►
From YouTube: Planning Commission | Feb 22 2023
Description
Regular Meeting of the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission, held Wednesday. February 22nd 2023
A
Good
evening,
I
want
to
welcome
you
to
the
Wednesday
February
22nd
2023,
regular
meeting
of
the
Palm
Springs
Planning
Commission
can
I
have
a
roll
call.
Please.
Yes,
commissioner
Elaine
president
commissioner
Irvin's
excused
commissioner
hirschbein
excuse
commissioner
Miller
here,
commissioner
Vice
chair
Roberts
president
and
chair
werma
President,
we
have
a
quorum
five
members
present.
Thank.
You.
Can
I
have
a
report
on
the
posting
of
the
agenda.
Please.
A
A
A
Thank
you.
The
next
item
is
public
comment.
This
time
has
been
set
aside
for
members
of
the
public
to
address
the
Planning
Commission
on
a
consent,
calendar
and
other
agenda
items
and
items
that
are
in
our
general
jurisdiction.
Speakers
will
have
three
minutes.
A
testimony
for
public
hearing
may
be
offered
at
this
time
or
at
the
time
of
hearing,
and
that
would
be
on
item
2A
people
who
want
to
speak
on
item
3A
and
4A
are
directed
to
do
so
now.
A
D
Only
two
public
hearings
before
the
arc
are
permitted.
Thus,
the
denial
of
necessary
necessitates
an
appeal.
The
decision
to
the
Planning
Commission
at
the
January
17th
Arc
meeting
the
applicant
had
completed
three
of
the
four
outstanding
items
to
the
satisfaction
of
the
arc,
except
for
the
requested
minor
modification
to
the
front
and
rear
setbacks.
D
The
15
foot,
rear
setback
being
the
major
issue,
as
the
issue
was
not
resolved
in
the
course
of
the
meeting,
the
project
was
denied
rather
than
conditioned
following
discussions
with
the
owner.
The
submitted
plan
has
moved
the
house
forward
to
comply
with
the
15-foot
rear
setback,
resulting
in
a
minor
redesign
of
the
front
elevation
to
not
encroach
on
the
originally
requested
front
setback
modification
to
12
foot
6
inches
the
new
design
requests
to
setback
modification
to
14
foot,
five
inches
an
improvement
of
nearly
two
feet.
D
It
is
also
my
understanding
that
the
staff
report
was
based
on
a
preliminary
plan.
Listing
is
set
back
at
14
foot
3
inches
rather
than
as
I
understand
it.
The
measured
actual
of
14
foot
five
as
the
new
design
meets
all
of
the
arc
requirements.
I
support
the
staff's
recommendation
and
ask
that
the
arc
denial
be
overturned
and
the
project
approved.
Thank
you
for
your
time.
E
A
G
Okay,
yes
I'm
speaking
on
3A
that
I'm
opposed
to
this
application
based
on
potential
negative
environmental
impacts,
the
threatened
and
endangered
species
access
to
the
undeveloped
Hillside
Lots
should
not
be
approved
prior
to
the
vetting
and
determining
if
these
plots
can
be
developed
in
a
letter
in
in
2005.
So
listen
to
the
Palm
Springs
spoke
out
against
Hillside
development
and
prevailed
in
the
special
election
regarding
Hillside
and
election
develop
a
hillside
development.
This
Hillside
area
is
habitat
for
endangered
bighorn,
sheep
and
other
threatened
species.
G
These
critical
environmental
issues,
along
with
all
the
potential
negative
impacts
of
skill
side
development,
needs
to
be
considered
prior
to
any
incursion
into
this
area
that
permit
should
not
be
granted
without
environmental
review.
That
considers
not
only
the
Sheep
habitat,
but
the
entirety
of
what
was
originally
proposed
to
the
development
is
the
Camino
Del
Monte.
G
A
A
I
I
One
of
the
things
that
I
mentioned
in
my
letter
to
the
Planning
Commission
is,
if
you
look
at
La,
there
was
a
study
done
in
over
300.
Mountain
lions
have
been
killed
by
Vehicles
there
and
while
we're
not
that
large,
still
roads
and
developments
like
that,
push
wild
animals
away
from
that
area
and
I,
don't
think
we
want
to
lose
our
bighorn
sheep
they're,
a
big
tourist
attraction
I
ride
my
horse
up
there
on
the
Lincoln,
Trail
and
I.
I
A
Seeing
no
one
else,
thank
you
very
much
for
your
testimony
and
the
public
hearing
is
closed
and
we
will
move
forward.
We
have
nothing
on
our
consent.
Calendar.
The
first
item
before
us
is
a
public
hearing
item
2A,
a
request
by
the
airlock
group
on
behalf
of
Lucas
Circa
LLC,
for
a
tentative
parcel
map
to
subdivide
an
existing
parcel
into
two
separate
Parcels
located
at
2508
Anza
Trail,
a
staff
report.
Please.
J
J
Thank
you
good
evening,
chair
and
Commissioners.
The
applicant
is
proposing
a
lot
split
on
2805
Anza
Trail.
The
project
site
is
surrounded
on
all
sides
by
existing
single-family
homes
and
takes
access
off
and
the
trail
there's
currently
an
existing
single-family
residence
located
near
the
center
of
the
property.
The
structure
is
considered.
J
The
lot
is
proposed
to
be
split
into
two
Parcels.
We
have
lot
one
and
lot
two,
both
of
which
comply
with
the
lot
size
requirements
of
this
Zone
Additionally.
The
lot
split
will
occur
where
that
yellow
line
is
it's
located
about
10
feet
away
from
the
class
3
structure
on
lot,
two
allowing
the
building
to
comply
with
the
setbacks
and
development
standards
of
the
r1b
zone.
J
An
amm
application
is
required
for
this
substandard
depth
Dimension
and
will
be
reviewed
and
approved
ministerially.
Lastly,
I
want
to
draw
your
attention
to
the
proposed
easement
that
will
take
place
on
the
East
property
line.
It
will
run
through
Lot
1
and
give
access
to
Lot
2.
So
they
have.
You
know,
access
to
their
lot.
J
A
I
A
B
K
Is
here
hello,
can
you
hear
me?
Yes?
Yes,
sorry,
I
was
muted.
My
name
is
Bruce
Ehrlich
I'm
representing
the
the
applicant
on
this
particular
piece
of
property,
the
property
owned
by
an
LLC,
but
the
LLC
really
is
representative
of
a
single
person,
a
Miss
Jane,
Townsend,
she's,
the
property
owner,
and
she
will
be
living
on
the
intends
to
be
living
on
the
rear
lot
in
with
a
house
that
she's
looking
to
construct.
K
The
planning
department
is
in
a
receipt
of
that
application.
I
actually
spoke
to
Alex
this
afternoon
and
we'll
be
calling
her
tomorrow
to
pay
the
fee
for
the
MMA
after
after
this
hearing,
so
that
that
can
move
forward
as
well.
So
at
this
point,
it's
it's
a
straightforward.
Two
lot
subdivision
and
we
are
here
to
ask
questions
answer.
Questions
should
any
be
needed
to
be
answered.
Thank
you
and
thank
you
to
the
planning
department
are.
A
Seeing
none
this
comes
back
to
the
applicant.
He
has
indicated
that
he's
available
for
questions.
Commissioner
away
and
you
have
your
hand
up,
and
then
commissioner
Miller
I,
just
have
a
quick
question
for
clarification.
The
applicant
in
your
project
description.
You
indicate
that
two
new
homes
will
be.
K
K
L
K
It
is
my
understanding
and
I.
I
certainly
don't
want
to
make
a
final
commitment,
but
it
is
my
understanding
that
the
the
existing
house
is
not
in
the
best
shape
or
condition
that
it
should
be.
But
the
intention
is
to
the
initial
intention
is
to
retain
that
house.
That's
why
we've
laid
out
the
property
line
to
allow
the
proper
setback
from
that
house
from
the
new
lot.
B
Yeah
I
think
that
that's
a
good
question,
I
I,
don't
think
that
we
could
sort
of
condition
the
amm
such
that
it
would
sort
of
sunset
if
they
choose
not
to
pursue
the
preservation
of
the
structure.
I.
Think
from
our
perspective,
we
want
to
certainly
want
to
leave
that
door
open
to
allow
that
process
to
play
out,
like
you're
saying,
go
through
the
due
diligence
process
and
determine
whether
or
not
it
warrants
preservation
and
so
at
this
point
going
through
the
amm
processing.
B
L
No
go
ahead,
commissioner
I
was
going
to
say
I
I'm
I'm
not
concerned
either
way.
I
just
would
would
not
suggest
that
this
would
need
to
come
back
to
us
if
in
the
future,
they
demolish
the
house
on
that
too
such
that
they
can
now
expand
lot.
One
is
there
a
way
that
we
can
cover
our
pending
approval
tonight,
presuming
it's
going
to
be
approved
such
that
that
line
could
be
adjusted
10
feet
without
having
to
come
back
to
us
administratively
I.
B
C
A
M
F
M
Out
contextually
is
this:
building
is
a
class
3
building
by
operation
of
the
code?
It's
now
within
the
historic
preservation
scheme
of
the
code,
which
means
that
if
it
were
going
to
be
demolished
or
a
major
alteration,
as
the
code
defines
it,
you've
got
to
get
hspb
approval
for
that
a
demolition
is
not
necessarily
a
foregone
conclusion
of
this
building.
M
Hspb
May
conclude
that
it
is
suitable
for
demolition,
but
there
would
have
to
be
that
review
process
first,
so
my
recommendation
would
be
a
staff
is
suggesting
to
move
ahead
with
the
lot
with
the
attentive
map
and
the
amm
that
staff
would
process,
because
we
we
don't
know,
what's
going
to
happen
with
that
building
it
may
be
demolished.
It
may
be
altered.
It
may
not.
B
And
to
answer
commissioner
Miller's
question
on
the
administrative
process:
I
just
got
clarification
that
a
a
lot
line
adjustment
is
done
administratively.
So
if,
in
the
future
the
building
goes
through
the
process,
it
is
to
be
demolished
and
we
want
to
reallocate
some
of
the
the
lot
area
that
is
done
through
an
administrative
application.
D
C
C
M
I
believe
yeah
Madam,
chair,
I,
I,
understand
what
commissioner
Elaine
is
saying.
I
think
you,
you
could
amend
that
to
say
they
must
obtain
or
get
approval
of
the
amn
before
proceeding
with
the
project.
If
there
isn't
an
amm,
it's
not
going
to
meet
minimum
setback
requirements
and
that's
going
to
be
a
problem
for
the
project,
but
I
think
we
can
condition
it
rather
than
apply
for
the
amm
or
you
know,
seek
an
A
M.
We
could
say
you
have
to
obtain
it,
you
have
to
get
it
and
then
you
can
move
forward.
B
H
H
C
A
Wilmot,
yes,
okay,
item
four
is
the
first
appeal
we
have
had
by
Pinnacle
Palm
Springs
LLC
of
the
decision
of
the
Architectural
Review
Committee,
to
deny
a
major
architectural
application
for
a
proposal
to
construct
a
3626
square
foot
housed
on
a
hillside
lot,
an
administrative
minor
modification
to
reduce
the
minimum
front
yard
setback
located
at
1711,
Pinnacle
Point
lot,
one
a
Zone
pdd79,
a
staff
report.
Please,
and
then
a
report
just
a
comment
by
our
attorney
as
to
what
our
purview
is
on
appeals.
N
N
Planning
Commission
altered
the
zoning
code
to
redo
our
architecture
review
process.
The
review
of
Hillside
houses
was
was
to
be
done
by
the
architecture
Review
Committee,
so
the
Planning
Commission
has
reviewed
some
houses
in
the
subdivision
and
the
architecture
Review
Committee
reviewed,
Lots,
10
and
now
lot,
one,
which
is
the
a
lot
that
is
in
the
red
square.
N
One
thing
I
like
to
mention
with
this
aerial
up
before
the
Planning
Commission
you'll
notice,
that
the
houses
that
are
existing,
the
three
Homes
at
the
very
end
of
the
cul-de-sac
and
the
three
new
houses
that
are
under
construction
all
have
setback
reductions.
So
in
this
Hillside
development
it
is
common
that
the
Planning
Commission
and
the
arc
has
granted
a
front
yard
setback
reduction.
N
N
N
Next.
That
iteration
was
reviewed
in
January.
They,
this
still
remained
the
projection.
The
white
stone
was
replaced
with
a
horizontal
raked
stucco,
and
then
an
extra
parapet
was
added
to
reduce
the
massing
of
the
great
room,
roof
and
and
the
iteration
that's
before
the
Planning
Commission
for
review
and
approval
is
that
the
architectural
projection
has
been
moved
to
in
front
of
the
garage
and
that
reduces
or
I'm
sorry
increases.
The
setback
and
you'll
see
they
still
have.
N
N
The
other
item
that
the
planning
or
the
arc
wanted
the
applicant
to
review
on
is
the
study
of
the
eyebrow
placement
on
the
west
facing
elevation
and
in
these
drawings
the
original
previously
reviewed
was
shorter.
They
lengthened
the
overhang
on
the
west
facing
facade
to
provide
greater
shade
over
the
glass
that
faces
West.
The
other
comment
was
to
change
the
color
scheme
to
be
darker,
I
have
other
drawings.
This
was
the
revised
color
scheme,
which
is
a
darker
color
palette.
N
Also,
the
comments
from
12
five
review
was
that
the
parapets
over
the
garage
provide
greater
interest.
The
drawing
on
the
bottom
shows
the
larger
mass
and
then
the
revised
elevations
were
added
this
parapet
to
break
up
the
the
large
massing,
there's
a
roof
plan
in
your
packet
and
looking
at
some
drawings.
This
is
once
again
The
Proposal
with
the
parapet,
The
increased
overhang
and
then
the
placement
of
the
architectural
element
next
to
the
garage.
N
So
in
your
packet,
there
are
also
3D
images
of
the
house
as
we
rotate
around
it.
This
is
the
glass
facade
that
faces
West,
the
applicant
added,
a
larger
overhang
to
provide
more
shade
and
moving
forward.
Through
these
plans.
There
is
a
section
showing
how
this
house
relates
to
the
constructed
house
on
Lot
2.
It
sits
10
feet
lower,
so
there'll
be
a
series
of
Step
Downs
to
where
this
house
will
be
placed.
N
So
you
in
your
packet,
there
are
findings
and
the
conditions
of
approval
that
the
staff
feels
that
can
be
made.
The
amm
for
front
yard,
reduction
of
from
25
feet
to
14
5
instead
of
14,
3
and
staff,
is
recommending
that
you
approve
the
appeal
and
overturn
The
Arc
denial
and
approve
both
the
architectural
design
and
the
setback
reductions.
N
So
in
in
your
packet
there's
a
series
of
photographs.
If,
if
the
commissioner
would
like
to
go
through
these,
you
see
it's
a
flat
lot
overlooking
Bogart
Trail
below,
and
this
is
a
picture
of
the
house.
That's
adjacent
to
the
the
proposed
lot
so
chair.
That
concludes
my
report
and
I
can't
answer
any
questions.
If
you'd
like.
A
K
M
This
evening,
this
is
on
appeal
to
the
Planning
Commission.
This
is
a
de
novo
appeal.
Land
use
decisions
are
typically
that
what
that
means
is
the
Planning
Commission
can
consider
the
evidence
and
the
record
and
any
additional
information
that
has
come
out
at
this
hearing,
such
as
the
redesign
of
the
project.
This
is,
in
contrast
to
the
way
the
courts
work.
Usually
in
the
court
system.
M
The
court
of
appeal
is
limited
to
what
the
trial
court
got
as
evidence
in
their
case,
and
then
sometimes
the
court
of
appeal
will
remand
it
back
to
the
trial
court
for
additional
evidence.
That's
not
necessary
here,
and
it's
not
called
out
in
the
code
either.
The
decision
rests
with
the
Planning
Commission
and
staff
would
ask
that
the
Planning
Commission
on
this
application.
A
M
N
H
N
N
H
H
L
C
O
C
O
A
L
L
I
can
certainly
make
a
motion
and
I
do
have
a
question,
though,
or
a
comment
on
commissioner
Roberts
I
don't
have
a
problem
with
the
stone
as
a
material,
but
I
think
the
reason
I'm
guessing
the
reason
why
the
white
stack
stone
was
not
looked
on
favorably
by
The.
Arc
is
because
it's
so
much
brighter
than
the
native
desert
terrain,
which
is
so
prevalent
in
this
community.
L
C
L
A
H
A
B
So
I
know
that
I
owe
some
information
from
our
last
meeting
that
I've
not
had
a
chance
to
gather
yet
so
I
will
attempt
to
do
that
for
our
next
meeting.
I
did
just
want
to
provide
an
update
on
the
discussion
that
occurred
at
city
council
last
night
regarding
you
know
the
conversations
that
we've
had
previously
around
the
lifting
of
the
emergency
ordinance
at
the
local
level
and
the
expected
lifting
of
the
emergency
state
of
emergency
at
the
the
state
level
as
well
and
sort
of
how
that
plays
into
meetings
going
forward.
B
The
conversation
was
was
interesting
in
that
the
the
emergency
order
was
lifted.
However,
the
council
did
direct
that
the
Senate
bill
that
was
enacted
earlier
in
the
pandemic,
allowing
remote
meetings
and
and
telecommunication
teleconferencing
meetings
to
occur
as
an
emergency
measure
could
continue
throughout
the
rest
of
the
year.
B
M
M
Thank
you,
madam
chair
members
of
the
commission,
yeah
the
and
Mr
Hadley.
Please
you
were
at
the
council
meeting.
So
please
fill
in
any
gaps
that
I
have
here,
but
yeah
the
city
council
opted
to
continue
using
the
ab361
teleconferencing
process.
That's
the
one
that
we've
been
operating
under
for
the
last
couple
of
years.
Since
covet
King,
the
council
could
technically
set
different
rules
for
their
subordinate
boards
and
commissions.
M
So
now
it's
physical
distancing
and
that
appears
to
be
the
direction
the
council
is
taking-
is
that
every
30
days
we're
going
to
re-up
these
findings.
That
physical
distancing
is
still
recommended
by
the
city
of
Palm
Springs
as
the
local
agency,
and
that
will
allow
us
to
ride
out
ab361
to
the
end
of
the
year
and
then
we
would
defer
back
to
the
other
rules.
Besides
361.,
as
we
talked
about
at
the
last
meeting,
the
old
teleconferencing
rule
that's
been
around
for
30
years.
M
We
can
still
use
that
and
then
ab2449,
as
we
talked
about
there's
a
couple
of
additional
exceptions
that
are
commissioner
or
officer
specific,
where
somebody
can
opt
out
of
a
meeting
and
teleconference
in
by
for
just
cause
or
for
an
emergency
personal
circumstance.
The
the
trick
with
those
is
that,
unlike
ab361,
a
quorum
of
the
agency,
a
quorum
of
the
commission
still
has
to
be
physically
present
within
the
jurisdiction.
So
these
additional
exceptions
at
2449
has
going
forward
after
2024
will
be
very
specific
to
Commissioners
on
their
individual
circumstances.
B
So,
with
all
of
that
said,
I
think
we
have
a
decision
to
make
tonight
or
the
commission
has
a
decision
to
make
tonight
on
how
you
would
like
to
treat
our
March
meetings
until
we
have
any
additional
information
with
the
city
council
decides
not
to
re-up
those
findings.
I
think
you
do
have
the
option
to
sort
of
remain
status
quo
as
we
have
or
to
return
to
in-person
meetings
and
before
you
discuss
that
and
give
me
direction.
B
B
They
declined
to
give
direction
to
specific
boards
and
commissions
and
just
kind
of
left
it
at
that.
What
they
did
do
was
was
direct
the
City
attorney
and
staff
to
sort
of
look
at
coming
back
with
a
potential
ordinance
to
put
some
consistency
around
that.
But
you
know
it's
not
clear
when
that
would
return.
So
I
think
this
may
shift
again
in
the
spring
or
later
in
the
spring
or
again,
if
they
they
choose,
not
to
re-up
the
finding
that
we
need
to
maintain
physical
distancing.
B
D
A
C
M
I
I
just
want
to
be
careful
about
that.
I
I,
don't
know
that
we
necessarily
want
to
be
developing
a
collective
concurrence
of
the
commission
outside
of
a
brown
act
meeting.
That's
why
one
concern
there.
If,
if
we
don't
have
direction
from
the
commission
tonight,
my
recommendation
Mr
hadwin.
What's
your
thought
is
that
we
would
continue
to
operate
status
quo
right
now
under
ab361,
at
least
for
the
March
22nd
meeting,
and
then,
when
we
have
more
Commissioners,
perhaps
new
policy
could
be
made
at
that
point.
B
I
I
would
agree,
I
would
say,
let's
target
doing
this
for
March
22nd
and
it's
possible
by
that
time.
We'll
have
a
little
more
clarity
on
on
sort
of
the
shape
that
the
ordinance
that
will
be
returning
to
the
city
council
is
taking,
and
we
can
have
a
discussion
that
night
on
how
we
want
to
treat
April.
So
we're
kicking
the
can
down
the
road
a
little
bit,
but
we
will
plan
on
March
22nd
being
in
this
format.
A
B
So
there
wasn't
a
lot
of
discussion.
I
think
that
they
took
a
similar
position
to
you
all
in
understanding
that
the
circumstances
with
the
state
department
of
industrial
relations
Is,
is
certainly
out
of
the
control
of
that
developer
and
that
the
city
is
a
party
to
that
discussion
and
so
that
the
extension
was
valid
and
warranted.