looff Taucher 487 W Arenas Rd
Palm Springs,CA 92262 280 Corona Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262
Long Beach, CA 90803
513 133 002 1613-151-02p 513 133 004 513 133 013
Emil&Joan Forrer George Marion&Louisa Sanborn Men Don Arthur Kuzma&Dale Burr
PO Box 198 231 S Lugo Rd 6506 NE highway 99
Tahoe Vista, CA 96148 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Vancouver,WA 98665
513 133 014 513 134 001 513 134 002
Herbert&Mazy 1lodson Christy Eugenis Francis&Evelyn Bushman
701 Texas St 411 W Arenas Rd#1 5515 Inner Circle Dr
Redlands, CA 92374 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Riverside, CA 92506
513 134 003 513 134 004 513 134 005
Jerry&Janice Tippin Mario Hernandez&Michael Ross Frances Nadoldski&Dianne Sluzas
PO Box 8171 68725 Panorama Rd 411 W Arenas Rd#5
Tahoe City,CA 96145 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 134 006 513 134 007 513 134 008
Fay Lecerf&Jacqueline Alp Eugene&Adrian Rossi Neil Graham
Box 114 Eckville Fa Rossi 20982 Brookhurst St#201
AB TOM OXO 3215 E Ocean Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646
CANADA Long Beach, CA 90803
513 134 009 513 134 010 513 134 Oil
Ludwig Uri Roland&Sandra Trnex Kalsman&Associates
625 N Canon Dr 411 W Anenas Rd 410 47 N Pasco Laredo
Beverly hills,CA 90210 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cathedral City, CA 92234
513 135 001 513 135 002 513 135 003
Jean Smallwood Joan Henry Twohey&Tempe Twohey Russell&Alice Yensen
555 W Arenas Rd#3 555 W Arenas Rd#2 1 N Stonington Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Laguna Beach, CA 92651
513 135 004 513 135 005 513 135 006
George&Karen Whicker Ellis Robin Sharp E Alan Petty&Petty
12285 Woodley Ave 4316 Marina City Dr 3480 Torraricc 131vd#212
Granada Fulls, CA 91344 Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Torrance, CA 90503
513 141001 513 141 0041013 513 141 005
Paul Bruggemans&Michel Despras Jahn Wessman Frances Winter
385 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr#G106 904 N Rexford Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Beverly Bills, CA 90210
513 141011 513 141 013 513 141 015 1 O I 1p
Wahoo-Cal Llc John Wessman Casa Cody B&B Con Inn Me
4109 ve#B 1555 you Dr#G106 175 S Cahuilla Rd
d, OR 97211 prings, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 141016 513 142 001 513 142 003
Casa Cody B Inn William lvlcwethy Jr, Craig Blau
1501 o Dr 11939 Sorrento Valley Rd 200 W Arenas Rd
Oaks, CA 91403 San Diego, CA 92121 Palm Springs,CA 92262
513 151002 513 151 006 513 151010
Larry&Sharon Kramer William&Trisha Davis Steven Weiland
1909 El Camino Real 1197 Coast Village Rd#1209 316 NE 24Th Ave
Redwood City, CA 94063 Santa Barbara, CA 93108 Portland,OR 97232
513 151017 513 151 020 5134701 Ol
Louis Miller&Matthew Miller Emil&Joa r David&T on
1155 Tiffany Cir N 375 nas Rd 147 quitz Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pafffi Springs, CA 92262 P40fifSprings,CA 92262
513 470 002,Dl 3, O 1 K 513 470 003 513 470 004
John Gerard Jr. Barney&Phyllis Parker Marc Herbert&Groth Ric VonBungen
20533 Rancho La Floresta Rd 931 Argyll Dr 2364 Tice Creek Dr#4
Covina, CA 91724 Boise,ID 83702 Walnut Creek, CA 94595
513 470 005 513 470 006 513 470 0071 6 I 0
Wanda&J Richard Walker Paul Marks&Paul Marks John&Jean Metzger
Walker Wand Es 34597 Via Catalina 600 Arbolado Dr
3512 Ross Rd Capistrano Beach,CA 92624 Fullerton, CA 92835
Palo Alto, CA 94303
513 470 008 513 470 009 513 470 010
Peter Phillips Randall&Joan Boose !600eolado
hn&Jean
PO Box 115 1808 NE Knott St
Fawnskin, CA 92333 Portland, OR 97212 Dr, CA 92835
513 470 011 513 470 013 513 470 014
Area Common John Gerard J ra Belem Gerard John Gerard Jr-
NO
S or NUMBER PO 13 20533 a oresta Rd
O
na, CA 91722 C A 91724
513 501001 513 501 002 513 501 003 ICN,COO IW-1.002,M9C1b
Robert Barthel&Vinetta Barthel Lisle Taaje R K Miller Inv Co&Susan Lse Bennet
123 NW 4Th St#412 500 W Arenas Rd#2 500 W Arenas Rd#3
Evansville,IN 47708 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 501 004 513 501 005 513 501 006
R K Mille Inc Joan Levun -. R K Mil o
Ka ghsmith NOS r T NAME or NUMBER P ' ' tompson IncJr.
5 st Glen Ln SW Springs, CA 92262 4 11Th Ave
awma, WA 98498 Salt Lake City,UT 84103
513 501 007 513 501008 513 501 009
R K Miller Inv ent Co Inc R K Miller Invve Inc R K Mill c&Terry Hauswir
554 11 1450 La I!jjdMMva Dr
S - e City,UT 84103 Lo ch, CA 90815 WdiffBy The Sea, CA 92007
513 501010 513 501 011 513 560 008 10017
R K Miller o Inc&Carmann Bre Lot Common Fashion Plaza Desert
1447 up Dr PO Box 2002 563 W 500 S#440
Sffa Rosa, CA 95403 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Bountiful,UT 84010
513 560 009
Fashion Pl
563 W 0
B ,UT 84010
Smooth Feed SheetsTM Use template for 51600
NEIGHBORHOOD
COALITION
LABELS
Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter
280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.O. Box 2824
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263
ysen
Philip Tedesco Sharon Dock Frank 1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Pal Southm Springs,gs, C la Road
Pal CA 92264
Bob Weithorn Jane Smith 8 LABELS PER SET
261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas 3 SETS OF LABELS
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 1 SET MAILED
IMAVERY® Address Labels Laser 5960T.M
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) C
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE)
I,the undersigned,say: I am and was at all times herein mentioned,a citizen of the United States and
employed in the County of Riverside, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within
action or proceeding; that my business address is 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, Palm Springs,
California;that on the 2"d day of April, 2002, 1 served the within (NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING) on
PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 5.0804 by Tahquitz Venture LLC, and CT Realty
Corporation for a preliminary Planned Development (PD No. 254), related architectural
approvals 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 on persons contained in Exhibit"A" attached
hereto in said action or proceeding by depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope
with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a mailbox, sub-post office,substation or mail chute, or other like
facility, regularly maintained by the Government of the United States in the City of Palm Springs,
California, addressed to the list of persons or firms indicated on the report received from and certified
by the City's Planning Staff dated and attached hereto as Exhibit"K.
I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
A
athy T. Thomas
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 2"d day of April, 2002.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
PLANNING COMMISSION
Case No. 5.0804-PD 254
Tentative Tract Map 29077
A preliminary Planned Development (PD No. 254), related architectural approvals
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.)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California,
will hold a public hearing at its meeting of April 24,2002.The Planning Commission meeting begins
at 1:30 p.m. (Public Hearings begin at 2:00 pm) in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E.
Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application for an environmental assessment, a
preliminary planned development district, related architectural approvals,and atentativetract map.
Pursuant to Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, a Mitigated Negative
Declaration has been prepared. At this meeting, the Planning Commission is expected to
recommend that the City Council approve the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration.
The proposed map, Initial Study and related documents are available for public review daily,
between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Building Department,
located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way.
If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those
issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior
to the Commission 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 Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department
of Planning & Building, (760) 323-8245.
Douglas . Evans
Director of Planning and Building
Fax to Desert Sun, March 29, 2002
Printed in Desert Sun: April 3, 2002
Mailing: April 3, 2002
PALM
zpF Spq.Y
City of Palm Springs
'.• .. Department of Planning & Building
C�LFO0.N�*
MEMORANDUM
Date: April 2, 2002
From: Alex Meyerhoff
Principal Planner
Subject: Mailing Labels for Case No. 5.0804-PD 254, TTM 29077
This is to certify that the attached labels were created on April 2, 2002 using the most current information
available. To the best of my knowledge, the labels are complete and accurate.
M
Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner
Date
/ctt
S.Og0q- P9- 15'
'r," 24077
513 110 002 513 110 005 513 110 020
Paul Mamt&Tracy Conrad Steven Cheroske&Timothy Helyer Springs Desert Museum Palm
412 W Tahquitz Canyon Way 530 W Tahquitz Way 686 Palisades Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs,CA 92262
513 110 023 513 110 034 513 110 035
Paul Marut&Tracy Conrad Palm Springs Desert Muscum 1no Paul Marut&Tracy Conrad
PO Box 3340 PO Box 2310 412 W Tahquitz Way
Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 110 036 513 110 042 513 110 043
Rose Mihata Harold&Dorothy Meyerman Dorothy&Harold Meyerman
468 W Tahquitz Way 2234 E Colorado Blvd 935 Hillcrest PI
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pasadena, CA 91107 Pasadena, CA 91106
513 110 044 513 120 002 513 120 003
Robert Halliday&Roberta Halliday Rashad Wasef&Eva Wasof Rashad Wasef&Eva Wasef
1555 Shoreline Dr#110 500 Madeline Dr 500 Madeline Dr
Boise,ID 83702 Pasadena, CA 91105 Pasadena, CA 91105
513 120 010 513 120 011 513 120 012
David&Trudy Johnston David&Trudy Johnston David&Trudy 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
513 120 013 513 120 015 513 120 016
David&Trudy Johnston David&Trudy Johnston Johnston
147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 120 025 513 120 026 513 120 029
Keith Sondrall& Luc Bal Wahoo-Cal Hotels LlC Richard Hirsch
544 W Arenas Rd 4109 NE 19Th Ave#B 606 W Arenas Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Portland, OR 97211 Palm Springs,CA 92262
513 120 029 513 120 040 513 120 041
Paul&Deena Brand Johnston 1999 Johnston 1999
David Dore 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr
2403 Crest View Dr Palrn 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 Talquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Taltqultz Dr
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Sprngs, 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 147 S Tahquitz Dr
Palm 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 EastSeld 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 Nosh Hollywood, CA 91607 Lancaster, CA 93536
513 131 023 513 132 003 513 132 017
Petty Enterpnses Inc Pilger Assoc Inc Roger Mallon&Eugene Milligan
601 W Arenas Rd 221 $Patencio Rd 529 W Arenas Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 132 018 513 133 001 513 133 002
Albert Carl Taucher Keith Sondrall Emil&Joan Forrer
Wilda Looff Taucher 544 W Arenas Rd PO Box 198
280 Corona Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262 Tahoe Vista, CA 96148
Long Beach, CA 90803
513 133 004 513 133 013 513 133 014
George Marion&Louisa Sanborn Men Don Arthur Kuzma&Dalc Burr Herbert&Mary Hodson
231 S Lugo Rd 6506 NE Highway 99 701 Texas St
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Vancouver, WA 98665 Redlands, CA 92374
513 134 001 513 134 002 513 134 003
Wahoo-Cal Rentals Llc Francis&Evelyn Bushman Jerry&Janice Tippin
4109 NE 19Th Ave#B 5515 Inner Circle Dr PO Box 8171
Portland,OR 97211 Riverside, CA 92506 Tahoe City, CA 96145
513 134 004 513 134 005 513 134 006
Donald&Deborah Garsh Prances 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
513 134 007 513 134 008 513 134 009
Eugene&Adrian Rossi Neil Graham Ludwig Uri
Fa Rossi 20982 Brookhurst St#201 625 N Carton Dr
3215 E Ocean Blvd Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Beverly Hills, CA 90210
Long Beach, CA 90803
513 134 010 513 134011 513 135 001
Roland&Saadra Trucx Kalsman&Associates Jean Smallwood
411 W Arenas Rd 010 47 N Pasco Laredo 555 W Arenas Rd#3
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 Xensen George&Karen Whicker Ellis
555 W Arenas Rd#2 1 N Stonington Rd 12285 Wocdley Ave
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Laguna Beach, CA 92651 Granada Hills, CA 91344
513 135 005 513 135 006 513 135 007
Robin Sharp&Janes Grove E Alan Petty&Petty E Alan Petty&Joanne Petty
4316 Marina City Dr#423 3490 Torrance Blvd#212 601 W Arenas Rd
Marina Del Rey, CA 90292 Torrance,CA 90503 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 135 008 513 135 009 513 135 010
Harold&Helen Penner Bette Dedrick&Donald Walken Harold&Helen Penner
290 S San Jacinto Dr#1 34424 Walnut Ln 290 S San Jacinto Dr#3
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Creswell, OR 97426 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 135 011 513 135 012 513 135 013
Penner 2001 Reynold&Antonia Stelloh III Harold&Helen Penner
1311 La Palma St 4281 E Ocean Blvd 290 S San Jacinto Dr#6
San Diego, CA 92109 Long Beach, CA 90803 Palm Springs, CA 92262
513 135 014 513 135 015 513 135 016
Harold&Helen Penner Donald Rockola Harold&Helen Penner
290 S San Jacinto Dr#7 1555 N Astor St 290 S San Jacinto Dr#9
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Chicago,IL 60610 Palm Springs,CA 92262
513 135 017 513 135 018 513 141 001
Wayne Samuel Harold Penner&Helen Penner Paul Bruggemans&Michel Despras
290 S San Jacinto Dr 290 S San Jacinto Dr 385 W 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 Waboo-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
513 142 001 513 142 003 513 151 002
William Mcwcthy Jr, Craig Blau Larry&Sharon Kramer
11839 Sorrento Valley Rd 200 W Arenas Rd 1909 El Camino Real
San Diego, CA 92121 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Redwood City, CA 94063
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 Cahuilla 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 Devermont
1134 Clermont Dr 251 S Lucerne Blvd 19528 Celtic St
South Bend,IN 46617 Los Angeles, CA 90004 Northridge, CA 91326
513 151 016 513 151 017 513 151 018
Sharyn Young Louis Miller&Matthew Miller Community Church Of Palm Springs
307 W Arenas Rd 1155 Tiffany Cir N PO Box 1703
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92263
513 151 020 513 152 002 513 152 010
Emil&Joan Forrer Marin&G Ursesca Edna Marian Christense&Karen Kr P
375 W Arenas Rd 239 W Arenas Rd 261 S Belardo Rd
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs,CA 92262
513 152 020 513 470 001 513 470 002
Douglas Mannoff&Donna Mannoff Johnston 1999 John Gerard Jr.
200 S 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 Hcrbcrt&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 Fawnsidn, CA 92333
513 470 009 513 470 010 513 470 011
Randall&Joan Boose John&Jean Metzger ,Area Common
1808 NE Knott St F Metzger NO STREET NAME or NUMBER
Portland, OR 97212 600 Arbolado Dr CA
Fullerton, CA 92835
513 470 013 513 470 014 513 501 001
John Gcrard Jr. &Maria Belem Gerard John Gerard Jr. Robert Barthel& Vincita 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 99498
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 Philip Thompson Jr. 554 11Th Ave
Palm Springs, CA 92262 554 1ITh Ave Salt Lake City,UT 84103
Salt 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&Carmarm Bre
1450 La Perla Ave 1943 Pariva Dr 1447 Wikiup Dr
Lang Beach,CA 90813 Cardiff By The Sea, CA 92007 Santa Rosa, CA 95403
513 501011 513 560 008 513 560 009
Lot Common Excel Legacy Corp Paquitz&Fashion Plaza Desert
PO Box 2002 17140 Bernardo Center Dr#3 17140 Bernardo Center Dr 0300
Palm Springs,CA 92263 San Diego, CA 92128 San Diego, CA 92128
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
Ancrxs-��
„110965 jasel slagel ssaippy ®AU3AV 6
fin/ �j°�r Lo
� Qgd �
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
.o915 ao1 a;eldwa;asg W-Ls1004S paad 410ow5
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
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 500 261 South Belardo Road 532 West Arenas Road West Arenas Road
Pal
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, GA 92262
Bill Davis Jane Smith Lola Rossi
500 West Arenas Road The Movie Colony Association 227 South Cahuilla Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262 928 Avenida Palmas Palm Springs, CA 92264
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Michael Atencio
A.C.B.C.I Hope V. Sullivan
600 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Principal Planner
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Douglas R. Evans
Director of Planning & Building
WL096S lase] slage7 ssaippd ®AU3AH 13
NEIGHBORHOOD
COALITION
LABELS
w
Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter
280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.O. Box 2824
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263
Philip Tedesco Sharon Lock Frank Tysen
1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 175 South Cahuilla Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Bob Weithorn Jane Smith
261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262
Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter
280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.O. Box 2824
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263
Philip Tedesco Sharon Lock Frank Tysen
1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 175 South Cahuilla Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Bob Weithorn Jane Smith
261 South Belardo Road 92a Avenida Palmas
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262
Bob Seale Christine Hammond John Hunter
280 Camino Sur 373 South Monte Vista Drive P.Q. Box 2824
Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92263
Philip Tedesco Sharon Lock Frank Tysen
1303 West Primavera Drive 1517 Sagebrush Casa Cody
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 175 South Cahuilla Road
Palm Springs, CA 92264
Bob Weithorn Jane Smith 8 LABELS PER SET
261 South Belardo Road 928 Avenida Palmas 3 SETS OF LABELS
Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92262 1 SET MAILED
n091S io4 aleldwal asll W SlaaySS Paaj 410ow5
S13 134
Roland`�Sall
S
411WA
andra T r
iry r� Cc?t - r
s palm nng Ad 9 262
Jp _
�^ �007
� r•
513 134 004
Mad0 Hernandez
68725 panora $Michael$oss _ �j
Cathedral�yd9223qliv
/
5£'NT3ER
1119 FQR WRRD
r mN 6LE' TD nfE'4R WARD'rL£
R� 4RN To SENbER .
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, 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 for a Tentative Tract Map and a Planned Development District 5.0804(PD 254)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 fora Tentative Tract Map
and a Planned Development District 5.0804 (PD 254) 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
adjacent to Tahquitz Canyon Way and the adjacent R-1 zoned properties, added additional
guest parking, eliminated bay parking and increased the size of the landscape median along
Tahquitz Canyon Way; and qIL
WHEREAS, on January 9, 2002, a public hearing on the application for a Tentative Tract Map
and a Planned Development District 5.0804 (PD 254)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 March 6, 2002, a public hearing on the application for a Tentative Tract Map
and a Planned Development District 5.0804 (PD 254) was held by the City Council in
accordance with applicable law; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff
report, 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.
Pursuant to the Zoning Ordinance,multi-family residential is a permitted use within both
the R-2 zone 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 or future uses
permitted in the zone in which the use is located.
4?C40;)W4
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 will contribute to 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 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.
Jc3
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 surrounded by
development. Through the implementation of the proposed mitigation measures any
environmental impacts regarding animal or plant life will be reduced to a level of less
than significant. There are no bodies of water on the subject property and therefore no
fish will be disturbed. 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 or type of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the
proposed subdivision.
The 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 March, 2002.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
By:
City Clerk City Manager
Reviewed and Approved as to Form:
�o
46Y
EXHIBIT A
CASE NO. 5.0804-PD-254 AND TM 29077
REVISED CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
March 6, 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 orwill 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 bythe 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.
qC �
i
4. The applicant prior to issuance of building permits shall submit a draft declaration of
covenants, conditions and restrictions ("CC&R's") to the Director of Planning 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height.
14. 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, down-lights shall be utilized.
16V
15. The detention basins and archeological sites shall be landscaped, to the extent
possible.
16. Plans meeting City standards for approval on the proposed trash and recyclable
materials enclosure shall be submitted prior to issuance of a building permit.
17. A 6 foot block wall shall be required around the pool area. Details of pool fencing
(materials and color) and equipment area shall be submitted with final landscape plan.
18. 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 constructthe 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 easementfor pedestrian and vehicular access forthe 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.
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.
qr ?
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 developerto notifythe 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 specked 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
appropriate holding facility. If the Tribe has not acted to take possession of the remains
within that time period, the,-emains 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 applicant will hire, at their expense, archaeological monitor(s) recommended and
approved by the Tribal Council,forall subsequentwork involving any excavation related
to the development of the remaining property.
35. The project materials shall include two-piece tile roofs, smooth finished hand-troweled
stucco, wooden garage doors, iron grillwork, and decorative shutters and awnings.
36. 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.
G �
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 order to 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.
CRA. 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.
ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT: (Revisions pending) L
I
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 prior to
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 vehicularturnarounds(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
G /0
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
prior to 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.
D. Copy of Title Report prepared/updated within past 3 months.
16 //
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. Ccntact the 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 Departmentof Food and Agriculture office is located at73-
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.
9c/2w
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 forthe subject property,thetraverse
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 q613
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 clevelopershall re-stripethe 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"for traffic 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,NFPA standards,plus UUCSFM 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.
y
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 watersupplies,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.
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 Inspectorwith two 8.5"x 11"site plans.Approved locations forthe
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.