Palm Springs ARC sends Santa Rosa hillside house back for restudy over hydrology and scale concerns

The Palm Springs Architectural Review Committee on June 15 asked the applicant for a proposed single‑family house at the end of West Santa Rosa Drive to revise the plan, focusing first on an engineering solution to drainage and then on reducing the home's massing and improving neighborhood views. The motion passed unanimously.

The committee heard a staff presentation and an applicant report for a hillside lot application in the R1A zone. Staff described the current proposal as a smaller redesign of a previously denied project and said the application would be processed as a by‑right single‑family residence if it meets development standards. Staff identified an existing wash across the site and a newly proposed retention basin intended to capture roof and hardscape runoff. Staff recommended approval subject to standard planning and engineering conditions.

Neighbors and ARC members centered most criticism on hydrology and the proposed finished‑floor height. Resident Tempe Essel told the panel, "The hydraulics are the most important thing to the neighborhood," arguing that 10,720 square feet of added hardscape and a driveway crossing the wash could impede natural flow. Julie Jorgensen, the closest neighbor, said the lot is largely man‑made fill placed during construction of the adjacent tennis club and said the applicant’s packet misrepresents existing screening and berms.

The applicant’s attorney, David Darren, said the team responded to prior ARC comments by reducing the home’s footprint and height and by increasing setbacks. "We reduced the square footage by over 17%, by 845 square feet," Darren said, and noted the garage floor was lowered to help the building sit less prominently.

Committee members said the submitted visuals did not give a clear eye‑level sense of the house’s scale or the relationship to nearby condominium finished‑floor elevations. Staff and the applicant displayed finished‑floor numbers: the proposed finished floor was shown as 487, while the nearest condominium finished floors were listed around 479.6–480.0, a difference of roughly 7–8 feet.

City engineering staff clarified that detailed hydrology, grading and soils reports are reviewed at plan check and that any work in an easement or affecting an adjacent property would likely require approval letters from impacted jurisdictions or owners. Jonathan from engineering said hydrology and grading materials will be required with the grading permit submittal and reviewed by city engineers and any impacted authorities.

Vice Chair Walsh, who made the motion, said the committee’s top priority should be a bulletproof engineering solution and close coordination with city engineering before the ARC re‑evaluates architectural massing and materials. The motion asked the applicant to provide ground‑level cross‑sections and street‑level perspectives, demonstrate the hedge/berm conditions, and present finished materials samples when the project returns to ARC.

The committee’s direction preserves the city's normal engineering review process while making clear that ARC approval will require demonstration that the project's pad height, drainage design and visual massing will not unduly impact neighbors. The matter will return to ARC for a restudy package that addresses the engineering details, eye‑level visuals and the neighborhood compatibility issues identified by members and speakers.

The ARC also noted relevant authorities and procedures discussed during the hearing: CEQA categorical exemptions for a single‑family residence in an urbanized area, the R1A zoning standards, and the requirement that hydrology and grading be satisfied at plan check and, where applicable, approved by Riverside County Flood Control or other impacted jurisdictions. The committee voted unanimously to restudy the item and instructed staff and the applicant to coordinate closely with engineering before resubmission.