Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
6/27/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.D.
gpLMsA ;dF 'pi r. 4 Q rJ N x "° 'p CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Supplement #1 — Written Res onses DATE: June 27, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: CASE 5.1152 THE 2007 COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN These written responses comprise part of Staff Report Supplement #1 on the General Plan. The following items represent topics raised in public comment at the meeting of June 20, 2007, written comment received before and after that meeting and miscellaneous corrections or revisions. Staff summarized the comments below and offered a response or recommendation to each. After consideration of these recommendations, Council may choose to not act upon them, or direct Staff to incorporate them into the General Plan prior to its adoption. 1. Items identified by Staff for possible further revision: Staff Response. Addressed in text change shown in staff report Supplement#1 2. Shadowrock to Ewing letters of June 19 and 20, 2007 Staff Response: Addressed in text change shown in staff report Supplement #1 3. Hildner testimony of June 20, 2007. Staff Response: Addressed in staff report Supplement #1 4. Fred Noble testimony of June 20, 2007 Staff Response: Addressed in staff report Supplement#1 5. Building Industry Association to Ewing letter dated May 7, 2007. The staff report of May 16, 2007 to the Planning Commission addressed most of the items in this letter, however it noted further study was required on certain items, Staff met with BIA % � AT City Council Staff Report—Supplement#1 June 27, 2007 Public Hearing -- Page 2 Case 5,1152: Draft 2007 Comprehensive General Plan Update representatives on June 14, 2007 to further discuss the issues and responses are provided as follows: A. Page 9-19 policy 5.2; concern that language is too ambiguous. Staff Response/Recommendation: Revise Policy 5.2 to read, "When new residential structures are developed in existing neighborhoods with established uniform or consistent non-conforming setbacks, allow the setbacks of new structures to be consistent with those of the existing surrounding development," B. Page 9-19 policy 5.3 Rural unpaved roadways could present PM-10 dust problems, consider revision. Staff Response/Recommendation. Insert the word "paved' after the word "Develop". C. Page 9-20 policy 6.2 Split this item into two items, one addressing maintenance and one addressing amenities. Staff Response/Recommendation: Revise to read, "6.2 Consider establishment of a comprehensive maintenance program for pedestrian paths, recreational trails and bicycle trails/lanes and associated signage and infrastructure. 6.3 Evaluate new and existing pedestrian paths, recreational trails and bicycle trails/lanes to determine where signage and amenities such as shade trees and structures, bike racks, benches, water fountains, etc. should be provided," (adlust numbering on existing policies 6.3 and 6.4 to be 6.4 and 6.5) D. Page 9-22 policy 7-3. consider revised language to lessen financial burden on private landowners. Staff Response/Recommendation: In further review of this policy, Staff does not believe it implies financial burden on landowners. No change is recommended. E. Page 9-22 policy 8.2 consider revised language, mature vegetation has a lower survival rate with transplanting and leads to greater costs. Staff Response/Recommendation: This item was addressed in Council Staff Report dated June 20, 2007. No further change is recommended. F. Page 5-18 Policy 4.8 concern that there should be further discussion before requiring in-lieu trail fees; concern of nexus, etc. Staff Response/Recommendation: Propose the language be revised to read. "Establish appropriate funding sources to support development and expansion of the multi-use trail system in Palm Springs." City Council Staff Report—Supplement#1 June 27, 2007 Public Hearing -- Page 3 Case 5.1152, Draft 2007 Comprehensive General Plan Update G. Page 5-20 policy 5. 1 concern about increases in development fees. Has the City considered conducting a study of development impact fees? Staff Response/Recommendation: The City already periodically reviews and adjusts its Development Application Fees. Impact Studies and public hearings would be required for any new fee proposal without requiring additional studies through the General Plan. Staff recommends no change- H. Page 5-20 policy 5.2 Concern that maintenance activities cannot be done with benefit-assessment districts and concern that these expenses should be a burden only to developers and not the users of the facilities. Staff Response/Recommendation: Revise the text to read "Develop regular sources of funding to support Iona term maintenance, repair and modernization of parks, trails, and recreational facilities." I Pave 5-36 policy 7.3 include the BIA in setting up a construction and demolition debris recycling program. Staff Response/Recommendation: Revise text to read, "Work with the Building Industry Association and other interested parties to implement a program to recycle construction and demolition debris..." J. Page 9-8 policy 1.4 BIA is not clear on the scope of the retention basin policy, change text to read, "Consider incorporation of the Retention Basin Policy..." Staff Response/Recommendation; Revise text as noted. 6. Roos to Ewing letter dated June 20, 2007. Concerns regarding traffic cut-over between Tramway and Racquet Club by the introduction of a connecter street, concern about specific connecter trail locations in the Chino Cone, Staff Response/Recommendations: Staff responded to the author's concern during Planning Commission public hearing noting the trail locations would be determined through the Specific Plan process. The roadway connection mentioned has been affirmed by City Engineering as an important part of the General Plan circulation plan and should not be deleted. No change is recommended, City Council Staff Report--Supplement#1 June 27. 2007 Public Hearing -- Page 4 Case 5.1152: Draft 2007 Comprehensive General Plan Update FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. - stE�- � Q 11 wing Thomas Wilson Dire or of Pla ni g Services Assist. City Ma ger for Development Services David H. Ready, Ci ana er Attachments: 1. BIA to Ewing letter of May 7, 2007 2. Roos to Oden/Council dated June 20, 2007. U/2712007 16: 05 9516821822 BBK PAGE 02/03 BEST BEST & Km ^GERM ATTO HIVV,Y5�7.T I.A INOIAN WELLS 5ACRAMENTO (760)558-2511 3760 Unlvorslty AVenu (915)325-4000 — post OffICS Box 1028 I 5AN❑IEGC Riverside,California 92802- C28 P49)2e3-2600 (519)525-1300 (957)666-1450 _ LOS ANGELES (951)680.3083 Fax WALNUT CREEK (219)617-8100 66KIWw,ccm (925)977-330a ONTARIO (909)089-8584 Michael Grant (251)826--8311 Mlchael GfantftOklaw.Com File No. 14322.00208 - c_ June 27, 2007 VIA F.ACsimiLE Am)U.S.MAIL - Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: 2007 Comprehensive Update of the Palm Springs General Plan Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: As you know, this firm represents Century V'in age Homes, the owner of significant property within the Chino Cone. On behalf of Century, we would like to offer the following comments on the draft 2007 Comprehensive Update of the Palm Springs General Plan ('Update"), As an initial matter, we believe that the draft Ulldate does not provide for a range of densities and an evaluation of the development intensity ithin the Chino Cone. Such a range of densities and intensity is required by California's Gener 1 Plan law, Instead, the draft Update merely states that The underlying density is one (1) dwell ng unit per 40 acres, and that specific plans will establish different densities. Notably, the di cessions contained in the Land Use Element for Planning Areas 5, b, 7, 8 and 9 do not even discuss what type of land use will be available in those Planning Areas_ Instead, the discussio 1 focuses solely on the road blocks to development of those sites. Moreover, we believe that the draft Update, to he cxtent it imposes significant road blocks to development within the Chino Cone, tnoves th regulatory approach much closer to what most courts would recognize as a regulatory taking. We believe that the proposed regulatory approac would be less susceptible to such a challenge were the City to make provision for the off-sil transfer of density. While Century appreciates the City Council's inclusion of on-site denslt transfers in the ESA-SP Ordinance, RVFt113ti18At t.INCCIL17344Aa I rQ�I,77 p�f�L �v `i►-t. .2L 0&/Z71ZW 7 98/27/2007 16: 05 9516821832 BBK PAGE 03iO3 E F'SX' SIEST & NUEGER ATrOBNSYS AX L4%W Honorable Mayor and City Council Members City of Palm Springs Jonc 27, 2007 Page 2 Century believes that development potential exists in othcr areas within the City (both existing and with annexation) and that sound public policy warrants inclusion of an off--site density transfer provision. Therefore, based on the above-referenced comments, Century respectfully requests that the City Council withhold final action on the draft Update, direct staff to prepare revisions to the draft Update to include a range of densities and m analysis of the development intensity, a provision for off-site density transfer, and clarify the development potential for the respective Planning Areas, If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Jeffrey S. Ballinger 13EST BEST &KRIEGER LLP Legal Counsel for Century Vintage Homes 7SB/mb ce' Century Vintage Homes Milce Grant, Esq. R V PVI3VSALLFNGER\734484 1 o -- TO Oox 4470 1Tafm Springs, C,4 92263 760-322-3484 June 27,2007 _ L7 Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Supplemental Comment on the Revised Bearing Draft General Plan Update: Land Use Element for the Shadowrock Project Dear Mr. Ewing, As a further supplement to our comment letters submitted on June 19,2007 and June 20, 2007,we request further confirmation and clarification of revisions to the Land Use Element of the General Plan Update. We appreciate the confirmation of our understanding that, only in the absence of the Development Agreement,which is not affected by this General Plan Update,the Project Site General Plan land use designation would be "Special Area Policy" for "Planning Area 2-Shadowrock" as depicted on Figure 2-4b (General Plan Land Use Detail (Draft), described on pages 2-53-2-65 (Special Policy Areas),and sutrnmarized on Table 2-1 for the "Special Policy Areas." And,the zoning for the Project Site would be Environmentally Sensitive Area Specific Plan Zone("ESA-SP")for Planning Area 2 of the Chino Cone pursuant to Municipal Code Section 92.21.1.00. However,we understand the following is proposed in your staff report dated June 27, 2007: r �� ! �(�.i/ 4Z /t✓l 1q-7 ��G Planninq Area 7—Shadoammck This area is_appyoximately 360 acres and_is canvisioned�vltt, a"gossi�le mix of residential and resort uses. A 7evetooment Agceement out]W:. MAW Mssnhle uses and densities that may be considered under a Sned is Plan. Should the Daveloomsnt Agreement become void, the underlying General Plan land use deugrnetlon qt "Saecial Pdmv Area" (1 dwelling unit per 40 acres) and the re ulations of the ESA-SP would still apply. PortEons of this planning area are in Fa AA Food Zone f (impacts possible due to 10L1 ear rain vrhich would need tc be taken into consideration with any_developmenS agolicatio�_in this area. Unfortunately,the two sentences "A Development Agreement outlines further possible uses and densities that may be considered under a Specific Plan. Should the Development Agreement become void, the underlying General Plan land use of"Special Policy Area (I dwelling unit per 40 acres) and the regulations of the ESA-SP would still apply" are both incorrect statements and will cause unnecessary confusion about how the Development Agreement relates to the General Plan Update. The Development Agreement provides vested rights under the 1993 General Plan and Planned Develonment District No. 224 not the ESA-SP regulations. Neither this General Phan nor the ESA-SP requirements currently apply to the property and would ONLY apply if the Development Agreement becomes void. No Specific Plan would be necessary under the current Development Agreement,only the requirements of the existing approvals. Therefore,please replace these sentence with the following: "A DevelopmentAgreement currently controls the uses and densities in Planning Area 2. Neither this General Plan land rise designation of"Special Area Policy"nor the ESA-SP regulations would apply to the property unless the Development Agreement becomes void" If you have any questions,or need additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mark Bragg Manager MB/cc pa�Mso V N C `O••w.nn••''P -q``x0�`'N CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Supplement #1 DATE: June 27, 2007 PUBLIC HEARING SUBJECT: CASE 5.1152 THE 2007 COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY At its meeting of June 20, 2007 the City Council of the City of Palm Springs opened a public hearing and took public testimony regarding the draft 2007 Update of the Palm Springs General Plan. At this meeting Staff will report on any comments and direction given by Council at the June 20«' meeting. A draft resolution certifying the Environmental Impact Report and adopting the 2007 General Plan as the General Plan for the City of Palm Springs is attached. RECOMMENDATION 1 Open the public hearing and receive public testimony. 2. Close the public hearing and consider all written and oral information regarding the General Plan. Continue the item to the July 18th, 2007 meeting if more time is needed. BACKGROUND The draft of the 2007 Update of the Palm Springs General Plan was completed in April 2007 after roughly four years of work effort on the part of City staff, consultants, the Planning Commission, neighborhood groups, committees, the general public and the General Plan Steering Committee. ITEM NO. City Council Staff Report—Public Hearing Page 2 of 6 Case#5.1152 The 2007 Comprehensive Update of the City of Palm Springs General Plan June 27, 2007 The draft General Plan has been reviewed by the community, City staff, the General Plan Steering Committee and the Planning Commission. The attached staff report from the City Council meeting of June 20, 2007 outlines the process and actions taken to date. ANALYSIS The following items represent topics raised in public comment at the meeting of June 20, 2007, written comment received before and after that meeting and miscellaneous corrections or revisions. Staff has compiled the items below and offered a response or recommendation to each. After consideration of these recommendations, Council may choose to not act upon them, or direct Staff to incorporate them into the General Plan prior to its adoption. 1. Items identified by Staff for further revision: A. Figure 0-1 Community Design Features: Recommendation: Reinsert the gateway feature at the corner of Vista Chino and Gene Autry Trail. This gateway design and implementation is already in process. B. Figure 2-2 Tribal Lands — Recommendation: Correct the designation for the tribal land at the intersection of Highway 111 and Interstate 1-10: The allotted land is now held in Tribal trust and should be designated blue on this map. C. Page 4-3 of the Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations report: Reference to the Sunrise Way Extension: that alternative was not included in this general plan and thus does not exist as a significant and unavoidable adverse impact. Delete the second paragraph in Transportation and Traffic relating to the Sunrise Way Extension- D. Pages 2-53 through 2-61 _ Chino Cone rlicies. In response to several comments provided to the Council on June 20� , we recommend the following: 0 Replace the text of Pages 2-55 through 2-58 (ending with Goal 13) with the following: Chino Cane is reco nized as an extraordina natural resource and an area of great development interest. In 2005 and 2006 the City of Palm Springs formed a task force to establish a vision and direction for the area which led to the adoption of the "Environmentally Sensitive Development Area -- Specific. Plan ESA-SP Ordinance". As a new development code in the Zoning Ordinance the ESA-SP zone promotes sensitive development while preserving the natural environment in the Chino Cone area. The General Plan reflects the task force's vision with goals and policies that undergird the ESA_SP zone. The General Plan goals and policies are intended to provide for the development of environmentally sensitive areas of the city in a manner that will preserve the ), City Council Staff Report—Public Hearing Page 3 of 6 Case#5.1152 The 2007 Comprehensive Update of the City of Palm Springs General Plan June 27,2007 open, rural character of these areas while allowing development of ranchettes and clustered single- and multiple family, or resort projects. The Goals and policies of the Special Policy Areas are to facilitate the preservation of open space through the creation and implementation of development review considerations that will ensure the evaluation of the suitability of the land for development in a manner that would preserve the character of the land. The ESA-SP generally includes the Chino Cone North Palm Canyon Drive north entry corridor, and other areas which the city council may designate from time to time by ordinance. The ESA-SP zone is divided into planning areas as indicated in figure 2-5. The General Plan establishes an underlying land use density for all areas within the Chino Cone Special Policy Area of 1 dwellinq unit per 40 acres_ A specific plan, allowing only sensitive and appropriate uses densities distributions, and design standards, is required for each Planning Area for projects that exceed the base land use density. All development in each planning area is required to be consistent with the adopted specific Ian. In Planning Areas 2, 3, 4, 5b 6 8. and 9._a variety of densities and uses including residential resort and commercial, in accordance with the ESA-SP are allowed with a Specific Plan. Specific Plans must show creative and environmentally sensitive development that respects the visual, topographical and unique features of the Chino Cone. Specific Plans for Planning Areas 1 and 7 are recognized as the lowest allowable densities for the Chino Cone Special Policy Area. Planning Area 5a Specific Plans may propose commercial „ and tourist-serving uses. Following is a brief description of each planning area and some associated characteristics. Planning Area 1 — Palm Springs Aerial Tramway. This area is approximately 570 acres in size and includes the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway Valley Station and accessory facilities. The development in this planning area is envisioned as low density residential and only those commercial uses associated with the Tramway. Planning Area 2 — Shadowrock This area is approximately 360 acres and is envisioned with a passible mix of residential and resort uses. A Development Agreement outlines further possible uses and densities that may be considered under a Specific Plan. Should the Development Agreement become void the underIVing General Plan land use designation of "Special Policy Area" 1 dwellinq unit per 40 acres and the regulations of the ESA-SP would still a I . Portions of this planning area are in FEMA Flood Zone A (impacts_possible due to 100-year rain) which would need to be taken into consideration with any development application in this area. Planning Area 3 —Aqua Caliente Band of Cahulla Indians Land. This language is lifted almost exactly from the ESA-SP Ordinance, Section 92.21.1.00 City Council Staff Report—Public Hearing Page 4 of 6 Case#5.1152 The 2007 Comprehensive Update of the City of Palm Springs General Plan June 27, 2007 The land within Planning Area 3 is under the reservation of the Aqua Caliente Band_ of Cahuilla Indiains. The area encompasses roughly 380 acres. It is envisioned that a Tribal Specific Plan would be created for development densities and uses that exceed the residential 1 unit per 40 acres set forth for the Special Policy land use area. Portions of this planning area are also in FEMA Flood Zone A im actpossible with a 100- ear rain). Planning Area 4—Tramway South This 119 acre area is characterized primarily by gentlysloping rocky terrain. It is envisioned to be primarily a low density residential area. Planning Area 5a—Visitors Center This is an area of approximately 8 acres that includes the architecturally significant Palm Springs Visitors Center and a gateway feature to the City. A Specific Plan for this area may include tourist-serving commercial _activities including retail goods and services primarily oriented to the traveler, including restaurants and entertainment, as,well as other uses permitted with a Specific Plan as described in the ESA-SP. Planning Area 5 --Visitors Center This 36 acre area is just west of Planninq Area 5a. Portions of this area abut Highway 111. A Specific Plan for this area maV include uses and densities as described in the ESA-SP. Visual screening of development from the adjacent Highway 111 as described elsewhere in the General Plan may be a consideration of development in this area- Planning Area 6 — Chino Canyon Gateway The Chino Canyon Gateway comprises about 125 acres and Portions of this planning area abut Highway 111. Consideration of view sheds and visual screening from Highway 111 may be a consideration of development in this area. Portions of this planning area are also in FEMA Flood Zone A (possible, impacts during a 100-year rain). Planning Area 7 — Chino _Creek There are approximately 176 acres in this planning area, portions of which also abut Highway 111. Environmental analysis should include study of development impacts on the watercourse zones in this Planning Area. Visual impacts of development from Highway 111 should also be considered. Planning Area 8— Highway 111 Corridor The 202 acres in this planning—area comprise some of the first visual images far travelers entering Palm Springs along. Highway 111. A unique rock outcro in known as "Ship Rock" is a natural landmark in this area. Development in this Planning Area should not minimize the prominence of this natural topographical feature and should address view sheds and visual impacts along the Highway 111 frontage. Planning Area 9 — Snow Creek City Council Staff Report—Public Hearing Page 5 of 6 Case#5.1152 The 2007 Comprehensive Update of the City of Palm Springs General Plan June 27,2007 This Planning Area is north of the Chino Cone planning areas and encompasses roughly 1,195 acres. Large portions of this area are characterized as watercourse zones. Planning Area 9 is mostly situated within a cove formed b Snow Creek Canyonproviding residents with seclusion and scenic views. The historic Pacific Crest Trail skirts this planning area. E. Figure 2-5 (page 2-59) Chino Cone Planning Areas: Adjust boundary between PA-3 and PA-6 to place 40 acre fee land in PA-6 per Task Force and Council action on ESA-SP zone. (Old map was unintentionally used in the draft General Plan.) 3. Hildner testimony of June 20, 2007. A. Densities for Chino Cone Planning area are too high; PA 2 through 9 should be 1du/20 acres Staff Response: The densities shown in the General Plan are consistent with the densities shown in the ESA-SP zoning ordinance which were carefully considered and adopted by City Council in 2006; No change is recommended. B, Pages 2-61 through 2-63 regarding Palm Hills: Paragraph 3 on P. 2-61 is inconsistent for all other mountain areas above the toe of slope. Palm Hills should be Open Space Conservation or Open Space Mountain at densities of no more than 1 du/20 acres. Staff Response: Roughly 34 square miles in the area known as Palm Hills is designated Open Space Mountain with a land use density of 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres. In addition there is a Special Policy area in Palm Hills comprised of roughly 1,200 acres. Densities shown in the Palm Hills Special Policy Area Land Use designation are not to exceed 1du/acre. This area is approximately the equivalent of what was labeled "PH-1" in the 1993 General Plan and retains the same density allowance from the 1993 plan. All development proposed in Palm Hills with the land use designation of Open Space Mountain and the area encompassing the Palm Hills Special Policy Area require a Specific Plan and related environmental impact studies to be approved before development may occur. Furthermore, land within the Palm Hills Open Space Mountain land use designation and land within the Palm Hills Special Policy Area land use designation with slopes between 10% and 30% are not to exceed 1du/20 acres. This definition (between 10% and 30% slope) and density (1du/20 acres) correlates and is consistent with land use designation "Open Space Conservation"; thus while it is within the Mountain designation, it is consistent in policy with Conservation designation. The statement "The City continues to recognize the future potential of developing the site with first-class resort and residential uses" is consistent with the 1993 Palm Hills Area Plan Statement which read, "The Palm Hills Study (1974) was commissioned with the directive that the main emphasis be the preservation of the environment while encouraging the development of resort and residential, and accessory uses." Tt ,$,Pe City Council Staff Report—Public Hearing Page 6 of 6 Case#5,1152 The 2007 Comprehensive Update of the City of Palm Springs General Plan June 27,2007 statements are consistent with policies within the draft General Plan, and are consistent with statements in the 1993 General Plan relating to Palm Hills. Staff recommends no chanae. 3. Building Industry Association to Ewing letter dated May 7, 2007. The staff report of May 16, 2007 for the Planning Commission noted further study was required on certain items. Staff met with BIA representatives on June 14, 2007 to further discuss the issues and responses will be provided in a separate attachment. 4. Roos to Ewing letter dated June 19, 2007. Responses will be provided in a separate attachment. 5. Noble testimony regarding 15% limit on land uses within the Wind Energy Conversion Overlay The General Plan includes a 15% limit on commercial or industrial development within the WECS overlay. That is, no more than 15% of the land area can contain commercial or industrial development. This limit was derived from a Development Agreement with Mr. Noble (#3378 adopted by the City in April of 1994) to preserve the land for wind energy development. This General Plan introduces greater flexibility by calculating the 15% over the entire overlay zone, rather than 15% for each parcel. This allows those "first in the door" to exceed 15% on their land. The City will track overall development in the overlay zone and when the total exceeds 15% overall, subsequent development applications would require a general plan amendment. Deleting the 15% limit at this time from the General Plan would trigger a recirculation of the Environmental Impact Report and remove the protections that favor wind energy development. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. A_ wing as Wilson, Dire or of Planni ervices Assist. City Ma ger for Development Services David H. Ready, Citya er Attachments: 1. Shadowrock letters of June 19 and 20, 2007 2. Hiltner testimony of June 20, 2007 3. BIA to Ewing letter of May 7, 2007 4. Roos to Oden/Council dated June 20, 2007, TO Box 4470 Bafm,Spnngs, CA 92263 760-322-3484 June 20, 2007 Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Supplemental Comment on the Revised Hearing Draft General Plan Update_ Land Use Element for the Shadowrock Project Dear Mr. Ewing, As a supplement to our comment letter submitted on June 19, 2007, we request further confirmation and clarification of the attached portion of the Land Use Element of the General Plan Update, as revised after the Planning Commission hearing and recently published. We were unaware of these recent changes to this section of the Land Use Element when we submitted our comment letter. As shown on the attached, certain language regarding Planning Area 2 has been revised and all references to the Shadowrock Development Agreement have been deleted_ We reiterate our request for confirmation of our understanding that, only in the absence of the Development Agreement,which is not affected by this General Plan Update,the Project Site General Plan land use designation would be "Special Area Policy" for "Planning Area 2-Shadowrock" as depicted on Figure 2-4b (General Plan Land Use Detail(Draft), described on pages 2-53-2-65 (Special Policy Areas), and summarized on Table 2-1 for the "Special Policy Areas." And,the zoning for the Project Site would be Environmentally Sensitive Area Specific Plan Zone ("ESA-SP") for Planning.Area 2 of the Chino Cone pursuant to Municipal Code Section 92.21.1.00. We had also requested conforming revisions to the following sentence on page 2-65: "Should the development agreement become void,the provisions of the "Mountain" land use designation(1 du per 40 acres) sball apply." This comment generally appears to be partially addressed in the recent revisions, as marked with a*1* on pages 2-55 and*2* on page 2-56 of the "Track Changes" version of the General Plan Land Use Element, ED 0007 JUN' 2 0 207 However,to clarify how the General Plan Update relates to the existing Development Agreement the ESA-SP Zoning regulations and the regulations that would apply if the Development Agreement were no longer in effect, we request the following: • Reinsert the deleted language marked with a *3* on page 2-54 and *4* on page 2-55 related to the Shadowrock Development Agreement. While the deletion does not directly affect the Shadowrock Project because the Development Agreement provides vested rights under the 1993 General Plan,the deletion of the language may create unnecessary confusion about how the Development Agreement relates to the General Plan Update. • Delete the sentence "In addition, appropriate environmental analyses and general plan amendments must accompany any proposed Specific Plan" on page 2-53. This sentence is potentially confusing since both the California Environmental Quality Act and the ESA-SP Zoning regulations already require environmental review and,unless the plan exceeds allowable density,requests a change in use etc., general plan amendments would not necessarily be required to approve a Specific Plan consistent with Special Policy Areas Land Use Designation for Planning Area 2 and the ESA-SP zoning. • Add the following sentence to the end of Planning Area 2 provision (approximately page 2-56): "Should the development agreement become void, the provisions of this Special Area Policy land use designation, and the Environmentally Sensitive Area Specific Plan zoning regulations, shall apply." If you have any questions, or need additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mark Bragg CY Manager MB/cc �R f r,CITY OF PALM SPRINGS G1EMcP„SAL RAM .nations 12-1 Create design guidelines for development adjacent to the I-10 Corridor. 12.2 Evaluate the potential of incorporating new provisions in the City's Zoning Code for freeway-adjacent uses. ail c ,r :. uJ I'2i( i�_E_ . The General Plan Iand Use map identifies two areas of the City that warrant special policy direction—Palm,dills and the Chino Cone.These areas warrant custom policy guidance because the City has determined that the preservation of their unique hillside character is of utmost importance and should be carefully guided as development pressures in the hillsides of Palm Springs continue to increase.Following is a discussion of the issues surrounding each of the sites,and the policy direction char accompanies it.The actual locations of these areas can be found on the Zand Use Plan, figure 2-4- With its dramatic visual impression of the rugged mountains and sweeping desert sands,it is easy to understand why the City considers the Chino Cone area one of its most covered assers-The prominent rock outcroppings at the gateway into dhe City create an unmistakable sense of arrival into Palm Springs and this visual landmark is just another feature that contributes to the City's reputation as a world class resort- In addition to the area's striking aesthetic resources,the Cl-Lino Cone contains a number of manmade amenities such as the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway Valley Station and the Palm Springs Visitors Center. It is envisioned that a Visitors Center for Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains National Monument be considered as a component of future plans for the area. If established, the National Monument Visitors Center would serve as yet another amenity to attract both visitors and residents,and would contribute to the City's Vision of a resort community. -•_'he Chino Cone area also accommo- dates opportunities for residential and resort development as well as limited commercial uses _ To accommodate any future uses in the Chino Cone, the appropriate level of infrastructure (e-g., water, sewer, urilicies,erc.) must also be brought into the area, Page 2.54 Track Changes Version]Palm Springs General Plan Much debate has occurred regarding the future of the Chino Cone_ As available land in central Palm Springs becomes limited, it will became increasingly important to establish policy guidance for the protection and thoughtful development of this valued area. Y>l�ri -Ti`P��- �- n v ri r . rl •Ti. .�r.-C' -. i rr . � r: i L::..L :Ci �_� .•C,C. jrcL �. -- -...,..IJ.L. .[tic5` I. `Iw- )�.cip C.cu ... i-]aliYi Y,.r: ✓ LF--cLS. - I]=0 15:0!S ],i L11 .C. For purposes of this General Plan, the Chino Cone Policy Area has been divided into several smaller planning areas to provide a more detailed description of --:n-each area_ Z _i,r, r.:._Y_ - - "-:his area includes the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway Valley Station and accessory improvements.All current codes shall apply to any properties owned, leased, or managed by the Palm Springs Aerial Tramway-All other properties within this planning area are limited to residential development of one unit per 40 acres. :. Planning Area 2 is comprised of approximately 360 acres-�. Development in this area would requite improvements to Tramway Road and construction of water, sewer, landscaping,underground utilities, and other improvements. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency(F•EMA)maps,portions of the site are located within Flood Zone A,which has the potential to be impacted by a I00-year flood.Development within this area must consider the limitations associated with this classification. Palm Springs General plan Track Changes Version Page 2.55 �01�(3 i CITY OF PALM SPRINGS p p n All lands within Planning Area 3 are under the jurisdiction of the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians. -- -. -, _Iris . o: •��. ;�,. - area is also located in Flood Zone A(having the potential to be impacted by a 100-year flood); therefore, any development within this area must take into consideration the limitations of buildable area due to the presence of the flood zone. The Tramway South areaisa119-acrearea:' .-•-c-, '.:.: rr : - . Access to this area shall be;From Tramway Road or Racquet Club Drive.... ,and emergency access to existing roadways to the easr will be required with any new development. is•r „ n� -, . . . , r .- ;."r.r. �i;,"i`'r .-.;, r .. . This c area includes the architecturally significant Palm Springs Visitors Center(previously the Frey-designed Gas Station) and the Palm Springs entry sign. Any uses surrounding the Visitors Center shall not minimize the prominence of the center,as it is a recognizable focal point along Highway 111. Page 2-56 -_ Tracic Changes Version]Palm Springs General Plan i the Visitors Center. - - According to federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA.) maps, portions of — are located within Flood Zone A, which has the potential to be impacted by a 100-year flood, Development constraints within this area muss consider limits to buildable areaassociated with this classification. aCCSf�I•: •il:••_•".C1r' aL1:�O-IIaC _�. rr a. = C, — i _ __ _ nv 1•c ;r _ _ n_ __I _ _ : r: e -,F Planning Area 8 serve, as the first visual image Travelers on Highway 111 experience as they enter Palm Springs.It is surrounded by County land to the north and Highway I I I to the cast. of The unique characteristics of Planning Area 8 is The rock outcropping know as Ship Rock That is clearly visible from Highway 111 and serves as a natural landmark and entry feature into Palm Springs.The preservation of this feature is a high priority for the City, and therefore,any new development proposed in this area should -- w Located north of the eight ocher planning areas in the Chino Cone, Snow Creek is - - - ._r:, _- Palm Springs General Plan 7racic Changes Version Page 2.57 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Sri wh y' I , Ilse existing - - —.-- 7-. . - — ' ram,L 9 is situated within a cove formed by Snow Creek Canyon,providing residents with seclusion and pristine scenic views; below it lies an alluvial fan. In addition, Snow Creels Canyon is also host to significant wildlife habitat.Access to open space in this area provides the potential for equestrian and hiking activities;the Pacific Crest Trail skirts this planning area. �. _ ,:Y--' . _.:� ,-• .. , ,r ., ,;.; is-_, „-,,.� ,:,�.,- - ,;..._,r,-.-- - - ._. iu,! i .. . -.: .-..-� '.i.—• : ". -mow ..eCi _ , .i. , .-_",,.., u.e.•-- .. . ,. :car „l ..: .. '-c.�... .C..ta,.ti...,•,,,,,.. . r.._ Any proposed developments within Snow Creek must : -s.public access to open space and mitigate impacts to biological habitats_ Sensitively integrate new development into the Chino Cone while preserving its distinguishing natural and scenic characteristics. Politics 13-1 Require rbat any development in the Chino Cone be harmonious with and respectful of the areas natural features- 13-2 Protect and conserve sensitive habitat areas through development restrictions and clustering of land uses. 13.3 Continue to seek opportunities to acquire open space for ptesecva- tion_This could include land dedication,in-lieu fees,grants,or other sources_ 13.4 Allow for _'_I_ —_4c. a ic•: rr.c, =-sn—. . cd1 L — to traditional,street standards and design of curbs and gutters to establish a natural streetscape that visually blends into the surrounding terrain. 13.5 Encourage low building profiles,natural colors,and minimal grading to blend into the natural topography of the area_ 13-6 Require any proposed development in this area to preserve Ship Rork and integrate this natural landmark into the projects design. Page 2-56 Track Changes vm mj Palm Springs General Plan 13-7 Apply natural berming techniques to screen views of development within the Chino Cone from Highway 111, Actions ' - ----- - - —�------ 13A Require preparation of a Specific Plan and associated environmental analyses prior to the approval of any development within the Chino Cone _ -_� C 1:'-.__..') _I-__ =ai. .a �7 _,L_S pCi_.li_ C. Jy ,U,�. L i 13.2 Apply the use of density transfers between properties located within she Chino Cone to encourage the preservation of views and natural resources. 13.3 Initiate discussions with the County to annex land north of Planning Area 8 in an effort to preserve the view corridors desired along Highway I11. 1 . Palin Springs General Plan 7radc Changes Version Page 2-59 410 Box 4470 Palm Springs, CA 92263 760-322-3484 June 19, 2007 Craig Ewing, Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: Comment on the Hearing Draft General Plan Update: Land Use Element for the Shadowrock Project Dear Mr. Ewing, We understand the General Plan Update is scheduled for City Council hearings in late June and early July. Based on our review of the Hearing Draft of the Land Use Element as it applies to the Shadowrock Project Site,we request confirmation and clarification of the Land Use Designation and zoning that would apply to the Project Site in the event that the Development Agreement is no longer effective. We request confirmation of our understanding that, only in the absence of the Development Agreement, the Project Site General Plan land use designation would be "Special Area Policy" for "Planning Area 2-Shadowrock" as depicted on Figure 2-4b (General Plan Land Use Detail (Draft), described on pages 2-53-2-65 (Special Policy Areas), and summarized on Table 2-1 for the "Special Policy Areas." And,the zoning for the Project Site would be Environmentally Sensitive Area Specific Plan Zone("ESA- SP") for Planning Area 2 of the Chino Cone pursuant to Municipal Code Section 92.21.1.00. The reason for this request is that the following sentence on page 2-65: "Should the development agreement become void,the provisions of the "Mountain" land use designation(1 duper 40 acres) shall apply." Because there is both a"Special Area Policy" land use designation and a"Mountain" land use designation in the General Plan with similar, but distinct policies,we find the language potentially confusing, and request the following revision to this sentence before the General Plan is adopted: Mr. Craig Ewing Page Two Continued "Should the development agreement become void, the provisions of this Special Area .Policy land use designation, and the.Environmentally Sensitive Area Specific Plan zoning regulations,shall apply." If you have any questions, or need additional information,please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Mark Bragg Manager MB/cc AVE OUR MOUNTAINS Dedicated to preserving the mountains, canyons, and alluvial fans which create the unique setting of Palm 5 rin s q 9 p 9 TESTIMONY OF SAVE OUR MOUNTAINS REGARDING PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN June 20, 2007 Save Our Mountains has serious concerns about two sections in the Land Use Element, Chapter 2. Both are Special Plamring Areas- The first is the section labeled the Chino Cone on pages 2-53 through 2-59. As we testified before you when you were considering the zoning ordinance for this area, we continue to believe that the densities proposed for all of the Planning Areas are way too high. The only exception is Planning Area 1 which is designated as one unit per 40 acres on all parcels not controlled by the Tram Authority. We believe that Planning Areas 2 through 9 should be planned for a density of no greater than one dwelling unit per 20 acres. These alluvial fans known as Chino Canyon and Snow Creek are too important as natural assets to have them swallowed up by resorts and dense residential development. We believe that the vote of NO on Shadowrock on the November ballot will send a clear message that the people of this community agree with us. The second is the section labeled Palm Hills on pages 2-61 through 2-63. Paragraph three on page 2-61 contain the language, "The City continues to recognize the future potential of developing the site with first- class resort and residential uses ..."This statement is completely inconsistent with the General Plan policies for all other mountainous areas above the toe of slope. The people of this City have spoken on this issue. The voters rejected the idea of a resort and large nuunbers of residential uses in this area when they voted "NO" on Measure C in March of 2005. This was a rejection of the City Council's approval of this type of development in the Palm Hills area. The City Council needs to reflect the opinions of the voters in this area and zone the entire 1200 acres as Open Space Conservation or Mountain at density no more than one unit per 20 acres. With this change, the balance of the entire section needs to be rewritten along with all references to this area in other sections of the plan. The voters have spoken and they need to be respected. We urge you to be consistent with the mountain area policies set forth elsewhe e in the plan. Jon/ildner, Chair Savountains and NO on Shadowrock Campaign Save Our Mountains PO Box 891, Palm Springs, CA 92263 760-861-5365 www.saveourmountains.com May 7, 2007 B 1 R Desert Chapter Craig A. Ewing, AICP Vluilding DuJuslry M1saoCialiuu Director of Planning Services of sonJhern cai;rurrJu City of Palm, Springs ,uitz Canyon Wa 7-r�.o sprn,fir J I,ant• 3200 East Tah qY 6ww r: Palm Springs, CA 92262 Pahu Dawn,Ldilorn,a 92211 760,360 2476 lux 760.772:3:372 Re: Palm Springs General Plan Review www DesertChapteccwn E Mwl:I31A@Oe crzChapiencom Dear Craig, As we discussed, I have included the Building Industry Associations initial comments on the General Plan update. We will reserve our final comments on the Plan once it is approved by the Planning Commission. Comments: • Page 1-18, action 1.3: I believe tlhere is already a fee established in the city fee schedule. If not, then such a fee should only be a portion of the total cost as it applies to new construction. It is the responsibility of the City to update their general plan on a regular basis and growth is not the only thing that requires updating. • Page 2-45, action 9.1(e): This calls for all water storage to be placed underground. This is unrealistic. As you know, system pressure is, for the most part, achieved by elevated water tanks placed on hillsides. To build these tanks underground would be cost prohibitive. Have the water districts been contacted relative to this requirement? • Page 2-57,policy 13.4: 1 believe the Air District requires there be some type of road side structure to nCGp dh 66 f�Oui washing on t,uli�;road 5"wfaca, where it is g.ro=d ap ii= PM- 10. • Page 5-9 and 10: Seasonal residents are included. They can be counted, but their limited use needs to be taken into consideration. Has this been analyzed? Page 5-18, policy 4.8. Where is the nexus requirement for this, i.e. the percentage of responsibility? IU�ry+1f a�1.'7 DG)iis" An AFnNale of Ow NaOdonnl Al sori:dion or Nomp Ituilders and Ihr Q:jJifornin Building podusirF A.soc4dion • Page 5-18, action 4.3(b): You can't require developer dedications without a proper nexus. o Action 4.3(c): You can't require easements without a proper nexus. o Action: 4.3(d): If we are talking about a developer fee, once again, there is a percentage of responsibility. Additionally, such a fee cannot be used for maintenance and improvement of trails. o We believe this section needs some additional work as to wording and would like to discuss this with Staff to get a clearer understanding of just what the City is looking for. j� Page 5-20, action 5.1: We would like to review the "parkland in-lieu fee ordinance" with staff prior to adoption of this update. "Adequate funding sources" requires the involvement of both new construction population and existing population. Again, we believe ultimately that this section is going to require changes and would like to further discuss with staff to get an understanding of just what the City is looking for. OPage 5-20, action 5.2: Benefit assessment districts must be limited to the impact that a specific development or taxing area is benefited by, in this case, trails, etc. Has this been accomplished? We see some responsibility of the existing population. • Page 5-27, action 6.3: If the City is a signatory to the valley-wide CVMSHCP plan, then that is the way to handle it. The City can put wording in that if the plan does not materialize, then the City should develop a fee, based upon a tortoise impact study on land within the city limits,to provide funds to purchase tortoise habitat within city limits. • Page 5-28, action 6.4: The area described sounds as if it is already included in the Big Horn Sheep Habitat area. The city cannot limit use of land to stop any type of habitat alteration; this is a taking. This whole action needs to be deleted. • Page 5-35, policy 7.9: We do not understand this policy. What is an "environmental clearance?" Elsewhere the City encourages solar generation. Cogeneration facilities can be entiTel; in doors. Please expand on the staff s inte-.pretation of this s ctio^ Page 5-36, action 7.3: The 131A would very much like to be involved in this discussion. • Page 6-16, policy 2.17: What is a"wind barrier"? Especially, as it applies to erosion and windblown sand. Why does the planting have to be drought-resistant? We believe that current PM-10 regulations take care of this. • Page 6-26, policy 3.6: We believe the City and or County Flood Control already has area drainage plans and fees. We don't understand what the thinking is on this policy. New construction already is required to control runoff from their site and cannot add to the existing problem. 2 • Page 6-33, policy 4.6: What do fire sprinklers have to do with wildland fires? All of the other bullets in this section have to do with outside fire threats. We would ask that the sprinkler bullet be deleted. • Page 6-46, policy 6.2: We oppose the creation of such a plan given the impact it could have on new construction. • Page 6-52, action 7.3: We would ask that you delete the last sentence. The City needs to review it's Fire response times. It is not the responsibility of private development to add additional resources that already should be provided by the City. • Page 6-59, action 8.11: A"multistory structure" could be a two story house. This needs to be changed. • Page 7-11, action 3.1: This land use handbook is very problematic. It is advisory and should remain that way. It should not be incorporated in the city's zoning ordinance. • Page 7-13, action 4.1: Delete the first sentence. • Page 8-32, policy 3.12: Please delete this policy. It is silly and impossible. Can you just see the portable noise barrier required for grading next to an existing development? • Page 8-34, action 3.2: What exactly are "developer fees and exactions"? Do we have a nexus here? aPage 9-8, action 1.4: What, if any ramifications, does this have on new development? o Action 1.5: The language on this one is too vague, we need to discuss. Page 9-19, policy 5.2: This needs to be worded better. One could lose a large part of their building lot if the counter person decides "set back as appropriate to the surrounding area"means behind the next door home that is already set back as far as allowed. c Polir=, 5 '%- T think flik may violate air quality rules. Page 9-20, policy 6.2: This (contain amenities such as shade trees, bike racks, benches, water fountains, etc.) could be expensive for a developer required to install a bike or hiking trail adjacent to his property. We need to review the language to make sure there is a hardship provision. Page 9-22, action 7.3: This could be an expensive proposition for a homeowners association if it becomes their responsibility through an ordinance. Y 1 Page 9-22, policy 82: This could be expensive. Presently a developer plants for grow-in. �J Mature vegetation could mean a 30 foot tree. We would ask that this section be deleted or modified. 3 • Page 9-23, action 8.1: A couple of years ago, CVWD, DWA and Mission Springs all adopted master ordinances which were then adopted by some of the cities. If Palm Springs did not adopt,then they should and that's the way this action should read. • Page 9-26, policy 10.7 This segment could impact the BIA directional sign. program. We would ask that it be rewritten the exclude our program. • Page 9-28, action 11.1: Don't you already have this requirement? • Page 9-30, action 12.1: What does this mean? We believe that some attention needs to be paid to the wording of this requirement. • Page 9-30, policy 13.3: Most public art ordinances require:this. If Palm Springs does not, we would like to make sure that any art placed on private property is a credit against the art fee. • Page 9-32, policy 14.5: We believe the City already limits wall height. What is a "transparent fence"? A glass fence would kind of limit the privacy issues talked about previously. o Policy 14.9: If you did away with chain link fences,you would lit schools and the like pretty hard. Additionally, how would one do a construction fence? The wording needs to be more exact as to where the City would not like chain link fence. Look to the following action 914.1. • Page 9-60, policy 29.6: We don't understand this statement. How are you encouraging when you require a CUP. As to appliances, is the City going to encourage people to buy new appliances which are already required to be efficient, etc.? • Page 9-60, action 29.1: As you know the BIA has a model Green Building Program, we would very much like to be part of this discussion. Once von have had a chance to review, let's discuss the City's response. We appreciate'he amount of work that went into this update and commend all involved for a generally well put- together document. Sinc el F d Bell Executive Officer Building Industry Association Desert Chapter c1��� PLANNING ® C1ViL ENGINCLRING o LAND SURVEYING _ y June 20, 2007 Mayor Ron Oden and City Council CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA 92262 Subject: Proposed General Plan Update Dear Craig: On behalf of our clients, Pinnacle View, LLC, we would request several modifications to the proposed General Plan as it would impact a parcel of land on the Chino Cone. We have been following the General Plan update process and are alarmed at the recent language changes concerning the Chino Cone and would request that the text be left as approved by the Planning Commission. We understand that the staff is prOPosinq the deletion of the languaqgLthat was mandating individual General Plan Amendments in order to achieve the development concepts set forth in the Chino Cone Ordinance, We certainly concur with that change. We believe that the original text was acceptable and should be reinstated. The second matter is the proposed extension of Ram Club Road to connect to Tram Way. While this has been shown on the GeneralPlan for many years, there was an Initial agreement to modify the circulation plan to eliminate that connection. The rationale to eliminate the connection is that it would primarily serve as a short cut from everyone who is leaving the Tram and returning to the center of town. The design of Racquet Club is incompatible with this type of traffic as most of the improvement is more collector than the secondary thoroughfare shown on the plan. Our last request is to modify the proposed "Recreational Trails" map which is Figure 4-4 in the General Plan text to delete what is shown as an Existing Tr&iil connecting Tram 18W—heading Straight soutb.tcL-a-m amain trail skirting the toe of slope approximately where Chino Canyon Road ends. This trail does not currently exist. We are in the process of developing the specific plan for this property and will be proposing a trail system that will effect the type of loop connection that is proposed with this subject trail link. Perhaps the General Plan text should include the language from the recently adopted Chino Cone ordinance citing the requirement for a trails concept plan as part of the Specific Plan for each planning area, In any event, the alignment shown on the proposed General Plan trails map would be very difficult to implement due to several deep drainage channels and could sacrifice the privacy of the future residents of Tuscany Heights 34200 BOB Hopp DRlve u RANCHO MIRAGE © CAUK)RN1A ■ 92270 760-3')09811 n 7601)� 7993 F�- ^ WWA1n40A (-1)NRrrITiNfliTf CC', 1%PPLANNING ® CIVII F.NOTNEGRTNG d LAND'SURVI=VINO ank you for your consideration of this request. Very trulyi Marvin Roos, AICP Director of Design Development MDR cc: Ed Freeman 3420013oB HOPE DRIVE a RAN(.FIO MIRAGE 0 CALIPORNIA ® 92270 760 3?0 9011 Is 700 i73 7$03 FA 0 ,",",•• P4Q n(-r*i,in n^ rT'Tr r-*a OF PALM SA City of Palm Springs Office of the City Cleric cO°'oxalev` D-)0() E.Tuhquicz C;inyun Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 F0Rp1�P Ri, (760) 323-8204 • I= (760) i22-83i2 • Web www.palmsprmgs-cagov NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of June 20, 2007, Public Hearing Item No. 1,F. CASE NO. 5.1152 THE 2007 COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE OF THE PALM SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN: By a unanimous vote of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs the public hearing was continued to Wednesday, June 27, 2007, Council Chamber, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, at 6:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as possible. AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING State of California ) County of Riverside ) ss. City of Palm Springs ) I, James Thompson, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, certify this Notice of Continuance was posted at or before 5-30 p.m., June 21, 2007, as required by established policies and procedures. J mes Thompson ity Clerk NOTICE OFCONT-GenPlan 06-20.07.doo Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743