Palm Springs commissioners continue Essena tract‑map decision amid traffic and density concerns
Loading...
Summary
The Planning Commission continued a decision on two tentative tract maps for the Essena master plan after residents and some commissioners pressed for clearer guarantees that the city’s minimum 15 dwelling‑units/acre requirement and emergency‑access and traffic impacts will be secured for future phases.
The Palm Springs Planning Commission on Feb. 24 deferred action on two tentative tract maps in the Essena planning area after weeks of public correspondence and sustained questioning from commissioners about density, traffic and enforcement of future promises.
The commission was asked to approve two tentative tract maps from SunCal (two maps totaling 94 single‑family lots) that staff said implement entitlements originally approved in 2003. Staff and the applicant told commissioners the proposed subdivisions alone do not create new density beyond what the city previously analyzed and that the 2003 mitigated negative declaration (MND) and general‑plan policies still apply.
Why it matters: Residents and some commissioners said the approval would effectively rely on future phases to deliver a high‑density parcel that staffs says is necessary to meet the general‑plan minimum of 15 dwelling units per acre. If the high‑density component is never built, they warned, the two tract maps in front of the commission could leave the city with less‑dense development than the general plan requires and with unresolved traffic and emergency‑access implications.
Residents told the commission they had experienced long queues and constrained circulation at the Vista Chino roundabout near the project. “It took me three full traffic‑light cycles to make a left turn onto Vista Chino,” said Audrey Joseph, a nearby resident, describing frequent backups and saying the proposed build‑out could add hundreds of cars. Tim Mathias, a senior homeowner, urged the commission to delay action and said: “Findings must rest on secured entitlements, not anticipated approvals,” arguing that the CV Link pedestrian crossing and other changed conditions require reexamination of whether the old environmental review still suffices.
Applicant Rob Bernheimer said the tract maps comply with the plan‑development district and that the company is proposing fewer units than the maximum originally analyzed. “We meet the PDD requirements,” Bernheimer told the commission, adding that market forces typically determine which phases are built first and that the developer expects builders to buy finished parcels.
Commissioners debated technical and procedural fixes. Some said they could approve the two tract maps only if the maps themselves met the 15‑unit minimum; others suggested requiring the PDD amendment to be routed back to the commission instead of being handled administratively. Commissioner Miller said he feared the proposal could “kick the can down the road” and moved to continue the item so the developer could work with staff to rebalance density across Planning Area 1. Commissioner Murphy seconded the motion.
The motion to continue carried 5–1, with Commissioner Baker opposed. The continuation directs the applicant and staff to return with revised allocations or other assurances that ensure the minimum density requirement is met without relying on speculative future development.
The commission’s action keeps the project alive but adds a clear instruction that the developer and city must reconcile how minimum density will be achieved and documented. Staff noted the commission retains the authority to call up future minor PDD amendments for review, and the city attorney said the commission could direct staff to do so if it wishes.
Next steps: The item was continued to a date uncertain to allow SunCal to coordinate with staff on density reallocation across PA‑1; the commission will consider the revised materials when they return. No formal decision on subdivision approval was made at the Feb. 24 meeting.
