Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/11/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A. Jay Thompson From: Jay Thompson Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2007 12:23 PM To: 'psedc@psedc.com' Cc: Ken Lyon Subject: RE: PSEDC Comments for General Plan Update Hz Tamara, just an FYI, that the documents were not presented at the meeting last night, as they arrived too late. However, I will make sure Ken Lyon includes them in written testimony to the City Council. Jay James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California TEL (760) 323-8204 -----original message----- From: psedc@psedc.com fmailto:psedc@psedc.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 11, 2007 5 :50 PM To: Ken.Lyons0palmsprings-ca.gov; Say-Thompson@palmsprings-ca.gov Subject: PSEDC Comments for General Plan Update Goad Afternoon: Per the request of President Ed Torres, please he sure this letter is in the records for the City Council Meeting today- We would like for each council member to have a copy. Thank you, Tamara PSEDC'S Mission Statement: "To identify and advocate quality economic development in the greater Palm Springs area" Tamara Stevens Executive Director Palm Springs Economic Development Corporation P_0- Box 3205 Palm Springs, CA 92262 760-325-1625 760-325-6117 psedcOpsedc.com G�pir'!LfL 1 �An/ 1 Palm Springs July 11, 2007 Mayor and City Council of the City of Palm Springs City of Palm Springs 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 RE: COMMENTS ON THE DRA.I+T GENERAL PLAN UPDATE AND EIR honorable Members of the City Council: The Palm Springs Economic Development Commission (PSEDC)has participated in the General Plan Update project from its inception. PSEDC Board members have served on the General Plan Steering Committee, and the Committee's work usually,but not always,reflects the views of the PSEDC. As noted in the staff report, some of the Steering Committee discussions were very vigorous, reflecting the diversity of views of the citizenry. We note that the Draft General Plan represents a major reduction in the potential fiitiue population of the City, as compared with the 1993 General Plan. We understand that some of the comments received by the City request additional reductions. PSEDC would be very concerned that additional development reductions would threaten the future financial viability of the City. We also note that if the City fails to reach a consensus on a new General Plan,then the 1993 General Plan would remain in effect. In preparing this letter, PSEDC members have reviewed the"red-line"version of the General Plan, along with the Draft EIR, and still have some concerns that we would like to have addressed in the record. Most of our concerns seek clarification the intent of the General Plan, while a few address policy issues. 1n addition we believe that it would be very helpful to generate a "changed"land-use map showing the differences between the 1993 General Plan and the current proposal. Comments on the Revised General Plan Draft(June 2007 Red Line Version) Page Topic Concern/Suggestion Number 1-22 Policy 1.6: "Seek to eliminate We suggest clarifying the language to make it conditions that do not conform clear that this comment does not apply to to the Cit 's zoning ordinmace." Planned Development Districts. Page 2-29 Policy 1.7,Regarding Our understanding is that State Law sets the mitigation of school impacts. maximum level of mitigation that can be applied to a prpject for schools. Page 2-35 Policies 1.9, L 11: These Sensitive is a very vague word, Who will policies use the word judge what is sensitive? Can the City provide "sensitive"as the standard. more definition? Page 2-3 1, Policy 3.9: This policy sets a Please state the amount of total gross land in development"cap"in the north acres in the General Plan, so there are no end of town,based upon 15% of misunderstandings in the future. Indeed, the the total gross land available City should consider basing the limit on a trips rather than acres, since the environmental impact results from the total number of trips. Please also refer to comments below regarding the additional interchanges. Page 2-35 Policy 6-2: "Encourage Infill The City should provide standards for Development. deciding whether something is or is not infill development. Page 2-38 Mixed Use Discussion 1. The General Plan recommends a series of percentages for each type of use. How are these measured? (since residential is usually measured in units,while commercial is measured in SF), 2. Are the percentages mandatory? At the extreme, what happens if a developer proposes a single use; would the project be denied? Page 2-41 Smoke Tree Shopping Center The text should identify opportunities for mixed use development within Smoke Tree, and note the need for pedestrian integration of the properties, some of which arc under different ownership. Page 2.45 Native and Invasive Species The CVMSHCP has a list of invasive species that should be avoided, and native species that should be encouraged. The PS General Plan should recognize that list. Page 2-46 Action 92 We are concerned about the naming of specific private groups in 11iis action. We suggest that the text be changed to "public and private conservation ou s. Page 2-53 The potential size of the RBC is However,new access could be added in the limited by the capacity of the long-term and the City should explore the existing and proposed option of adding such access. We recommend interchanges. that the following additional action be added to this section and/or the transportation section- Add new action- Identify at least three new potential interchanges along I-10 that would provide added capacity to support,the RBC. These interchanges would be located: • Between SR-111 and Whitewater to serve the Whitewater Ranch Area • Between SR-62 and Indian Avenue to serve potential industrial in the area • Between Indian Avenue and Gene Autry Trail to serve 1)as a secondary entrance to the I-10/Gene Autry Trail RBC, 2)to provide an optional connection for the extension of Sunrise to I-10, and 3) to connect to a potential new interchange needed by Desert Ilot Springs. • In addition,the intersection of Dillon Road with SR-62 should be upgraded to a freeway level interchange Page 2-54 Clearly,the proposed General We are confused by the General Plan text that and follows, Plan amendments that reduce applies to the area covered by the ESA-SP. Chino Cone planned densities in the Chino Please ensure that the text provides for the Cone area remain controversial. densities allowed in the ordinance and that it PSEDC has strongly supported is consistent with any legal requirement(if the Council's previous direction applicable)that a General Plan establish a in this regard, specifically the maximum allowable development. adoption of the Chino Cone Zoning Ordinance in September 2006 (the ESA-SP), and we reiterate our support today. Comments Regarding the Draft EIR We remain concerned about two items in the DEIR. In Chapter 5.11, the DEIR makes the Ending that construction noise is significant and unavoidable. However,this finding contrasts with the City's past practice of the City that construction noise can be mitigated through compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance, and other site-specific mitigation measures, if necessary. We are very concerned with the potential finding that construction noise is necessarily significant and wiavoidable for the following reasons: 1. The DEIR provides no logic behind its finding of significance. It notes that the City's noise ordinance provides an exception to noise limits for construction that limits noise to specific hours; it then makes the conclusionary finding that construction noise is significant without any analysis of why the City's past practices are inadequate. 2. The DEIR falls to provide any standards of significance to determine if individual construction projects will have significant noise impacts. In the past,the City has relied upon its own noise ordinance. 3. Under some recent CEQA cases, any project that contributes to a significant adverse effect(in this case,construction noise) identified in the General Plan EIR,must also make a finding of significance in its own environmental review,unless the effect can be mitigated. In the past, the City has determined that construction noise is irritating,but if restricted to certain hours, it is not a significant adverse effect. If the City now determines in the General Plan EIR that such noise is significant and unavoidable,then each subsequent project with such construction noise will also need to make the same significant and unavoidable finding. Unfortunately, such a finding can only be made with an EIR; it cannot be made with a Negative Declaration. Thus, it could be argued that every project with construction noise may require an EIR and a Statement of Overriding Considerations, a considerable burden on smaller projects that have historically been approved with a Negative Declaration. We would recommend that the Final EIR be amended to either change the findings to be consistent with past City practice, or provide specific guidance on how each project can show that its construction noise impacts are mitigated. Otherwise, we are concerned that the City may be placing an extreme regulatory burden on each project. Similarly, Chapter 5.11 makes the finding that construction noise vibration is significant and unavoidable. The apparent logic is that some people find such vibration to be irritating. First,we are very concerned with setting a standard of significance on the basis that"some people may find it irritating,"particularly when the effect is temporary, as is the case with construction noise. Second, and similar to the above discussion on noise standards, the DEI R provides no guidance on how an individual project can mitigate such an effect, and notes in fact,that there is no available mitigation in many cases. Therefore, each project could again be faced with the preparation of an EIR, similar to the above. PSEDC's Board of Directors would appreciate careful City Attorney review of our concerns regarding the DEIR and its potential for requiring project level EIRs for any project with construction noise or vibration that may be irritating to some members of the public. If we can be of further assistance,please feel free to call on us. Sincerely, Ed Torres, President Palm Springs Economic Development Corporation 760-325-1625 "To identify and advocate quality economic development in the greater Patna Springs area" P.O.Box 3205 - Palm Springs, CA 92262 - 760-325-1625 psede.com - psedc@psede.com Tahiquitz River Estates Neighborhood Organization July 1, 2007 Palm Springs City Council City of Palm Springs, CA Dear Council Members and Staff: This letter supports a zoning change for 691 Industrial Place to a mixed use/multi use designation which meets the City's General Plan Goal#8. Our Board feels it is in the best interest of our neighbors to revitalize the entire section of land that has as its boundaries; Sunny Dunes to the north to North Riverside to its south, and Palo Fierro to its east to North Riverside to its west. We agree with the assessment of Galaxy Property Development and Builders Supply that"this area presents great opportunity for revitalization due to its proximity to downtown, existing neighborhoods, and Tahquitz Creek Parkway, which we believe is on its way to becoming a highly desirable setting with unobstructed views of Tahquitz Canyon and mountains." Also,the approved Mesquite Village project,which is on the other side of the Tahquitz Creek Parkway, will only enhance the desirability. Therefore, TRENO supports a zoning change for mixed and multi-use for the entire parcel of land outlined above. We thank you for your consideration and your support of this zoning change to the City's General Plan. Sincerely, ] Paul erippan hair. TRGNO 01/p lZoo -7 PLANNING ■ CIVIL LNGINLERING ■ LAND SURVEYING i I July 11, 2007 I I I Mayor Ron Oden and City Council ' CITY OF PALM SPRINGS 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way ' Palm Springs CA 92262 ' Subject: General Plan Update Dear Mayor and City Council: On behalf of the property owners of parcels fronting Interstate 10 west of Gene Autry Trail (APN's 669-150-002, 669-150-003, & 669-250-003) we request two modifications to the proposed General Plan currently under consideration by the Palm Springs City Council. The first is the proposed land use for the portion of those parcels located westerly of the Little Morongo Wash being proposed as "Desert." We would request that this be changed to "Industrial" for the approximately 43 acres of land that has been zoned M-I-P since its annexation to the city in the early 1990's. We are currently in Pre-Application with the city on this overall 380 acres for development as an industrial park and wish to maintain the current zoning. While the cost of bridging the wash from the larger area to the east may prove too expensive, this opportunity in the land use is important at this point (map attached). i ' The second request is to maintain the Salvia Road/Garnet Avenue frontage connection between Gene Autry Trail and Indian Avenue. While it is certainly possible to fully develop both our parcels and the parcels along Garnet Avenue without it, this particular road connection has been included in ' the proposed MSHCP as an allowance in the habitat designation of the Garnet Hill area and may prove necessary in the future. Thank you for these considerations. ' Very truly yours, Marvin Roos AICP Director of Design Development MDR/nv ' c: Richard Sax Larry Reeves ' Enclosure: Aerial Exhibit 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE © RANCHO MIRAGE ® CALIFORNIA 9 92270 76n- ,)0-9811 m 760-,?�-7804 rnx n www MSACnNrs*TrTRT(--fNr cnm jrr - � r .. % ,.:;-b. :: _ ";��n rM ,w:pr�4.�/-'i{r:'!:^.'�h• c' M rrM1 ,.d k Iar•. .ram` � � .. � - - ',�y r .yaptq ,r�n�i .r5 ��t yGK!.�'➢' ,y./�:.1.M�a I.. ..t,." y N'r �.M' r �; '• 4.,j�rr:ea�lrr:,..# '1 -� 'r-' _ .•'d r ,'W' ri i. t' iAt ;:�.a3•;r•n'*;Ait'..' rm '••b rF, 'r'M., t V•�t, Y. L• ,.yk.�.y,. ..n, r j*ot, eoA r •. rS ,ay e. . .Niif � - ��q r -_- .�� .. .-.fir'. � '`•;'-., �r` l � '.�iric�•;�� jrf '�., �ar�:{V.,,��.y�.(y� •I'.\'�.l '4 � '.4�-..'#� bra• ,',•SMryr"nµ9y ig y �.ti,� .:r.. yrrC,rti•:.iA: �. i '' r ' v.:fi::1 :' . _ �w w -Yr. ",� �„} •_',P' N •.,,. r ��/+ r. . ' ..r .. ,r.p pllMM, _ a ,r�k•, .Sn"" .,FS"kk�"' `�{! .r„r,.- :i. .. r r-.,+,p...u.M•4. ' - - `ail f, a•. ,Ca'.� ' , .,]�-,ur a'+ Rir I � � x i = � .,,.�a, .:�d• ,r,ar:„ :}e •-w..'. _ �ri� ,.r: ,. .�..•� r.. . _. . .. ;r�„'Es�I � ..' - � r W rfJ ,r�r� ,•,1p,y.�5r�"'' �. . .,r a �. ... ..van ry. -+"�p-utp i�', au3 .¢).�M1YId�+,l/� •-r+ :�Ni �•5 .F^'Ar.tiN' e'KiW�d'� If Yr.{i ' •_ - ., i aye • Ark I n,,. ,.A �y �y • \\�' ri'�'� rp• .r ^t,.y��^,1 yid• f //� _' - .y' JIf s .a ji �. .r Dote: 05 02 2007 MSA CONSU MNIG, INC. General Plan Exhibit PL O04NO ■ Cry R� ■ L. Smvumo c 34200 Eos Hoes Darya■R�mo Amos.ca 92270 DESERT LAND VENTURES III, L L C I: 1BLmgla s(760) ' FAx (760) 323-7993 IN THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS I. n.�r+W:r.•wrdi'►.id1��1NM�'.�wMMIi4��FIiMMi►• -aL lyllf,� - .. ..�.dr.wYnr..�.�►MiiY��Mv.*eM,.iYiIN�M-+'nIL�.+iIW� - . .rG:>w"b,rr+ 'aa.�°:.rl�wirMpNa►�1nbliY1 rs111N,iet.Sr:R'+� ..,T :n: .., i i«..•�h•.��f����� '{'.Y�' 6ew�11�M^M�`M; YMirnNNwYrdlWenY�' hVMf'n '4•NM1 .YW'fAJW�L'rR arM�litl�•L•r lia��H�.�Y, i'n1�1� . ..y" y M J�rn'yY�Mr61W3MiMVIM�JIHir+YrlfM�YM /4w r Ji i4� 1 L'S•�° c.Jd �r 3.J4k' .A'_plriA�.(WC1' 1�' . . I , `• . ,..iG! Mb.�.....w. �+rwc.,Lia�:r .w+w.1 i"GfiliNVir.Xdtlrdliii�iN li . . ,.._,.".✓y..�rw N„war.si.r.wrwrrruihrrMm�..w+'w�Wik�la�.rW1.My�'fi� i . Yi..Y.:Ir .. - ;Otl GY f.•lc Lily: 'Yi��...i/ti4L'�� •4�4Y,'L7.4".q'Ad.M�'_�r� - r �. �r1� r •wig'n°afy.r .'NM`{YLr,�o1rN.YI'iW, n.°iW�i'•."'T"°nf�akn4.h"xFMNWlN.4' 1 .., w�.lw,"♦. .N:v+w.41Wia.WMx'I3.. rrW+aMNNw•xt.�A�'L+R.. &r6 " ._ ., w...IW I ,.w.r.y I.i�wJ'a n ,.r•..ry,l�F•riJrJiru.l... w. e, ti.rl W PIT MAY rJT I ., pi.,� •�•h�M.r.y.' .�•., .r.p.m.nn AN. ..�.r +nM.`..nr�p.r , �. a+�' r .yN,Y r . i`1'IN`r.iyMM4+s •-_..'bvwMxr�:^4- MM: i ' :r';.y.r a v 'rev+. •V,y•n.t%ni.WMr.x...a:w�, � I .nr,•^.GHw'r elm. •.n xE�Wn rY•rFln w,w„nrr.n. .. ' y^. x A i5+�l �l r. .. ..a rI A.y � • au.r( x.aaw_e.�eyl.mwJ i PR•u'. ,.6 W ' pp li x,rn fl, ,aw nMF�b rNr•Y ASr .•. r n.•Y. p •• r..J �•JWnNuxled r r n',.,Ix.„e nx •rr� r,.aury �NW^�.m '.u,m,y„a". .orb.— �r�Mr / • ,� - li r b� n x ti r ce i Y V � • Y e� • •- ice_. r �. *r�. .i. -� r 1 ' ' ' , 'W'y'I�I� '�. . i .. �. 4�. i . � � � '�� _ 1 3 1 tll if 1 i � _Jj � t y�b�e � �"E ..I�r� •` T � ICI I • z r a. ., ., r w� rY�w. •, :, it.� .r•¢ ,t• ..AA ., .rya. . �.,. n. . y :+l✓�A, �, \. ✓� .nw.µenly pA- .r.'�loYl'r .tit •4±, •p 1ry/ . Ak •. 4/ ,JJJ�Ib�.' \ i r r;�'rrrl ylyy 4.Y• � ✓ „ rre( 4�dA . 1� �.W� �. b�Yv�'MJMry.I• I. u .�✓�i+//Lll./�f�++W v rgYMj*,• rlt�rr,n Al � v - 1 � r �C;I )(1 I "The MaterialOifferer7ce"n H July 9,2007 J Palm Springs City Council Palm Springs Planning Commission and Planning Staff City of Palm Springs, CA 92263 Dear Council, Commission and Staff- This letter is written jointly by Builders Supply, its property owners (Fore Partners LLC), and Galaxy Property Development LLC, to address a development opportunity in our neighborhood that will be beneficial to our neighbors and will enhance the vision of Palm Springs as outlined in the General Plan. Galaxy is currently developing a 12-unit residential project at 750 Calle Palo Fierro in Palm Springs- This property is zoned R-3. The properties adjacent to this project are occupied by single-family residences along Sunny Dunes Rd. and multi-family complexes along Palo Fierro- Immediately to the west of this site is Industrial Way, which is zoned Commercial/Light Manufacturing. It is our understanding that this area is targeted,for a zone change in the updated General Plan to Neighborhood/Community Commercial. Builders Supply, Fore Partners and Galaxy are interested in converting a vacant building currently owned by Fore Partners, located at 691 Industrial Way,into a mixed/multi-use development. Our preliminary concept for this site includes up to 18 second-story units of affordable residential living spaces and a mix of commercial/industrW/light manu£acturing/retail outlets located at street level. The building located on this property has been vacant for about a year and was most recently used as a lumber storage warehouse by Builders Supply. As you can see from the photos, it is a very old and tired wood structure that is experiencing frequent theft,vandalism and trash dumping. Like this building,the surrounding area has not seen any renewal or upgrades in decades, and is generally an underutilized section of the community. In our opinion,this area presents great opportunity for revitalization due to its proximity to downtown, existing residential neighborhoods, and Tahquitz Creek channel, which we believe is on its way to becoming a highly desirable setting with unobstructed views of Tahquitz Canyon and the mountains. Property owners along Industrial Way have told us they are anxious for investment in this area, which will serve as an incentive to renovate or redevelop their properties- Desert Water Agency has committed to improving its property, located adjacent to the property we are considering, if we move forward with,our redevelopment plans- We have also been communicating with the Tahquitz River Estates Neighborhood Organization, whose Advisory Council supports the introduction of residential use to this area and moreover, the renewal of a blighted section of their neighborhood- If this project moves forward,we will continue to work with neighborhood representatives to ensure this project makes a positive contribution to the neighborhood environment. 490 E. Sunny Dunes Road • Palm Springs, CA 92264 • Phone(760)323-1926 • Fax(760)320-8408 Website: www.buildersps.com l�p A p� �7 1 i Palm Springs City Council et al July 9, 2007 Page Two We are prepared to make a substantial investment in this area of Palm Springs and believe that this investment would be of great benefit to the City and nearby residents_ Our research shows that a residential commercial mix is the best use and wisest investment for the site. Therefore, we are hereby requesting a zoning change for 691 Industrial Place to a mixed nse/multi use designation, which specifically meets Goal 8 of the city's General Plan/Land Use Element ("strategically introduce mixed and multi-use infill projects in underutilized areas to create neighborhood activity centers..."). This designation would allow us to remain committed to a mix of commercial/industdal use while introducing a residential element complementary to the high quality residential project we are developing across the street on Palo Pierro. We are also seeking advice on set back requirements. This is a very narrow parcel, which could constrain the development potential if some flexibility in site design was not available. The City has our assurance that we will provide a quality project that maintains enhanced industrial and commercial uses together with residential housing at affordable prices, which will stimulate additional redevelopment and revitalization of this area and greatly improve its visual appeal, safety, and overall utilization. Thank you for your consideration of our proposal. Sincerely, Kyle Kincaid, V-P_ David Strieker Builders Supply Galaxy Property Development LLC Member/Manager 503-481-8039 Pore Partners LLC dstricker-fivestar@comcast.net CHATTEN-BROWN & CARSTENS 3250 OCEAN PARK BOULEVARD SU1TF 300 E-MAIL. TELEPIIONE'(310)314-SO40 SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90405 .uhT(pCRCFARTIV,A¢Cvni FACSIMILE: (310)314-605G W W W.CbCeart111aW.Caln N c� July 2, 2007 c- Via Email(generalpl(in(�)palnrspringe-[a.gov) r,- co ? Original to follow Ken Lyons _ Associate Planner City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 Re: Lack of Response to Comments on General Plan Update Regarding Impacts to the Palm Springs Visitor's Center Dear Mr. Lyons: We have received a copy of the City of Palm Springs General Plan Update Response to Comments. This document addresses comments made by our firm on behalf of the Palm Springs Modern Committee. However, it fails to respond to comments submitted separately by the Palm Springs Modern Committee on May 1, 2007 regarding the impacts the General Plan Update would have on the Palm Springs Visitor's Center, even though this letter was included in the Response to Comments document at pages 2- 50 to 2-51. (A copy of the comment letter is attached.) The California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines require that: The lead agency shall evaluate comments on environmental issues received from person who reviewed the draft EIR and shall prepare a written response. The lead agency shall respond to comments received during the noticed comment period and any extensions and may respond to late comments. (CEQA Guidelines section 15088(a)_) The comment period for the General Plan Update Draft EIR ran from March 22, 2007 until May 7, 2007. Therefore,the letter by the Palm Springs Modern Committee on May I was submitted within the comment period and required a written response. The City's failure to respond to these comments is in violation of CEQA. We ask that the City respond to these comments and include them in a revised Response to Comments- 19 l 1 n Gt ,b 0WnL� l Ken Lyons July 2, 2007 Page 2 of 2 Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, Amy Minteer Attorney at Law Enclosure: May 1, 2007 comment letter from Palm Springs Modern Comnrittee Cc: Palm Springs Planning Commission .Palm Springs City Clerk, James Thompson Palm Springs Modem Committee ;'NM ewYY'P"g:lv 'r.FyA,f✓'33„r�:'!:ef."i1L1 r',S L� J I• ly�ii:+. aSy�•,i ,M. �7,yr 7TmK"hr'+1' ..r==r .i, _ ,Ivo qz� -.•.r'wJ.+fi:9=:r':._r Yf M� y,^ly{11..r,N'.��t „?id}4,vu.J,. ;n;,. 1- "r `'a�•.. ' nr�. .�..� ;., - r-14r r,c . . ��"Y.:�•.:.u�rCin....r. a 1} r ..:r 1 v _, �r+r.;: ' )_ ,,�`,1 j'16 '_n� vl)d1:,.., 'S'�.Ir n�/.,� ,"""MsW„j:alAi, .Y".:pai� .�-fq:�t�ak.C'�'�li}.i•. �` �ri�,I��'� .Ie,V rR�Alrl�rt•'Rj���+S?^I..,. -..'0 :�� �, �rli�'"'i^:f,t:. Vr ..V i S4n .4 - -sC.a 'A•ti Yi Yr Y,.. ryS➢�' rx ,� eer,.a.:,ei:;:^S r r :1. WL.+::,t; .�"{�T:,�+1.„ ,. :,d: a+ '7nYy',♦.I . ' �11', .I foa:. y,1.y�Y+'r� iyl( 'D, (.h�•'Iys1' DSO Y,:r„r ar. = 1[ `M(.�+ N•1-- ��I'-i''�,.Tr.� �.�'1•. „^y7*�i�a"�•Yrr l 'I rry . .�n1''SI Y "r""^"e�. Jr::.. :? F,.�i}1;>;:_ • '1 `�':i ..::1 J iirJ 'e.Y,ry r_. �.I n r..lOg(j'.„ Ilrl+ 'a':•."T•ti '= IMF.: ,.•Ir,r.a.•.. .. .r;�7^:r:.. Y.'r: r-. '. _v "1 e1 iii i' o: t._ . .�.µ. • rc 4� !�: ,h/r:"'r:■FY.,r�;: r,'V�'..•r.•^�����IJ`4 v`.(•'"1.16y^�n� Vim'.r"�'i�.���.�'. .���� 1 1i)e V-,i•29- R6. ^ „�—Q•Il"�'�y,��y>a}��:Yt r ti: .<^. I� (.r � I" H 0!'1:'�^.M.�y��uy!I.'�:�;! J "!"yh.'I,i"1'{S�•d���",yy;�SS;� 1�1!�'N�':;,�. •'a�la,l��r�'^r,..t. ,'.:...x r�':�'r=kd�•`!ni;.i f�.l n, b;•ry,IT'�i.' V: .. Srga...'. f• If' >.-•� A", u S"fin AYL��d.+.�l� ""'Ls�j:�''W'�$'• rr7777r I. Ins, , MAR 7,17 Im r j I I 7j '. o-TA VL . ...... sm ............ PROOF OF PUBLICATION 2g?h J.35pacc for County Clccrrk's Filing Stamp (2015.5.C.C.P) 53 STATE OF CALIFORNIA i County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter.I am the principal cleric of a , printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, PALM SPRINGS IS INVITING WRITTEN County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been OR ORAL COMMENT ON THE HEARING adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the DRAFT VERSION OF THE COMPRE�m Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of California under the date of March 74,1988,Case HENSIVE UPDATE OF THE PALM Number 191236;that the notice,of which the SPRINGS GENERAL PLAN annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller than non pariel,has been published in each regular WRITTEN COMMENTS and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any MAY BE SUBMITTED TO: supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit- July 4"',2007 KEN LYON, ASSOCIATE PLANNER ----------------------------------------- BY E-MAIL: All in the year 2007 KEN.LYON@PALMSPRINGS-CA.GOV I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the BY POST: foregoing is true and correct. 3200 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY Dated at Palm Springs,California this--6"',---day PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263- of-- July --- --------------- 2007 ORAL COMMENTS MAY BE PROVIDED TO THE CITY COUNCIL AT ITS REGULAR MEETING ON --- _ __--- JULY 11, 2007 AT 6 P.M. S`niture -T--_- THE MEETING WILL. BE HELD 1N THE CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS 3200 E. TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, PALM SPRINGS, CA I pY COMMENTS RECEIVED ON OR BEFORE JULY 11, 2007 WILL BE ANALYZE6 BY CITY STAFF IN ITS REPORT TO THE COUNCIL ON JULY 25, 2007 QUESTIONS: CALL 760 323 8246 pALM City ®f Palm Springs U n Office of the Ciry Cleric m ox rea'9T� 3200 L•.Tihquaz Canynn Wdy • palm Springs, California 93362 c'g4IFO �P TO (760) 323-8204 ° Ian (760) 322-8332 • Wcli: www.paLnspnngY-Cn,l;ov NOTICE OF CONTINUANCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the regular meeting of June 27, 2007, Public Hearing Item No. I.D. 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, July 11, 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 28, 2007, as required by.established policies and procedures. _ Imes Thompson City Clerk NOTICE OF CONT-GenPlan 00-20-07.2.doc ITEM NO. Posr Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743