Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7/25/2007 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.B.
oFpALM gf� Y y! =F %P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: July 25, 2007 SUBJECT: AN APPEAL BY SPENCER RECOVERY CENTERS, INC. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION OF MAY 23, 2007 DENYING CASE No's. 5.1139 / 5.1140 A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM C-1 TO R-3 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ASSISTED LIVING CENTER / SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY CENTER AT 1404 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, THE LAS PALMAS HOTEL. FROM- David H. Ready, City Manager BY: The Planning Department SUMMARY The Council will hear an appeal by Spencer Recovery Centers, Inc., requesting the City Council overturn the Planning Commissions denial of Case # 5.1139 / 5.1140, The project is a request for a Change of zone from C-1 to R-3 and a Conditional Use Permit to convert the Los Palmas Hotel (1404 North Palm Canyon Drive) to an assisted living center/ substance abuse recovery center. RECOMMENDATION: ADOPT RESOLUTION No. _, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO UPHOLD THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TAKEN ON MAY 23, 2007 TO DENY CASE # 5.1139 / 5.1140 AN APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM C-1 TO R-3 AND A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW AN ASSISTED LIVING CENTER / SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY CENTER USE AT 1404 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, "THE LAS PALMAS HOTEL". BACKGROUND On May 23, 2007 the Planning Commission heard Case #5.1139 / 5.1140 and voted to deny the application. A copy of the staff report and resolution is attached. On May 30, 2006 the City Clerk received an appeal from James R Brighenti on behalf of Spencer Recovery Centers, Inc. on the actions taken on May 23, 2006. A copy of the appeal letter is attached. ITEM NO. \"� City Council Staff Report July 25, 2007 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Case 5.1139 1 1140 CUP/CZ Page 2 of 3 STAFF ANALYSIS. The project is a request for a Change of Zone (CZ) and a Condition Use Permit (CUP) to allow an assisted living / substance abuse recovery center at the Los Palmas Hotel at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive. The project is analyzed in the attached Planning Commission staff report. Staff has reviewed the appellant's letter dated May 30, 2007 and identified the following reasons the appellant believes the decision of the Planning Commission should be overturned. Staffs response to each is provided immediately following each statement. In hearing the appeal, the Council may reconsider all information contained in the record of the Commission's decision as well as any new information presented to the Council prior to, or during its public hearing. 7. The facts and recommendations in support of the requested use noted in the Planning Commission Staff Report dated May 23, 2007 should be reconsidered. The Planning Commission reviewed the staff report; considered public testimony and all other information related to the case (see attached Planning Commission resolution and meeting minutes). At the hearing the Commissioners expressed the following reasons for denying the requested use: a. The site is located on North Palm Canyon Drive, the City's main commercial street. As a City whose primary commercial activity is related to tourism, the Commission concluded that a substance abuse recovery center would not be consistent with the general tourism and resort-focused commercial and retail activity on that important thoroughfare- b. The Commission concluded that a change of zone from C-1 to R-3 would prohibit certain high-intensity commercial uses on this parcel in the future. At a time when the City is working to revitalize its downtown and adjacent commercial thoroughfares, such 'down-zoning' may inhibit revitalization. 2. The Planning Commission did not completely understand the scope of the application put forth. The Commission was presented with a staff report, written materials provided by the applicant and oral testimony from the public. The applicant attended the hearing, but did not make any comments. The applicant may provide additional information at the appeal hearing that may further clarify or support their appeal request, but Staff believes that at the time of the Commission hearing, the Commission had sufficient material to adequately understand the scope of the application. 3. The proposed use would be an asset to the Palm Springs community. The Commission was informed via the staff report that clients of the proposed facility 00000? City Council Staff Report July 25. 2007 Appeal of Planning Commission Decision on Case 5.1139/ 1140 CUP/CZ Page 3 of 3 could come from the local community or from outside the community and that substance abuse recovery is an important service in contemporary society. Services to address drug, alcohol, and other substance abuse and addiction issues would be offered to clients at this location. Staff believes the Commission adequately considered the value such a facility would have for the community. 4. At the public hearing, it was recommended that more information to clarify the requested use be presented at the time of the appeal. Rather than continue the item, the Commission decided to deny the Change of Zone and Conditional Use Permit. Fallowing its decision, the Commission informed the applicant of his right to appeal the decision. The applicant was informed that he could provide more information about other municipalities in which they are successfully operating similar treatment centers in a similar commercial/residential area as the one being proposed. It was also suggested that the applicant provide statements from those other municipalities confirming the non-detrimental nature of the operation in order to further affirm the positive influence such uses have had within other communities. The applicant has both an opportunity and an obligation (to their own project) to present relevant information to the Commission at the hearing While an appeal hearing allows new information to be presented, Staff believes that a sufficient project description was presented to the Commission at the hearing and that the appellant has not provided any new information that would justify overturn of the decision of the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION Based on the Planning Commission's action and the issues raised by the appellant, staff recommends that the Council deny the appeal and uphold the actions taken by the Planning Commission on May 23, 2007 related to the subject case. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact I win CP Thomas J. Wilscl( _ Direc or of Pla g Services Assistant City M nager, Dev't Svcs -71 David Ready City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft City Council Resolution 2. Appeal Letter dated May 30, 2007 3. Planning Commission meeting minutes dated May 23, 2007 4. Planning Commission Resolution 5. Planning Commission Staff Report 6, Vicinity Map RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS UPHOLDING THE DECISION OF THE PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION TO DENY CASE No. 5.1139 / 5.1140 CHANGE OF ZONE AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION BY SPENCER RECOVERY CENTERS, INC. FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING CENTER / SUBSTANCE ABUSE RECOVERY CENTER AT 1404 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE "THE LAS PALMAS HOTEL" WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007 the Palm Springs Planning Commission at a noticed public hearing considered case 5.1139 / 5.1140 CZ/CUP by Spencer Recovery Centers, Inc. requesting a change of zone and a conditional use permit to operate an assisted living center / substance abuse recovery center at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive `The Las Palmas Hotel"; and WHEREAS, at said meeting the Planning Commission voted to deny the application for the reasons noted in the Planning Commission resolution # ; and WHEREAS, on May 30, 2007 the City of Palm Springs received a letter from Spencer Recovery Centers, Inc. appealing the decision of the Planning Commission to the City Council, and WHEREAS, pursuant to Municipal Code Chapter 2.05, the City has established a procedure for applicants to appeal the decisions of an administrative officer or agency of the City to the City Council; and WHEREAS, in accordance with applicable law, the City Council held a public hearing on July 25, 2007 to consider the appeal of the Planning Commission decision on Case 5.1139 / 5.1140; and WHEREAS, at said hearing the City Council heard and carefully considered the Staff Report and all other written and oral testimony related to the subject appeal. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The proposed change of zone from C-1 to R-3 for the Las Palmas Hotel at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive as an assisted living center / substance abuse recovery center is not suitable for the subject property because it is dissimilar to resort / tourism uses that are concentrated along this major thoroughfare and in the nearby downtown. 000004 Resoiution No._ Page 2 SECTION 2. The proposed use of the Las Palmas Hotel for a substance abuse recovery center would be detrimental to the adjacent properties because it is neither resort / tourism in nature nor is it commercial / retail •- both of which are the predominant uses in the vicinity of this property. SECTION 3. The proposed use of the Las Palmas Hotel for a substance abuse recovery center is not necessary or desirable for the development of the community because this area of the City is primarily one of resort / tourism uses and commercial / retail and the proposed use would not support the form of development that is desired. THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Palm Springs does hereby uphold the action of the Palm Springs Planning Commission to deny Case 5.1139 / 5.1140 CZ/ CUP. ADOPTED this th day of , 2007. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST. James Thompson, City Clerk CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. _ is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on by the following vote AYES: NOES: ABSENT. ABSTAIN. James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California DDOD ©5 i i SPENCER RECOVERY CENTERS, INC. P.0 Box118 Monrovia, CA 91017 949 376 3705 June 21, 2007 The Clerk of Palm Springs Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: Case Numbers 5.1139 & 5.1140 Appeals Dear City Clerk of Palm Springs, We have discussed possible hearing dates with Mr. Lyon and hereby notify you of our consent that this appeal hearing be heard later than the 45 day time limit, preferably a hearing date in July 2007 would be best. We appreciate any effort on your part to fit us in to one of the July counsel meetings. Sincerely, James R. Brighenti Agent of Record Jimbwmts@yahoo.com (949) 202-9614 May 29 07 09:15a p.2 I ' SPENCER RECOVERY CENTERS,INC. P.o sox 118 Monrovia,CA 91017 949 376-3705 i May 30,2007 Palm Springs City Counsel 3200 East Tahqurtz Canyon Way Palm Springs,CA 92262 I Re: Request for Appeal Case Numbers 5.1139&5.1140 Dear Citv Counsel, Spencer Recovery Centers,Inc.is respectfully requesting an appeal in accordance with Chapter 2.05 to the Palm Springs City Counsel for Case Numbers 5.1139 and 5.1140 concerning the Its Palmas Hotel located at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive. The original application was denied by the Palm Springs Planning Commission on May 23, 2007. The grounds for appeal for Case Numbers 5.1139 and 5.1140 consist of but are not limited to the recommendation for approval by the Palm Springs Associate Planner and his office; we feel that the Zoning Board did not completely understand the scope of the application put forth;and the proposed use would be an asset to the Palm Springs community. It was also recommended by several Zoning Commission officers at the original hearing that we appeal Case Num bers 5.1139 and 5.1140 and to have more information about the proposed use at the time of the appeal hearing_ i We appreciate your attention to this matter. Sincerely, j ames R l3righen6 n Agent of Record c JimbwrntsCa.vahoo.com _ cc, (949)202-9614 Cc: Chris Spencer Cindy S210 es� . ! t � f SALES DRAFT REQUEST FOR TREASURER'S RECEIPT PALM SPRINGS CITY CASHIER 3200 TAHOUITZ CANYON WAY PALO SPRINGS, CA 9Z262 r (760) 323-8223 ANCE DEPARTMENT CASHIER DATE: 4301322133525341 CITY CLERK'S OFFICa4b<,, iID : 32213352534143010001 F DATE : 05/30/07 09:45:10 AM WED CCEPT$ - + ACCT : #00#01#N40207 NC BATCH : 07 a 7�F (G THAN 0 : 3146 AMOUNT : $387.00 THANK YDO.PLEASE COME AGAIN, I PS &PUBLICATIONS-001-34106 APPROVAL: 052934 'IER CHARGES - CURRENT SERVICE- 001-34110 :COUNT NO. - CIRCLED ABOVE BY ORDER OF CST CODE! 22 TAX ANT: $0.00 1AX AN]; j g RESOLUTION N0. 7009 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 5A 139 LOCATED AT 1404 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE R-3, SECTION 10. WHEREAS, Spencer Recovery Center, Inc-("Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an assisted living center in an existing hotel at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone R-3, Section 10; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case No. 5.1139 15.1140 — CUP/CZ was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, a public hearing on the application was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'), and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (Existing Facilities) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 94.02.00 (B), the following findings cannot be made for the request: b. That the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located,- The use of this site for an assisted living center would not be a desirable use at this location because: 1. Palm Canyon Drive functions as Palm Springs' "Main Street Uses on this street should support the resort and recreational image that is central to Palm Springs and its "main street". An assisted living facility is not harmonious with this type of"main street development" and may be detrimental to the City's goal of strengthening retail in its core and its image as a premier desert resort, 000009 Planning Commission Resolution June 13, 2007 Case 5.1139 Page 2 of 3 2. The proposed use would require a change of zone from C-1 (commercial) to a less intensive zone R-3 (high density residential). The "down-zoning" of this parcel on this important segment of North Palm Canyon Drive, relatively near the central business district, may be detrimental to future more intensified commercial development efforts in this area. e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and may include minor modification of the zone's property development standards. Such conditions may include: i. Regulation of use, ii. Special yards, space and buffers, iii. Fences and walls, iv. Surfacing of parking areas subject to city specifications, v. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds vi. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, vii. Regulation of signs vni. Requiring landscaping and maintenance thereof ix. Requiring maintenance of the grounds X. Regulation of noise, vibration, odors, etc. xi. Regulation of time for certain activities xii. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed, xiii, Duration of use, xiv. Dedication of property for public use, xv. And such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this Zoning Code, including but not limited to mitigation measures outlined in an environmental assessment. The Planning Commission has concluded that Conditions of Approval related to the Conditional Use Permit cannot be identified to adequately mitigate the non- retail/commercial nature of the proposed use on the City's principal retail/commercial thoroughfare, and therefore the use would not be beneficial to the future economic vitality and general welfare of the City. Planning Commission Resolution June 13, 2007 Case 5.1139 Page 3 of 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby denies Case No. 5.1139 - CUP. ADOPTED this 13" day of June, 2007. AYES: 5, Hochanadel, Scott, Marantz, Cohen, Caffery NOES: None ABSENT: 1, Ringlein ABSTAIN: 1, Hutcheson ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA ig ing, AIC Dire of Planni r9 ervices RESOLUTION NO. 7010 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS,- CALIFORNIA DENYING A CHANGE OF ZONE REQUEST; CASE NO. 5.1140 LOCATED AT 1404 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE C-1, SECTION 10. WHEREAS, Spencer Recovery Center, Inc.("Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94-02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Change of Zane from C-1 to R-3 to enable the operation of an assisted living center with a Conditional Use Permit at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone C-1, Section 10; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case No. 5.1139 / 5.1140 — CUP/CZ was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, a public hearing on the application was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA'), and has been -determined to be Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (Existing Facilities) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Current zoning for the parcel at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive is C-1. Section 2: The applicant desires to operate an assisted living center at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive. Section 3: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 92.04.01, D(1) Assisted Living Centers are allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) in the R-3 zone. The applicant therefore has requested a Change of Zone (CZ). Section 4. Based upon the following excerpts from Section 94.07.00 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, findings cannot be made in support of the request: 2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related el5001Z CITY OF PALM SPRINGS PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 23, 2007 Council Chamber, City Hall 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 1:34 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present Present Year. FY 2006/2007 This Meeting: to Date: Excused Absences: Chair Marantz X 24 1 Vice Chair Hochanadel X 24 1 Cohen X 21 4 Ringlein X 21 4 Hutcheson X 23 2 Caffery X 19 3 Scott X 19 3 REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: The agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of Council Chamber) and the Planning Services counter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday, May 18, 2007. Craig A. Ewing noted a request for a continuance was received for Item 3 - Case 3.2999 SFR / 7.1215 AMM. 1. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three minute time limit.) Chair Marantz opened Public Comments. -Earl Rose, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; voiced concern with the scale and density of the project, as well as the balcony views infringing on the neighbors privacy- -Bill Byrne, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; concerned with the 2-story height. -Marjorie Conley Aikens, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; concerned with the percentages stated for the 2-story homes in surrounding area. 000013 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23,2007 -Maureen Guinan, on behalf of the applicant, regarding Item 3, requested a continuance or approval of the project. -Beatrice Dunn, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; concerned with the mass. -Daniel Hogan, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; voiced concern with the height, size and privacy issues. -Steven Van, applicant for Item 3, stated the property is small on a 4200 square foot lot and requested a continuance for this project. -Tom Warrick, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; concerned with the height, -Dan Valentino, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; reiterated concern with the hillside status given to this parcel of land. -John Harrell, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3; provided details using an aerial photograph of the proposed parcel. -Franklin Burns, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 3, stated this project does not fit into the general character of the La Mesa neighborhood- -Dana Stewart and James McKinley, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of Item 8; voiced concern with the health and safety hazards of the windmills. There being no further comments, Public Comment was closed. CONSENT CALENDAR: Commissioner Hutcheson noted his abstention on Item 2B. Chair Marantz noted her abstention on Item 2B. M/S/C (Scott/Cohen, 7-0) To approve, as apart of the Consent Agenda. (Noting Commissioner Hutcheson's abstention on Item 2B and Chair Marantz's abstention on Item 2B.) 2A. Draft Minutes of April 11, 2007 Approved, as part of the Consent Agenda. 2B. Case 5.1046 PD 232 / TTM 33341 - An application by Greg Trousdell on behalf of Aqua Palm Springs, LLC, requesting a one-year time extension for Final Planned Development 232 for the re-subdivision of 24 acres and construction of 156 condominiums located at 2705 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Zone P, Section 13. (Project Planner: Bryan Fernandez, Assistant Planner) (Noting Commissioner Hutcheson's and Chair Marantz's abstention.) Approved, as park of the Consent Agenda. City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23,2007 MISCELLANEOUS 3. Case 3.2999 SFR / 7.1215 AMM - An application by Steven Van to construct an approximate 6,355 square foot single family residence, with an increase of building height to 25', located at 350 El Portal Zone R-1-13 Section 27. (Planner Christopher Ison, Planning Technician) Commissioner Caffery noted his abstention and would not be participating in the discussion and vote. He left the Council Chamber 2:08 p.m. The Commission and staff discussed the request for a continuance. Commissioner Hutcheson requested the applicant state his intent for a continuance. Mr. Steven Van responded his intent is to appease the entire neighborhood and plans to proceed with a 2-story home. Commissioner Hutcheson stated he is not in favor of this project. He noted that the Commission has previously heard a lot of public testimony and feels an obligation to protect the character of the neighborhood. M/S/C (Hutcheson/Scott, 6.0, 1 abstained/ Caffery) To deny, Case No. 32999 SFR and 7.1215 AMM. Craig A. Ewing noted this action may be appealed to the City Council in accordance with city regulations. Commissioner Caffery re-entered the Council Chamber at 2:13 p.m. 4. Case 3.2941 MAJ 15,1103 CUP - An application by Palm Springs Modem Homes VI, LLC, to amend the existing architectural approval to replace the approved carport trellis with a fabric sail located at 2855 North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone R-3, Section 3. (Project Planner: Christopher Ison, Planning Technician) Chair Marantz noted her abstention and would not be participating in the discussion and vote. She left the Council Chamber at 2:14 p.m. Commissioner Hutcheson noted his abstention and would not be participating in the discussion and vote. He left the Council Chamber at 2:14 p.m. Christopher [son, Planning Technician, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated May 23, 2007. Orb 0015 3 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2007 James Cioffi, architect, submitted a sample of the proposed material and provided additional details. His noted his preference for the material is white but is willing to change the color, if the Commission so desires. The consensus of the Commission is a neutral desert color. M/S/C (Caffery) To approve for the shade sail around the pool and carport areas; color to be determined by the architect. MOTION WAS LOST DUE TO LACK OF A SECOND_ M/S/C (Ringlein/Cohen, 4-1/Caffery), 2 abstained/Hutcheson/ Chair Marantz) To approve, the shade sail around the pool area cabanas and carports, as amended: *Neutral color to blend-in harmoniously with the environment. Chair Marantz and Commissioner Hutcheson re-entered the Council Chamber 2:25 p.m. 5. Appointment of Alternate Member of the Architectural Advisory Committee - Paul Ortega. Craig A_ Ewing provided details on the nomination of a Landscape Architect for an Alternate Member of the Architectural Advisory Committee. M/S/C (Caffery/Hutcheson, 7-0) To appoint, Paul Ortega as Alternate Member to the Architectural Advisory Committee, PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6. Case 5.1104 GPA - An application by Hank Gordon on behalf of Laurich Properties, Inc., for a General Plan Amendment to the Section 14 Specific Plan to allow drive-through uses and "General Retail Uses" as a permitted use subject to a Conditional Use Permit in the Resort Attraction (RA) zone located on the southwest comer of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Sunrise Way. (Project Planner: Ken Lyon, Associate Planner) Ken Lyon, Associate Planner, stated the applicant has asked that the "General Retail Uses" request be dropped from consideration so that the only matter before the Commission today is the request for a General Plan Amendment to allow drive-through uses. Mr. Lyon provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated May 23, 2007. 4 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23,2007 Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing- -Hank Gordan, applicant, addressed a discrepancy with the memorandum from the Agua Caliente Band of Cahuiila Indians dated April 3, 2006. -Wesley Cole, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of drive-throughs. -Hank Gordan, applicant rebuttal, stated all the new pharmacies in the city provide drive through prescription pick-up windows for convenience. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Scott requested staff confirm the tribe's denial of the application. Staff responded that it has been heard both by the Tribal Planning Commission and the Tribal Council and both entities recommend denial. Commissioner Ringlein commented that as a member of General Plan Steering Committee, the neighborhood representatives reviewed the Section 14 Plan and the consensus was that drive throughs are undesirable in the community. M/SIC (Caffery/Ringlein, 7-0) To deny, Case 5.1104 General Plan Amendment. 7. Case 5A139 CUP 15.1140 CZ - An application by Spencer Recovery Center, Inc. for a Change of zone from C-1 to R-3 and a Conditional Use Permit to allow an assisted living center/substance abuse treatment center located at the Las Palmas Hotel, 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone C- 1, Section 10, APN: 505-184-011. (Project Planner: Ken Lyon, Associate Planner) Commissioner Hutcheson stated his abstention on Item 7 and Item 8 and would not participating in the discussion and vote. He left the Council Chamber at 2:45 p,m. Ken Lyon, Associate Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated on May 23, 2007. Mr. Lyon reported two letters of opposition were received. Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing- -Gerald Douglas, Palm Springs, stated concern with the type of visitors coming to the residential area. -Samuel Baek, Palm Springs, spoke in opposition of the project, concerned with increased drug and criminal activity in the neighborhood. -Casey Lesher, Palm Springs, spoke in favor of the treatment center. 5 059017 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23,2007 -Donna King, Palm Springs, commented she is a drug & alcohol counselor and is very familiar the treatment center; spoke in favor of the project. -James Bonghecht, spoke in favor of the project; stated he is a recovering alcoholic addict and people who are using drugs do not visit patients in treatment centers. -Gabe Hynes, Dana Point, addressed the concerns and reiterated that people who come to treatment centers are people who want help. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Caffery noted a concern with this type of usage in the downtown area and could not support the project. Commissioner Ringlein commented she would like to hear how these treatment centers have worked in other communities. M/S/C (Ringlein) To continue, refer applicant to bring back references from communities where current business is conducted. MOTION WAS LOST DUE TO A LACK OF A SECOND. MIS/C (CafferyNice Chair Hochanadel, 4-2/Cohen/ Ringlein), 1 abstained/ Hutcheson) To deny, Case 5.1139 Conditional Use Permit and Case 5.1140 Change of Zone. Craig A. Ewing stated this action is subject to appeal to the City Council in accordance with city regulations. A recess was taken at 3:20 p.m. The meeting resumed at 3:30 p.m- S. Case 5.1115 CUP 16.493 VAR - An application by Dillon Wind LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the development of five 1-megawatt wind energy conversion systems (WECS) in Area S. The application also includes a Variance application to exceed the 300 foot commercial WECS height limit. Area 5 is located within the limits of the City of Palm Springs approximately 6,000 feet west of Indian Avenue and 2000 feet north of 1-10. (Project Planner. Edward Robertson, Principal Planner) Commissioner Hutcheson previously noted his abstention and would not be participating in the discussion and vote. He left the Council Chamber at 2:45 p.m. Commissioner Cohen noted a business related conflict of interest and would be abstaining from the discussion and vote. He left the Council Chamber at 3:35 p-m. 6 M013 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2007 Edward Robertson, Principal Planner, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated May 23, 2007. He stated that Riverside County is the C.E.Q.A lead agency for this project's Environmental Impact Report. Commissioner Scott requested staff address the land use for the adjacent properties. Staff responded that the surrounding uses are zoned industrial or manufacturing industrial. Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing- -Andy Liehan, Portland Oregan, Director of Wind Energy Permitting for PPM Energy, provided additional information using a Power Point presentation outlining the benefits against climate change, project vicinity, energy industrial zone, existing wind turbines, and community involvement. -Ed Torres, president of the Palm Springs Economic Development Corporation, stated the PSEDC reviewed the project and recommends approval. -Fredrick Noble, on behalf of Desert Wind Association and Wind Tech Energy, provided additional information regarding the replacement of older windmills and a bird study conducted in 1999 and 2000. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was closed. The Commission discussed the size of the new turbines and energy production in comparison to the existing turbines, long-term utility rates using renewable energy and the neighborhood meeting. M/S/C (Caffery/Scott, 4-11Vice Chair Hochanadel), 2 abstained/Cohen/ Hutcheson) To adopt the Final Environmental Report, and approve Case 5.1115 Conditional Use Permit and Case 6.493 Variance. Commissioner Hutcheson and Commissioner Cohen re-entered the Council Chamber at 3:57 p.m. 9. Case 5.1132 PD 333 / 3.3002 MAJ I TTM 35236 - An application by Loft Partners Palm Springs, LLC., to construct a 200 room hotel, 143 condominiums and a parking structure on 10.47 acres located at the northwest corner of Amado Road and Avenida Caballeros, Zone R4 & RGA- 8, Section 14 (IL). (Project Planner: Edward Robertson, Principal Planner) Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services, provided background information as outlined in the staff report dated May 23, 2007. Mr. Ewing noted three letters of opposition were received. 7 1s I I City of Palm Springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2007 Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing. -Laurie Kibbey, representing The Loft Partners, provided additional details using a Power Point presentation relating to community outreach, vision objectives, project description and amenities. -Ed Torres, president of Palm Springs Economic Development Corp., stated the board of directors approved the project with 2 stipulations: a review of the site lines affecting neighboring properties and consideration of neighborhood commercial on Avenida Caballeros parking side. -Candace Casey, California Development Enterprises spoke in favor of the project and urged approval. -Brian Harnik, on behalf of Alejo Caballeros LLC, stated a discrepancy with the review period for the environmental document; concerned with the impact to the Alejo Caballeros project and requested a continuance- -John Weisner, Palm Springs, not opposed to the project but concerned with the height; requested story poles placed at the site- -Wayne Cox, Palm Springs, voiced concern with the height and requested story poles. -Haddun Libby, spoke in favor of the project and encouraged continual growth of the city. -Ryan Espinosa, Palm Springs, spoke in support of the project and urged the project to move forward. -Lea Goodsell, Palm Springs, provided statistics of hotel rooms in other cities and spoke in support of the project. -Wesley Cole, Palm Springs, spoke in favor of the project and commended the development team. -Phil Balen, Palm Springs, stated he is "pro" development however is concerned with the heights. -Dennis Freeman, represents Alejo Caballeros Il, voiced concern with the balcony views from the adjacent property and requested story poles. -Laurie Kibby, applicant rebuttal, provided further details pertaining to setbacks, elevations and the photos simulations of views from adjacent properties. There being no further comments, the Public Hearing was continued. M/S/C (Ringlein/Cohen, 7-0) To continue, to the meeting of June 13, 2007; and refer the applicant to provide story poles or balloons at the proposed site. 10. COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM: * *Work Program Priorities and Subcommittee Assignments 11. CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS: Update. 8 City of Palm springs Planning Commission Minutes of May 23, 2007 12. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS: Chair Marantz reported the Architectural Advisory Committee has interest in a citywide standardized bus port system. Mr. Ewing responded this concern would be forwarded to the Public Works Department. 13. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further comments, the meeting adjourned at 5:08 p.m. rai wing, P Director of Pla i Services 9 °F PALM sp4 c V N Planninq Commission Staff Report Date: May 23, 2007 Case No.: 5.1139 CUP and 5.1140 CZ Application Type: Change of,Zone and Conditional Use Permit Location: 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive; The Las Palmas Hotel Applicant: Spencer Recovery Centers, Inc. Zone. C-1 Retail Business Zone General Plan, H43/21 Section 10, Township 4, Range 4 AP N: 505-184-011 From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services Project Planner: Ken Lyon, Associate Planner PROJECT DESCRIPTION The project is an application by Spencer Recovery Centers, Inc. for a Change of Zone from C-1 to R-3 and a Conditional Use Permit for an Assisted Living Center. Approval of this Change of Zone and Conditional Use Permit would allow the applicant to operate an Assisted Living Center at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive (The Las Palmas Hotel), RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission adopt the Negative Declaration and recommend approval by the City Council of the request for a Change of zone for this parcel from C- 1 to R-3. Furthermore, to approve the Conditional Use Permit for Spencer Recovery Centers, Inc. to operate a Chemical Dependency Treatment Center / Assisted Living Center at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive, (The Las Palmas Hotel). 0000121 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 2 of 9 Case 5.113915.1140 Date: May 23, 2007 PRIOR ACTIONS TAKEN ON THE PROJECT There are no prior actions on this case. BACKGROUND AND SETTING Site Conditions: The Las Palmas Hotel at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive was constructed in 1947 on a parcel comprised of lots 12, and 13 of the Palm Springs Estates Tract #3, roughly 120 feet by 140 feet, 16,740 square feet, or 0.3856 acre. The site is located in a fully developed neighborhood of commercial, hotel, and residential uses. Development an the site is comprised of two wood frame structures, a one story and a two story hotel wing, a swimming pool, terrace area and on-site parking and landscaping. It is presently operated as a resort hotel. Proposed Use. The requested business activity is a short term in-residence chemical dependency treatment program / assisted living center. It is operated under State license as a Residential Drug and Alcohol Treatment Center. Persons with drug or chemical dependency would reside at this facility for a short period of time, generally twenty-eight days or less while working through recovery programming. The staff at the center provides oversight and counseling programs. Staff is comprised of Residential Assistants (RA's), and Counselors. Staffing levels typically include three to five persons during the day and one or two at night RA's provide routine assistance similar to guest services at a hotel. Counseling staff conduct small group and one-on- one drug and alcohol counseling. The applicant has identified the hotel's location as important to their project because it is convenient to walk-able commercial districts with eating and shopping establishments so the residents may assimilate into society in a healthy and sober way. In addition, clients are not allowed to use their vehicles during the first twenty-one (21) days of their stay and approximately 95% of the clients do not bring their personal vehicle to the site at all (arriving instead by air and taxi). Clients usually come from out of state locations purposefully, because the intervention of removing the person from their local environment helps break the addiction cycle. Distance provides an incentive to keep them enrolled for the full term of the treatment. The socio-economic background of most clients is an affluent and often prominent position within their own community, thus discretion and privacy provided by out-of-town placement is also a priority- 2 0023 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 3 of 9 Case 5.1139/5.1140 Date: May 23, 2007 ANALYSIS General Plan Land Use Conformity The site is designated H43 / 21 on the General Plan Land Use Map, which allows for high density residential uses. It provides for a threshold of 30 dwelling units per acre for hotel use and a maximum density of 43 dwelling units per acre. Mixed use residential/commercial developments in conjunction with adjacent commercial properties may also be considered. Table 1: Surrounding land uses, General Plan, Zoning Land Use General Plan .Zoning North Commercial-Retail H43/21 C-1 South Commercial-Retail H43/21 C-1 East Residential Hotels H43/21 R-3 West Commercial Office RC C-1 Staff notes that parcels east of the subject site also fall under the H43 /21 General Plan designation and are zoned R-3 which is intended for high density apartments, hotels and similar permanent and resort housing and certain limited commercial uses directly related to the housing facilities. The request for a Change of Zone from C-1 to R-3 is consistent with the H43 / 21 Land Use Designation for this parcel. Request for Change of zone from C-1 to R-3 The applicant seeks to use the existing hotel as an "Assisted Living Facility" for people recovering from alcohol and drug dependency, and must obtain a change of zone from C-1 to R-3 for this use. The current C-1 Retail Business Zone does not/ allow assisted living facilities, and is intended as a business district, primarily retail in character, with related hotel, service, office, cultural and institutional uses. The R-3 Multi-family Residential and Hotel Zone allows the proposed use, and other residential uses, such as high density apartments, hotels and similar housing. Certain limited commercial uses directly related to the housing facilities are also permitted in the R-3 zone. In analyzing the change of zone request, staff notes that the Las Palmas Hotel reflects a development pattern typical of small resort "motor hotels" from the post-World War II. During this period, small resorts — often family run — were developed on the small parcels fronting the commercial streets, with setbacks, parking and open space which are often less than that required by the current zoning Ordinance. These older hotels, while somewhat dense on their sites, continue to function in a non-detrimental way within their neighborhoods, with minimal to no disruption in circulation patterns in the surrounding streets- 3 Cr50024 i i Planning Commission Staff Report page 4 of 9 Case 5.1139/5,1140 Date: May 23, 2007 In considering changing the zone to allow the proposed use, staff also notes that the tourism and travel industry is constantly changing. Visitors now expect more luxurious grounds and more sophisticated on-site amenities. The older hotels offer a simple no- frills option to vacation accommodations. With the exception of the smaller boutique inns, older facilities such as the Las Palmas Hotel do not possess the aesthetic character needed to attract the contemporary visitor. Adapting the Las Palmas Hotel to an alternative uses such as the applicant is proposing is an effective way to maintain the look and scale of the neighborhood, while allowing productive and profitable use of the property. Zoning Conformance with R-3 Standards: The Zoning Code provides the following definition which Staff has concluded is appropriate to apply to the type of business operated by the applicant: An Assisted Living Facility is defined by the Zoning Code as "a special combination of housing, supportive services, personalized assistance and health care licensed and designed to respond to the individual needs of those who need help with activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living. Supportive services are available twenty-four hours a day to meet scheduled and unscheduled needs in a way that promotes maximum dignity and independence for each resident and involves the resident's family, neighbors, and friends, and professional caretakers". Assisted Living Facilities are permitted with a Conditional Use Permit in the R-3 zone which is adjacent to the applicants' property. The following table illustrates the conformance of the subject property to both the proposed R-3 and the existing C-1 zoning designations. The development on the site does not conform to present standards in the C-1 zone nor to the standards of the R-3 zone which is proposed for the site. Table 2: Comparison of required and proposed, development standards Required R-3 _ Proposed/ Existing Front Yard 30' on major thoroughfare 6 feet Side Yard 10 feet 4' (n. side), T (s. side Rear Yard 10 feet except any portion of a 4 feet structure in excess of 12 feet in height shall have a minimum setback equal to its height if abutting any residential zone. Building Height Max 24 feet/2 stories 22' at ridge 18'-6" at wall / 2 stories Density 1,000sf min/ d.u. Lot Area 20,000 SF 16,740 SF Lot Width 130' minimum 120' Lot Depth 175' on major thoroughfare 139.5' 4 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 5 of 9 Case 5.113915.1140 Date: May 23, 2007 Accessory Structures 10' min setback, 10' min Spa shade structure is height approximately 5 feet to rear property line Distance Between Buildings In no case shall 1 building be The two buildings on site are closer than 15' to any other closer than 15' at their building, corners, and the on-site buildings are closer than 15' to buildings on adjacent side lot parcels. Landscaping 45% of the site area as usable Landscape, recreation and landscaped open space & open space comprises outdoor living & recreation roughly 36% of the total lot area. area. Front Yard 5 feet 6 feet Side Yard See note under rear yard 4' n. side), 7' s. side Rear Yard Where C-1 abuts a residential 4 feet zone, there shall be a 20 foot minimum yard setback Building Height Max 30 feet 22' at ridge 18'46" at wall / 2 stories Density No requirements Lot Area 4 20,000 16,740 SF Required R-3 Proposed/Existing 100 minimum 120' Lot be th 150' minimum 139.50 Minimum Building Area 2,000 square feet Landscaping _ 50% of all yard areas created Landscape, recriatiorF and as a result of minimum open space comprises 36% of building setbacks shall be the total lot area, landscaped, the balance may be decorative paving. . REQUIRED FINDINGS This staff report includes findings for both the requested Change of Zone (CZ) and the Conditional Use Permit (CUP). Change of Zone Findings. The Findings for a Change of Zone (CZ) are outlined in the PSZO Section 94.07.00 and are evaluated here: A. Criteria for Granting a Change of Zone. The commission in recommending and the council in reviewing a proposed change of zone, shall consider whether the following conditions exist in reference to the proposed zoning of the subject property. 5 (AGO©uU Planning Commission Staff Report Page 6 of 9 Case 5.1139/5.1140 Date. May 23, 2007 1. The proposed change of zone is in conformity with the general plan map and report. Any amendment of the general plan necessitated by the proposed change of zone should be made according to the procedure set forth in the State Planning Law either prior to the zone change, or notice may be given and hearings held on such general plan amendment concurrently with notice and hearings on the proposed change of zone. The proposed change of zone from C-1 to R-3 confirms with the General Plan because both C-1 and R-3 zones exist in the General Plan designation H43121 land use designation. No General Plan amendment is necessary. 2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the commission and council. The development on the subject property has existed since 1947 as a resort hotel. The subject parcel does not conform to either the C-1 or the proposed R-3 zones because it is smaller than the minimum lot requirement of 20,000 square feet. Furthermore, the existing buildings on the site do not conform to the current development standards for C-1 and R-3 zones because the setbacks are less than required for ether zone. For the past sixty years, the site has functioned adequately and proven to be suitable in terms of access to the public way and is similar to the development other small resort hotels from that era that are still in operation adjacent to, or near the subject parcel. The pattern of use, anticipated number of guests, staff, parking needs and related activity associated with the conversion of the site to an in-patient assisted living / treatment center is consistent with the existing pattern of use as a resort hotel. The typical length of stay of a patient at the assisted living center is 28 days; the typical length of time of guests staying in a resort hotel tends to be more patterned around weekend stays; thus the overall movement due to guest 'turnover' should be less as an assisted living center than in its use as a resort hotel. Staff believes the site would be suitable for the desired use. 3. The proposed change of zone is necessary and proper at this time, and is not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents. The proposed use as an assisted living facility is similar and consistent with the transient nature of a resort hotel. Assisted living facilities are permitted in the R-3 zone which is immediately adjacent to the east of the subject parcel but are not permitted in the CA zone which is what the property is presently zoned. The applicant has chosen this particular site because it is well integrated into both the adjacent residential and commercial areas; this integration is an important part of their treatment program. Staff has concluded that the change of zone is necessary and not detrimental to adjacent property or residents. 6 060027 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 7 of 9 Case 5.1139/5.1140 Date: May 23, 2007 Given these findings, Staff has concluded the Change of Zone request for this parcel meets the required findings. Conditional Use Permit Findinos. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 92.04.01, ❑(1) Assisted living Centers are allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) in the R-3 zone. The Findings for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are outlined in the PSZO Section 94.02.00 (B) and evaluated here! a. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this Zoning Code; The Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance section 92.04.01 ❑(1) denotes that Assisted Living Centers are allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) in the R-3 zone. Thus this use is authorized by the PSZO. b. That the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located; The use of this site for an assisted living center would be a desirable, harmonious, non- detrimental use at this location because, 1. It provides a valuable service to the community - that of a chemical dependency treatment center, 2_ It is a business / commercial use with clients in-residence for no more than 28 days - a use that is very similar to the hotel use presently on the site, 3. It provides vitality in the commercial area adjacent to the site because clients will use surrounding restaurants, shops and retail businesses; 4. It is a use similar in nature to resort hotel uses on adjacent parcels along Indian Canyon Drive, 5. Because clients may not use personal vehicles for the first 21 days of their treatment, and approximately 95% of clients do not arrive with personal vehicles, the vehicular traffic in the community would likely be less under the proposed use than with the present resort hotel use. C. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate such use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required in order to adjust such use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood; The development on the site does not conform to present-day zoning development standards for setbacks and minimum lot size. Certainly if a newly constructed facility of a similar use were to be proposed on this site, it would be smaller in size than what exists. However because the site has been a resort hotel for sixty years without 7 060023 Planning Commission Staff Report Page 8 of 9 Case 5.1139/5.1140 Date: May 23, 2007 adverse or negative impacts on the surrounding neighborhood, and the requested use does not propose a more intensified use of the site, Staff has concluded that the site is adequate for the intended use. d. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use; Traffic generated by the proposed use is anticipated to be the same or less intense than the existing uses because resort hotel guests usually stay for three to four day weekend visits, while clients of the assisted living center typically stay 28 days. Furthermore, the applicant affirms that clients are not allowed to use their personal vehicles for the first 21 days of their stay, and 95% of clients do not arrive by personal vehicle, thus roadway and traffic from the site will be less under the proposed use. Staff has therefore concluded that the proposed use would have no negative impact on streets and highways. e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and may include minor modification of the zone's property development standards. Such conditions may include: i. Regulation of use, ii. Special yards, space and buffers, W. Fences and walls, iv. Surfacing of parking areas subject to city specifications, v. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds vi. Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, vii. Regulation of signs viii. Requiring landscaping and maintenance thereof ix. Requiring maintenance of the grounds X. Regulation of noise, vibration, odors, etc. Xi. Regulation of time for certain activities xii. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed, xiil. Duration of use, xiv. Dedication of property for public use, xv. And such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this Zoning Code, including but not limited to mitigation measures outlined in an environmental assessment. The Conditions of Approval related to the Conditional Use Permit for this project are attached and are as recommended by Staff. With the inclusion of these Conditions, Staff has concluded that the requested CUP meets the required findings of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance. s OHM Planning Commission Staff Report Page 9 of 9 Case 5.113915.1140 Date: May 23, 2007 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines the actions herein as a "project". The Planning Department has reviewed this project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and based on the outcome of the Initial Study conducted for this project, it has been determined that the proposed change of zone will not have a significant impact on the environment. Therefore, a Negative Declaration is recommended. NOTIFICATION A public hearing notice/courtesy notice was mailed to all property owners within 400 feet of the subject property/adjacent property owners. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any comment. The applicant states that he has made informal contact with nearby property and business owners regarding their desired use of the site and have received favorable support from neighbors. �4'i, A// Ken Lyo i, Asso ate Planner � l ig ing, � Dire of flan in Services ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Site Plan and Elevations 3. Draft Resolutions (2) 4. Conditions of Approval 5, CEQA Initial Study and Negative Declaration 9 ® b033 Department of Planning Services N ' Vicinity Ma WE p +5 I f � 4 - -- - --- STEVENS RD j --- r Z 6 1 °r CAMINO MONTE VISTA CA INO MONTE VISTA �-- - w pEL NOR "r A p"NORTH z -- — I I --� M.LAVE -- i z I. -- z ` I I VIA LAS PAI,MASz L. -------PA5Ee EL-MI RADOR - �i Legend 400' Buffer 4"FEa=� Project Area CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DESCRIPTION: to operate an assisted living facility CASE NO- 5.1139 CUP at 1404 N Palm Canyon Drive for treatment of APPLICANT: Spencer Recovery chemical dependency recovery. Centers, Inc. H003 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 5.1139 LOCATED AT 1404 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE R-3, SECTION 10. WHEREAS, Spencer Recovery Center, Inc.("Applicant') has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94,02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of an assisted living center in an existing hotel at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone R-3, Section 10; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case No. 5.1139 / 5,1140 — CUP/CZ was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, a public hearing on the application was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project" pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (Existing Facilities) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, ,but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS.- Section 1: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 92.04.01, D(1) Assisted Living Centers are allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) in the R-3 zone. The following Findings for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) are outlined in the PSZO Section 94.02.00 (B). a. That the use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a conditional use permit is authorized by this Zoning Code, The Palm Springs zoning Ordinance section 92.04.01 1)(1) denotes that Assisted Living Centers are allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) in the R-3 zone. Thus this use is authorized by the PSZQ. b That the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the general plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located,- The use of this site for an assisted living center would be a desirable, harmonious, non- detrimental use at this location because: 1. It provides a valuable service to the community, that of a chemical dependency treatment center, 2. It is a business / commercial use with clients in-residence for no more than 28 days, ©�t0 3 ' Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 5.1139/5,1140 Page 2 of 3 a use that is very similar to the hotel use that is presently active on the site, 3. It provides vitality in the commercial area adjacent to the site because clients will be able to browse and patronize the surrounding restaurants, shops and retail businesses; 4. It is a use similar in nature to adjacent resort hotel uses on adjacent parcels along Indian Canyon Drive. 5. Because clients may not use personal vehicles for the first 21 days of their treatment, and approximately 95% of clients do not arrive with personal vehicles, the vehicular traffic in the community would likely be less under the proposed use than with the present resort hotel use. c. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate such use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required in order to adjust such use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood; The development on the site does not conform to present-day zoning development standards for setbacks and minimum lot size and certainly if a newly constructed facility of a similar use were to be proposed on this site, it would be smaller in size than what is existing, however because the site has been used as a resort hotel for sixty years without adverse or negative impacts on the surrounding land uses and neighborhood, and the requested use does not propose a more intensified use of the site, The Planning Commission has concluded that the site Is adequate for the intended use d. That the site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use; The type and quantity of traffic anticipated to be generated by the proposed use is anticipated to be similar and possibly less intense than the existing uses because resort hotel guests usually stay for three to four day weekend visits, while clients of the assisted living center typically stay 28 days, thus the proposed use is slightly less transient than the existing use at this site. Furthermore, the applicant affirms that clients are not allowed to use their personal vehicles for the first 21 days of (heir stay, and 95% of clients do not arrive by personal vehicle, thus roadway and traffic from the site is likely to be less under the proposed use than with the present use. The Planning Commission has concluded that the proposed use would have no negative impact on streets and highways. e. That the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare and may include minor modification of the zone's property development standards. Such conditions may include: i. Regulation of use, ii. Special yards, space and buffers, N. Fences and walls, IV. Surfacing of parking areas subject to city specifications, v. Requiring street, service road or alley dedications and improvements or appropriate bonds A Regulation of points of vehicular ingress and egress, 050033 Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 5.1139/5.1140 Page 3 of 3 vii. Regulation of signs viii. Requiring landscaping and maintenance thereof ix. Requiring maintenance of the grounds x. Regulation of noise, vibration, odors, etc. xi. Regulation of time for certain activities xii. Time period within which the proposed use shall be developed, xin, Duration of use, xiv. Dedication of property for public use, xv. And such other conditions as will make possible the development of the city in an orderly and efficient manner and in conformity with the intent and purposes set forth in this Zoning Code, including but not limited to mitigation measures outlined in an environmental assessment. The Planning Commission has concluded that the Conditions of Approval related to the Conditional Use Permit for this project as recommended by Staff are appropriate and necessary. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Case No. 5.1139 - CUP. ADOPTED this 23 day of May, 2007. AYES: NOES- ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE; CASE NO. 5.1140 LOCATED AT 1404 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE C-1, SECTION 10. WHEREAS, Spencer Recovery Center, Inc-("Applicant") has filed an application with the City pursuant to Section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance for a Change of Zone from C-1 to R-3 to enable the operation of an assisted living center with a Conditional Use Permit at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive, Zone C-1, Section 10; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case No. 5.1139 / 5.1140 -- CUP/CZ was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on May 23, 2007, a public hearing on the application was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is considered a "project' pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), and has been determined to be Categorically Exempt as a Class III exemption (Existing Facilities) pursuant to Section 15301 of the CEQA Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: The Current zoning for the parcel at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive is C- 1. Section 2: The applicant desires to operate an assisted living center at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive. Section 3: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 92.04.01, D(1) Assisted Living Centers are allowed with a conditional use permit (CUP) in the R-3 zone. The applicant therefore has requested a Change of Zone (CZ). Section 4: The Findings for a Change of Zone (CZ) are outlined in the PSZO Section 94.07.00 as follows: A. Criteria for Granting a Change of Zane. The commission in recommending and the council in reviewing a proposed change of zone, shall consider whether the following conditions exist in reference to the proposed zoning of the subject property: Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 5 1139/5.1140 Page 2 of 3 1. The proposed change of zone is in conformity with the general plan map and report. Any amendment of the general plan necessitated by the proposed change of zone should be made according to the procedure set forth in the State Planning Law either prior to the zone change, or notice may be given and hearings held on such general plan amendment concurrently with notice and hearings on the proposed change of zone. The Planning Commission has determined the proposed change of zone from C-1 to R- 3 is in conformity with the General Plan because both C-1 and R-3 zones exist in the General Plan designation H43/21 land use designation. No General Plan amendment is necessary. 2. The subject property is suitable for the uses permitted in the proposed zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the commission and council. The development on the subject property has existed since 1947 as a resort hotel, however with respect to the currently in force Zoning Ordinance, the subject parcel does not conform to either the C-1 nor the proposed R-3 zones because it is smaller than the minimum lot requirement of 20,000 square feet. The existing buildings and development on the site also do not conform to the currently in force zoning Ordinance with respect to the C-1 or the R-3 development standards for those zones because the setbacks of the existing development are less than required for ether zone. For the past sixty years, the site has functioned adequately and proven to be suitable in terms of access to the public way and is similar to the development other small resort hotels from that era that are still in operation adjacent to, or near the subject parcel. The pattern of use, anticipated number of guests, staff, parking needs and related activity associated with the conversion of the site to an in-patient assisted living / treatment center is consistent with the existing pattern of use as a resort hotel. The typical length of stay of a patient at the assisted living center is 28 days; the typical length of time of guests staying in a resort hotel tends to be more patterned around weekend stays, thus the overall transient nature and frequency of movement due to guest 'turnover' can be anticipated to be less with the use of this site for an assisted living center than in its use as a resort hotel; therefore The Planning Commission believes the use would be suitable. 3. The proposed change of zone is necessary and proper at this time, and is not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents. The proposed use as an assisted living facility is similar and consistent with the transient nature of the current use as a resort hotel. Assisted living facilities are permitted in the R-3 zone which is immediately adjacent to the east of the subject parcel but are not permitted in the C-1 zone which is what the property is presently zoned. The applicant has chosen this particular site because it is well integrated into both the adjacent residential as well as the surrounding commercial land uses; this 05003E Planning Commission Resolution May 23, 2007 Case 5,1139/5.1140 Page 3 of 3 integration is an important part of their treatment program. The Planning Commission has concluded that the change of zone is necessary and not detrimental to adjacent property or residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the Foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby approves Case No. 5.1140 CZ. ADOPTED this 23 day of May, 2007. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Craig A. Ewing, AICP Director of Planning Services U0037 RESOLUTION NO, EXHIBITA Case No. 5.1139 CUP 1404 N Palm Canyon Drive Spencer Recovery Centers Inc. CUP request for Assisted Living Center at the Las Palmas Hotel May 23, 2007 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Administrative 1. Approval of Conditional Use Permit for Case #5.1139 shall be conditioned on the Planning Commission recommendation and City Council approval of Case #5.1140 Change of Zone for 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive, "The Las Palmas Hotel" from C-1 to R-3. 2. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 3 The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.1139 CUP. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, Dt�DD3� thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 4. That the property owner(s) and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, bikeways, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the curb and property line, including sidewalk or bikeway easement areas that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, tree from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 5. Pursuant to Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 a filing fee of $1,800,00 is required. GENERAL CONDITIONS/CODE REQUIREMENTS 1. The Conditional Use Permit approval shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. Once constructed, the conditional use permit, provide all conditions of approval have been complied with, does not have a time limit. Extensions of time may be granted by the Planning Commission upon demonstration of good cause. 2. The appeal period for a Conditional Use Permit application is outlined in the Palm Springs Municipal Code Section 2.05. Permits will not be issued until the appeal period has concluded. 3. Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all sign requests. A detailed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of sign permits. 4. All awnings shall be maintained and periodically cleaned. 5. All new roof mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened from all possible vantage points both existing and future per Section 9303.00 of the Zoning Ordinance. The screening shall be considered as an element of the overall design and must blend with the architectural design of the building(s). The exterior elevations and roof plans of the buildings shall indicate any fixtures or equipment to be located on the roof of the building, the equipment heights, and type of screening. Parapets shall be at least 6" above the equipment for the purpose of screening. 659033 6. The street address numbering/lettering shall not exceed eight inches in height. 7. No sirens, outside paging or any type of signalization will be permitted, except approved alarm systems. 8. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan. 9. Parking shall conform to the City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance Section 93.06.00, 10. Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location of handicapped parking spaces, the main entrance to the proposed structure and the path of travel to the main entrance. 11, Compact and handicapped spaces shall be appropriately marked per Section 93.06.00.C.10. 12. Parking stalls shall be delineated with a 4 to 6 inch double stripe - hairpin or elongated "U" design. Individual wheel stops shall be prohibited; a continuous 6" barrier curb shall provide wheel stops. POLICE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS 1. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. 2. Accessibility All code references are based on the California Building Code (CBC)_ SITE PLAN: a) Since there are only 14 parking spaces at least one "van accessible" disabled parking space will be required to comply with CBC 112913.4.2, The words "NO PARKING" shall be painted within the van accessible access aisle to comply with CBC 1129B.1&.2. Also, the provision of all of the other signage requirements for disabled parking shall be included to comply with CBC 112913.5. The site plan does appear to have a van accessible disabled parking space located at space #12. 1 b) A wheelchair accessible path of travel is required from the disabled parking space leading into the property which shall comply with CBC 113313.7.1 through CBC 1133B.7.2 for walks and sidewalks. r;ntg04 INTERIOR PLAN: c) Since this will be considered a Group I Occupancy for the purpose of detoxification and a recovery facility, at least 10% of all patient bedrooms, toilet facilities, and all public use and common areas shall be accessible to people with disabilities and comply with CBC 110913.3.2. d) Diagnostic and treatment areas along with any dressing rooms and sanitary facilities shall be accessible and comply with CBC 11098.6. FIRE DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS: 1. Fire Department conditions were developed from Las Palmas Hotel site plans that were received and stamped January 12, 2007 by Planning Services. 2. SITE PLAN: Prior to completion of the project, a 8.5"x11" plot plan and an electronic CAD version shall be provided to the fire department. This shall clearly show all access points, fire hydrants, knox box locations, fire department connections, unit identifiers, main electrical panel locations, sprinkler riser and fire alarm locations. Large projects may require more than one page. 3. Premises Identification: Approved numbers or addresses shall be provided for all new and existing buildings in such a position as to be plainly visible and legible from the street or road fronting the property. (901.4.4 CFC) Show location of address on plan elevation view. Show requirement and dimensions of numbers in plan notes. Numbers shall be a minimum 4 inches, and of contrasting color to the background. 4. Automatic Fire Sprinklers: An approved, automatic Fire Sprinkler System is recommended by the Fire Department. If these buildings were to be constructed under present code requirements, fire sprinklers would be required. An NFPA 13R life safety system can be installed for a reasonable cost, and will protect not only the tenants, but also your investment in the property. Contact the Fire Department for further information, or a fire sprinkler contractor. 5. Fire Sprinkler Plan Submittal: The contractor should submit fire sprinkler plans as soon as possible. No portion of the fire sprinkler system, including water meters and underground water supply, may be installed prior to plan approval. A minimum of four copies must be submitted. Submittal to include manufacturers cut sheets on all material and equipment used. Submittal shall also include hydraulic calculations. 6. Fire Hydrant& FDG Location: A public commercial fire hydrant is required within 30 feet of the Fire Department Connection (FDC). Fire Hose must be protected from vehicular traffic and shall not cross roadways, streets, railroad tracks or driveways or areas subject to flooding or hazardous material or liquid 0 b 0 0 4 1 i i i I I releases. A field analysis of existing hydrants has not been conducted to verify hydrant location or availability. This comment is included to make you aware that additional fire hydrants may be required. 7. Fire Department Connections: Fire Department connections shall be visible and accessible, have two 2.5 inch NST female inlets, and have an approved check valve located as close to the FDC as possible. All FDC's shall have KNOX locking protective caps. Contact the fire prevention secretary at 760-323-8186 for a KNOX application form. 8. Location of Fire Department Connections: The connection inlets must face the street, and be located on the street side of the building. The face of the inlets shall be 18 inches horizontal from the back edge of sidewalk (or back of curb, if no sidewalk), and shall be 36 to 44 inches in height to center of inlets above finished grade. No landscape planting, walls, or other obstructions are permitted within 3 feet of Fire Department connections. The FDC and supporting piping shall be painted OSHA safety red. 9. The address of the building served shall be clearly indicated on the Fire Department Connection (FDC). A sign with this information shall be placed on or near the FDC The sign shall be constructed of metal. The sign face, lettering, and attachment shall be made of weather and vandal resistant materials. Sign background will be bright red. Letters will be bright white. Sign format will be substantially as shown on the following example: F. D. 0 SERVES 425 S. SUNRISE WAY ALL BLDGS. IN COMPLEX 10. Valve and water-flow monitoring: All valves controlling the fire sprinkler system water supply, and all water-flow switches, shall be electrically monitored where the number of sprinklers is one hundred or more. (Twenty or more in Group I, Divisions 1.1 and 1 2 occupancies.) All control valves shall be locked in the open position. Valve and water-flow alarm and trouble signals shall be distinctly different and shall be automatically transmitted to an approved central station. (1003.3.1 CFC) 11. Rapid Entry System Approval: The Knox Fire/Police/Ambulance Rapid Entry System is the only Key Box, Lock Vault, Key Cabinet, Key Switch, Padlock, FDC Cap, or Decal approved for use by the City of Palm Springs Fire Department. 12. Emergency Key Box: A Knox key box is required for access to the fire sprinkler riser. Box shall be mounted at 6 feet above grade, adjacent to the main entrance. Contact the Fire Department at 760-323-8186 for a Knox application form. (902.4 CFC) 13, Key Box Contents: The Knox key box shall contain keys to all areas of ingress/egress, alarm rooms, fire sprinkler riser/equipment rooms, mechanical rooms, elevator rooms, elevator controls, plus a card containing the emergency contact people and phone numbers for the building/complex. 14, Fire Extinguisher Requirements: Provide one 2-A:10-B:C portable fire extinguisher for every 75 feet of floor or grade travel distance for normal hazards. Show proposed extinguisher locations on the plans. (1002.1 CFC) Extinguishers shall be mounted in a visible, accessible location 3 to 5 feet above floor level. Preferred location is along the path of exit travel or near an exit door. Extinguishers located outdoors must be installed in weather and vandal resistant cabinets approved for this purpose. 15. Fire Alarm System: Fire Alarm System required. Installation shall comply with the requirements of NFPA 72. 16. Audible Water Flow Alarms: An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm (Wheelock horn/strobe # MT4-115-WH-VFR with WBB back box or equal) shall be provided on the exterior of the building in an approved location. An approved audible sprinkler flow alarm (Wheelock horn/strobe # MT4-115-WH-VFR with WBB back box or equal) to alert the occupants shall be provided in the interior of the building in a normally occupied location. (904.3.2 CBC) 17, Residential Smoke Detector Installation With Fire Sprinklers: Provide Residential Smoke Detectors (FIREX # 0498 accessory module connected to multi-station FIREX smoke detectors or equal per dwelling and fire sprinkler flow switch). Detectors shall receive their primary power from the building wiring, and shall be equipped with a battery backup. (310.9.1.3 CBC) In new construction, detectors shall be interconnected so that operation of any smoke detector causes the alarm in all smoke detectors within the dwelling to sound. (2-2.2.1 NFPA 72) Provide a note on the plans showing this requirement. 18. Wiring Installation: The installation of all Fire Alarm Wiring and Equipment shall be in accordance with NFPA 72, 760, NEC. 19, System Acceptance Test: Upon completion of the installation of the Fire Alarm System, a satisfactory test of the entire system shall be made. The test shall be witnessed by the fire inspector. 20. Water Supply: The water supply and location/s of fire hydrants shall be approved prior to any work being performed on the job site. (903.1 CFC) 050043 21. Water Systems and Hydrants: Where underground water mains are to be provided, they shall be installed, completed and in service with fire hydrants or standpipes (Or combinations thereof located as directed by the Fire Department) not later than the time when combustible materials are delivered to the construction site. (Sec. 903 CFC) 22. Operational Fire Hydrants: An operational fire hydrant(s) shall be installed within 250' of all combustible construction. No landscape planting, walls, or fencing is permitted within 3 feet of fire hydrants, except groundcover plantings. (1001.7.2 CFC) 23, Fire Flow: Required fire flow with installed sprinkler system is 1,500 GPM. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT CONDITIONS The Engineering Division recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and ordinances. Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, STREETS 1. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE 2 Dedicate an additional 5 feet to provide the ultimate half street right-of-way width of 50 feet along the entire frontage. 3. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. GENERAL 4. The record property owner shall enter into a covenant agreeing to underground all of the existing overhead utilities required by the Municipal Code in the future upon request of the City of Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed necessary. The covenant shall be executed and notarized by the property owner and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A current title report or a copy of a current tax bill and a copy of a vesting grant deed shall be provided to verify current property ownership. A covenant preparation fee shall be paid by the applicant prior to issuance of any grading or building pen-nits. DwD`D�x MAP 5. The existing parcels identified as Lots 12 and 13 of the Palm Springs Estates No, 3, Map Book 17, Page 34, shall be merged. An application for a parcel merger shall be submitted to the Engineering Division for review and approval. A copy of a current title report and copies of record documents shall be submitted with the application for the parcel merger. The application shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permit. END 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SEITING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Project title: Spencer Recovery Center request for Change of Zone and Conditional Use Permit to operate an assisted living center at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive in Palm Springs, California to provide in-patient drug and alcohol addiction recovery treatment. 2. Lead agency name and address: The City of Palm Springs, CA 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 3. Contact person and phone number: Ken Lyon, Associate Planner 760 323 8245 4. Project location: 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Chris Spencer, Spencer Recovery Centers, Inc. Box 118 Monrovia CA 91016 6. General plan designation: H43/21 7. Zoning: Present zoning is C-1 (General Retail) the applicant is requesting a change of zone to R-3 Medium Density Residential. 8, Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation- Attach additional sheets if necessary,) The applicant is requesting a change of zone from C-1 to R-3 for the subject parcel to operate an assisted living center with a Conditonal Use Permit at the project address for the purposes of providing in-patient drug and alcohol addiction recovery treatment to clients. nz.-, Project Title,initial Study April20053-0.1 Mi lq V i'; 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The site is located in an existing urbanized area surrounded by commercial, office, retail, and hotel uses. 10.Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) The State of California Residential and Outpatient Programs Compliance Branch of the Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. nw s, Project Title,initial Study a" .c 3.D-2 April2005 I I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SET TING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES I I ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be polentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics Agriculture ❑ Resources X Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils Hazards & Hazardous Hydrology/Water ❑ Materials ❑ Quality X Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources X Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance no. Project Title,lnitial Study April 2005 3.0.3 V ��OrY 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: x I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ❑ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE: DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1 ) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to ❑ applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to ❑ applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. 1 Ken Ly n, Ass ciate Planner [Date f Edw�rd O. rtson, Principal Planner Date Project Title,lnitial Study April 2005 3.0-4 ^,P " 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required For all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more 'Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. ,eNM Project Title,initial Study sc O April2005 C, a" 3.0-5 ®Ltoo� :j 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify. a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Project Tide,Initial Study April2005 3.0-6 yf � 4�f�D0�s ' i I - I ' 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES I I I Less � TFiari Sgnific Potentia ant With Less fly Mitigati Than Signific on Signific ant lncorpo' ant No=' - Impact rat@d: impact: Impac.Y I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ El X scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic n ❑ ❑ X buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site ❑ ❑ ❑ X and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely El ❑ ❑ X affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a) The project is a change of use in an existing structure, no scenic vistas will be affected. b) No new structures will be built, thus no damage to scenic resources will occur. c) The site and surroundings are an existing urbanized area with no change in visual character. d) No changes in exterior lighting are anticipated, thus no impact on lighting would occur. n&an;,� Project Tille,lnitial Study Apri12005 3.0-7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Less. Than ,. Sgnific Ant Potenti.; WA Less 'ally ' IVlif'tgati Than Sig'riific on. 5ignific corpo ant. No, Impact rated Impact , .Impact: II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique M Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on X the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for x agricultural use, or a Williamson Act 1:1 El Contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their X location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? Comments: a) No farmland is being converted with this project. b) No agricultural zoning is present in the vicinity of this project. c) No environmental changes will occur that would affect conversion of farm land. n�M s Project Title,lnitia!Study April 2005 3.0-8 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .Less.. :Than .. ftnific ant, Potenti•': With Less.: ally Mitigati 'Than signific'`- on si.gnifc ant In'corpo ant. No hrlpact" .`..,rated:.. .. Impacti .- . Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ❑ ❑ ❑ X of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or ❑ El El X contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal ❑ ❑ ❑ X or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to ❑ ❑ ❑ X substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ X substantial number of people? Comments: a) No conflicts with air quality plans will occur as a result of this project- b) The use is similar to existing, thus no air quality issues will be impacted. c) No increase in pollutants are anticipated as a result of this project because the intensity of site usage is the same as existing conditions. d) No unusual pollutant concentrations are present at the subject site. e) No odor producing activities will be present at the subject site. �w s. Project Title,Initial Study April2005 3 0-9 t it I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Less Than Pote.nti: With Less ally: Mitigati.. Tljam ' 'Signific on. SigniFc ant . . Incorpo ant No: . Impact rated' impact ,:, `Impact: IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the ro ect: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional ❑ ❑ ❑ x plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, ❑ ❑ ❑ x or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑ x marsh, vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ El El X established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ x resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? afM s, Project Title,initial Study x Apri12005 3.0-10 QV"3QQ�J 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL, SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Less Than Signific .. - ant:,,. Potenti, .With Less ally,: Mitigati ` Than ' Signific on Signific" �Incor o arif' :. No..:. ant.. p `Impact ' ` ` rated Imipact" Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ X or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: a) No natural habitat will be disturbed as a result of this project. b) No riparian or other sensitive habitat will be impacted by this project. c) There are no wetlands in the vicinity of this project. d) The site is a fully urbanized area with no new construction activity; no impact on migratory patterns will occur with this project. e) No local habitat conservation plan will be impacted bythis project. ._ ---. . . ... . _- Less Than Signific ant Potenti With Less' ally. Mit'rgati Than: °5ignific on Sigriifi1c.: ant Incorpo giant , ,,No, Impact' rated Impact' Irnpagt V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in El _ ❑ El X the significance of a historical resource as defined in " 15064.5? cA�, M, Project Title,Initial Study s Apri!2005 3.0.11 ua< 0A055 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Than . .- 5igrtific . ant. Potent! With Less ally Mitgati :Than Signific on Signific aht Incor p .o ant No ` Impact rated Impact Irrip d i b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to " 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique X paleontological resource or site or El El El unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including X those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments.- a) No historic resources will be impacted as a result of this project. b) No archaeological resources will be impacted as a result of this project. c) No paleontological resources or sites are in the vicinity of this project- d) No human remains will be affected by this project. Project Title,initial ril P A 005 P p 3.0-12 ^. K ��i005 '7 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Less' Tharr. alit::::: Potenti With,:': Cess ,ally Mitigati : : 'Than Signif,c • on. z5igititi ant ' Inc orpo;' ca'fit No Impact rated: impact -Impact : VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State El El El X Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ El El X including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the ❑ El El X loss of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and ❑ ❑ El X potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive sail, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building El El El X Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? project Title,lnitial Study April2005 3.0.13 _ 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES • - --� — .Less Than .. . .. . - Signific. Potenti With. ::..: '.Less ally Mitigafi : Than, 5ignific on Signifi ant Incorpo '::: cant No impact rated_ 'Impact: Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ X where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a) The project will not create a new exposure to seismic events or activities because it is an existing structure with no construction activity involved. b) No construction will be present, thus no erosion or loss of topsoil will occur as a result of this project. c) No unstable geological formation or landslide potential is present at this site. d) No known expansive soils are present at the subject site. e) No septic or other structures for disposal systems are involved with this project since it is an urbanized area with connection existing to sewers. V Project Title,lnitial Study e'.aw pc April2005 - 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .,_.M�..._..._._M.. ..__..._� .Less .. . . Than g I .. . S. 'nift,.'` Pote,nti ant With - Less ally mitigail. , : Than Signific on Signifi . . . _ . ..ant. Incorh o.:. :,cant No, _. . ... _ p �.:... Im Impact - Impact rate, . .. Pact_ ..-; act: p VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, Would theproject: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ❑ ❑ El X transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ❑ El ❑ X conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within ❑ ❑ ❑ X one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ❑ ❑ ❑ X §66962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use ❑ ❑ ❑ X airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result ❑ ❑ El X in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? p Ms Project Title,tnitial Study �o" <,y. April 2005 3.0-15 ;V, a0000sn 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPAc,rS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Less Than . Signific -Rotent,i, ant With Less ally. Mitiggti Than 5ignific on Signifi ant, Incorpo cant No Impact - rated Impact •Impact g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ X response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where ElX wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Comments: a) No transport of hazardous materials are associated with this project. b) No potential accident related to release of hazardous materials is present with this project. c) No handling of hazardous materials or waste will be associated with this project. d) No known hazardous materials are present on this site. e) This project is not located within an airport land use plan. f) This project is not within the area of a private airstrip. g) This project will not interfere with emergency response plans or evacuation plans because there is no change in the physical environment related to this project and no change in the population or occupancy of the subject site. h) The project will not expose people or structures to risk of wildfires because it is in an urbanized area not adjacent to wildllands. T Project Title,fnitial Study .nw<" April 2005 0 3.0.16 �:� v , QI� QQ6i 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Si'gYiific I'o#anti, . antVU'i#h• Less. ally' Mitigati Than' Signifit '.,. :.on Signifi arit ,•' " Incorp'o,' cant: No Impact rated: pact ' 'Im_pact Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or El ❑ El X waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table ❑ El ❑ X level (e.g., the production rate of pre existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ El ❑ X stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase ❑ ❑ ❑ X the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ❑ X provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ El El X quality? Project Title,lnitial Stud), 5 Jn1 3.0-17 April2005 4n i I I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS,`ANU MITIGATION MEASURES Less' Than Sigriifie:. ,. potenti ant-lNi,th Less all.X Miti 9ati . , -Than. Signific on ,` Signifi ant IncoIrpp- 'capt No Impact rated Impact Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood ❑ ❑ ❑ X Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect ❑ ❑ ❑ X flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ El X involving flooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ El ❑ X Comments: a) No violations of water quality or waste discharge ordinances will be affected by this project. b) No change in water consumption is anticipated from existing conditions since there is no new construction and no change in occupancy or anticipated utility consumption. c) No changes in watercourse will occur as a result of this project. d) No changes in watercourse will occur as a result of this project. e) No changes in runoff will occur with this project since there is no change in the physical conditions of the site. f) No degradation of water supplies are anticipated with this project. g) No housing is being located as a result of this project. h) No flood flows are being modified by this project. NS Project Title,Initial Study y April2005 `=`frN QQQQ�3 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES i) No exposure to risk of flood will be created with this project. j) No mudflow or other such events are anticipated to be affected by this project. Project Title,Initial Study April 2005 3.0-19 ':.ti;� : 1�1U6' 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES Less, Than 5ignific Less Potent! ant.W;ith Than ally Mitigatio Signifi Signific n cant ant Incorpor Impac No Impact ated t Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the roject: a) Physically divide an established El ❑ El X community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program or zoning ❑ ❑ ❑ X ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ X conservation plan? Comments: a) The project will not physically divide a community. b) No conflict with local land use planning will occur as a result of this project- c) No conflict with habitat conservation plans will be created as a result of this project- Project Project Title,lnitial Study April 2005 3.0-20 P, r, nn65 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Leas Than ... . Signlfic.. Potenti ant With less ally, Mitigati Than Signific .on Si.gnifi. 'ant Ihcorpo cant No liiipact rated:' Impact Impact:. K MINERAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known ❑ ❑ ❑ X mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ X delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a) No mineral resource availability will be affected by this project. b) No mineral resource recovery will be lost as a result of this project. Project Title,lnitial Study 4; April 2005 5 a 3.0.21 3.0 ENVIRONMCNTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGA110N MEASURES Less' Thad::. . . Signiiic Potenti With' Less . ...... ally, Miitigati Than: Sign`ific` on Sigr#f alit . . .:Incorpo . cant . . No liripact:.• ;rtit',.,.d , IYripact„ 'Im'pacf- XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ X noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ X groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project El ❑ El X vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ El El X project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ X would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose ❑ El El X people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments:` a) No persons will be exposed to noise levels in excess of the standards established in the local General Plan- Project -- ----��• � Project Mle,lnitial Study April2005 30-22 �pnt�IV�l1U� J 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES b) No persons will be esposed to groundbornc vibrations or groundborne noise. c) No increase in ambient noise levels for this neighborhood will occur as a result of this project. d) No Lemporary or periodic noises are anticipated to be generated by this project. e) The project is not within an airport land use plan. f) The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Project Title,fnitiai Study Apri12003 "R4�A" 3.n-?3 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES . . . Less Than Signific ant Potenti With Less- ally Mitigati Than Signific on, Signifi ant . Incorpo cant . No Impact rated Impact Impact XIL POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project. a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) ❑ ❑ ❑ X or indirectly (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ X of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ X replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a) No population growth will occur as a result of this project. b) No housing will be displaced due to this project. c) No people will be displaced by this project. Project ritle,rnitial Study Apri12005 3.0-24 Ell, 0 a � 3.0 ENVIRONMFNTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES ------------- Less Tlian Siynific, Less :Potenti ; 171t,With Than all. • , Mitigatio Signifi . Si9nific.. . n `. cant. ant - Incorpor • Impac No, impact, .ate'd_, _ t Imp* XIII, PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ X c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ X d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ X e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ X ._J Comments-, - a) through e) No public services will be adversely affected by this project, nor are there anticipated new public services necessary as a result of this project. Project Title,lnitial Study Aprii 2005 _e 3.0-25 �} ry I I " I I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS,AND MITIGATION MEASURES I Than Significa Less Potenti M'With. Than. - ally, M'itoatio Signifi - Signific n' cant ant :Imugirpor: Impac No Impact .: •.. - . . '•aced. t- Impact XIV. RECREATION. _ a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such El ❑ ❑ X that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which ❑ ❑ ❑ X might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a) No anticipated increase in recreational areas or facilities are anticipated as a result of this project. b) The project includes no construction of recreational facilities. On Project Title,Initial Study April2005 3.0-?6 rr nn 4l�V � � 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES .. Less Than . . Signific- : .. - Potenti ant,With. . , Less, All Mitigati Tfih.` .. .. . Signific on Signifi nt Incor' a' po writ No' .. - Impact rated; Impact_,: ' Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the ro ect: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ X increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume-to-capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ❑ X management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, Including either an increase in traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ X levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or El El El X dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ X access? f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ X transportation (e.g-, bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Comments: a) No traffic increase is anticipated as a result of this project. b) No LOS or other traffic flow standards will be affected by this project. VN_ � Project Title,lnidal Study Apri12005 3.0-27 060072 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACIS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES c) No changes in traffic patterns are anticipated as a result of this project. d) No roadway projects are being constructed as a result of this project. e) No emergency access problems are anticipated as a result of this project. f) No changes in parking needs are anticipated as a result of this project. g) This project will not conflict with any alternative transportation policies, plans or programs. Project Title,Initial Study ApH12005 5 3.0-28 , _ M 8 73 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Less Than Signlfic Less Potenti: 'ant With Than ally . .:'Nlitigatio `.9ignifi Sigtt'fic ... . n cant ant . Ancorpor . limpaa ,No... '.Impact::- 'at ed.. .. . ::-t Impact•, XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional ❑ ❑ ❑ X Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ X the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ❑ X construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing ❑ El ❑ X entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it ❑ ❑ El X has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand, in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ X project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑ X waste? Comments:.-.... ._--- --- ------------- Project Title,lnitial Study ownwr X April 2005 r 3.0-29 74•P 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES a) The project will not cause the capacity of the wastewater treatment plant to exceed its capacity. b) The project is an existing structure with no proposed change in fixture count, thus no new utility facilities will be required as a result of the project. c) No new stormwater facilities will be required as a result of this project. d) No change in water consumption needs are anticipated as a result of this project. e) No new water supply commitments will be required as a result of this project. f) The project is served by a landfill with sufficient capacity to meet the projects waste production needs. g) The project will comply with all regulations regarding solid waste. ca Ypiy i Project Title,Initial Study o April 2005 3.0.30 (I (d7' 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES Less Than Signific:. . ant..: :' :. .: Potenti With Less ally Mitig4ti :: :TI,an Signific on. 5ighifi p ti No ant, lncor o,.•;:.can Impact rated Impact `: Impact XVII.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a ElX plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are ❑ ❑ ❑ X considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ X adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a) The project does not have any ability to degrade the environment or reduce habitat or populations of endangered species because it is an existing site in an urban area with no new construction required. Project Title,Initial Study April 2005 n 3.0.31 QC3E���ii i I 3.0 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING, IMPACTS, AND MITIGATION MEASURES i b) The project does not contribute to any cumulative impacts. i c) The project will not cause any environmental effect [hat would adversely affect humans. Project Title,Initial Study ' 30-32 April 2003 . �a, 007 r-n L 14UTFS- I TPT-- au SO F Tro-L `11 S.. I:tF[CL �-,AL 1 4'�'. If, FT UTZ- 72 1 A- --D �761PT 1. 'I L VIX I L A�� W FF L FP HU 1 LL cm r FUN Li 1 3 r $ IF F� ILI: II j I-L L TUAL PUP FillIL- S F! dIC..j T TOT;: ) L LUll Fj??,L, 9--IGHT MAX ]6'—h' M-6 -10T'L CD to C= I P 114 C.n) our we= SfTE PLAN lw r C" OFM „ 107S 1? l V,, PA M 5P0 ..V S E5FAfES NO J. Y8 07/-W CqY Or PAlM IVWC W CGYfN71; SrA7E 0i CAZkF 4NN I V F I S Sii I I` LAS FAWU J�A M � 'I rv.wwa.c - ,sc c ary Ell cc�vsrc�cic 1HN H Ai[Y OH7tip - ... i `•: �� '-- 'ems _ a F '',. ... ,. ., . NOTES.' yS (Fp ....; �. ..„� A'A!$F(Y-d1f .I E is e1 rr itt q, ASxA . 0..!9!S ACRE,- 14740 SF I � I F . � g I< ,�i y.i,,, :. .• - ��� {f � EtA'tdNG lLrJiP�3M 6 95 Sl sPA'tkc�J j"��q��[y�� PARNNC 4E00 SF L� rxtrtuwx 50 sro Sr aca'., P°fN REC. R4EA 5113 Sr \ Ij r l" `i"'�> ! Pa. Pef♦ /: I ^ .. UVj9sclPE 2770 Sr F P:" as • � �, h' I us,w+�r mar mrtrr _ 7 p'3 19 ( [} ll 1 i ., {- � ; _ RI nrx e. (•l 1�,jgt7Z�{��,r� f�p�13�-�. STANUC CONS ULTIMG1NC. ]sJi]aEil vlARING0.P.IP:G ilr'vE ur.E m. CA 92260 9flA Sfantec 7CO.dd 90SJ f201 10501201_1050001drawingslexhibitsLEXi0505de.d,Ng,"1012007 10:3035 APd, LaserJGt 8150.pC3, .29633 �3 i - co mo r, All Ul 40 ,� ,�`-`} �`�..\ - p� r it,. •J -y. � 3vs +.fir- .�.� ii'-a'�.?'h_ ey- - - sn-i�S i.{}I, .`'•7',;yk r '.,. API{i—�.,� ��.,'{A;�t., 5`- <'�,. ��! ,- '. - I. ,k 5� � '14 1 Vie. rr�l'I 'r�`�e;L�,•.�•, - ,,fc- y��h r- tiki_ - ._f'={-• �� , �.'geFi2y -• - � = k ����`c.fi='?�. _ ;r2 r�� rk' h•_t:,i�.i'.f� , - - l = •k SJf i++'. '���>;�,__:Zca'.:,,'_ :`s -�,; '+' ,��['if`.ic'•:r:. -wi;3r,_ , - . t f j'y�{{4 I elb +j",y' N•!�* S�p;.�ry'7':x-^I.i. ' q�,�'� I i,,1q" ✓'��\ �l!'••,,�; .r',.41�L•,F+4,I,I , ��� r , �"�1__-. - (, l '1�]PT 1•yd`+iM.•_tt L. :'s- 'r:'I'�, _ ' ��,��i r�1wr: 'f; r,l . r(,�CyRY n r'Y.M,Y.1,.��„�, rYl•',±� : •i,�" Ohl , fl'p'06'r, }wrr''�rij_'�•�. .. r �i�� �1•ry�i p'''i'v L<rr.' ;.�•; .w 'i��7Pr•��'"",•'�*"? - ,����' ti1r'�"� 1r� . a ,� •r, �,{'�,` '.;fir . =-_ . y�J,J , n�'� �r'`,•,7. q :,° •.r:�� , '�r. T '+Y4G•E�•�.::Ft � Y'�.r�' -V'il:•�i.��'Lr'f�I�JX,r :. d;rrf :a.' • • aa�C � '� 'f`y;�sj 1]I:, h'_f��� ��1j�\�,' 1 w�+'lj� ,Ip�! -, '���i. . , r. :r:�I 1• ,+'i� - ',1� rrr 77, 44 S 1 r rl - .. f r I - - ^4 il /'v I .I I ' ,1 r I.N I �I�tl�a .;��r(• r I Ir N — (I _ 555111111 ,m�� 1'f�,� ,.r �I`•���I!� ti t � tea• � ;1,11.._ I I. ,r .' lIII'Ar' 1 r i.. IA — I lll— I I 11' — YI I , T.+ II� IIl r Pi'I t r rl, ..,. f � ' I I ,.1 a1 . , "-1 �. ,1 r �,l �S •II IL { x'r yy it 1! i I h. LI: 5 n ,1 Ins r 4. —.— I "[ �i V - I F..' �lll u S I•ly`i ;Ir rvT `y 1 �f 1 _ A• d fr J I' . lr. IL a " 40 lrril'rl'' p.IL j "' • r r I !n fr'" o ly+rr ' n a - � ifi n :1 ��•' 'I I,'I f 11 �'• �� -i.I ."I�^•� .'-r�j1 q . . � I'�' 1,-�. r�{� '_I�_.. � j•_�i I. ..iil,i� lf_ ! 1I r' '�ti i '�rl l• - 1 I i � _ .I Or ' ^ `III I� ' _ i�'�.I'''• .'' .c 'iti r .r I l+•Ei�' �+ rr'I I. I r; . r r j• n'k�if ' , l of 1, rl",III-'r 1 l� If .I ae�it:�• �� l `-III'+- `' ,.l { .. . N I - • `�(''� !.._ T�I °I= ';fly. ' I - � 1 it r., I r b.I. 'fir " r l•.Ir. a l - sl ii KCff - 'y L 9 !!r d r !! - 4, - if ry.` ; I 1 1�w 44 FEY 4M ILA ITT' Page 1 of 1 z W SenC%Elena RC 2 A S w — ��V>�� t•TI/ 1��� m i z S G 1i A -3 o ��dl3cnat �� �M� - W via wLa--A-- a 1 I 1 � ri r z d vaCyseL- W-RegsL Dr- _ .. _— j W IrCmo%a-PL W''Cer Rdi 1 1 __`.,�[1 ALprheda ---�-r92Z62 1 WI Moun[aih V cw PI T 4 r I-W Can on F" w CL- Ce=rDi(— w Mcriw Pf I I p, 2 Ccvnunai.a 1 C—X� ejv-Rd . P v PcrnrE I I a I zC'c 412 _ y- �. h S e Fvlm 1 - I i•i r.� II C L�j'Cl�Kci�r. Hu- ` 1 711�Pt•<no FLU-n _ --- I W Arenzs Rd-_._ nq.bn.c6)G1.CusWme.Gan Tek6'.tr:.G�jlal�daAFrolrctf 922G4 r ❑k pKL15t S°4 id� 1500ft N c, J N CityGIS %C'ttrrDRM,� Copyright O 2006 All Rights Reserved The Imormatlon contained herein Is the proprietary property&the contributor supplied under liceri and may not be approved except as licensed lyy Digital Map Products. OGQ`'U� h11n•//mar -li itnlmsnn=ntr^1 rani/nrnrlorlirm/C'.ity(i1q/V07r6n7/inrlexA 1111113 6/190007 of PALM Sp City ®f Palm Springs Office of the City Clerk cOpoga.r. ',1 3200 E. Tahyui[c Canyuu Way ^ Palm Springs, Cnl,lornia 92262 Cq�I fo R��P RE (760) 323.820/1 • FIX. (760) 322-8332 • Web: www,palmsprinGs-ca;gav AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing, to consider an appeal by Spencer Recovery Center, Inc. for a Change of Zone from C-1 to R-3 and a Conditional Use Permit to allow an assisted living facility to be operated at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive called "The Las Palmas Hotel", Zone C-1 Section 10, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on or before the 12th day of July, 2007, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California- (I 10 notices mailed) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. -Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 18th day of July 2007. MESTHOMPSON -City Clerk /kdh Affidavit SpencerRecovery 07-25-07.doc Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS Spencer Recovery Center MODCOM AND MR PETE MORUZZI Case 5,1139 CLIP/5.1140 CZ HISTORIC SITE REP I 1 1 PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PHN for CC Meeting 07.25.07 PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE 5.1139/5.1140 PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MRS.JOANNE BRUGGEMANS ATTN SECRETARY 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD VERIFICATION NOTICE 1 1 I PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 11 I III INDIANS 777 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY, STE. 3 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR CHRIS SPENCER MR JAMES R. BRIGHENTI SPENCER RECOVERY CENTERS, INC. 1510 BALBOA BOULEVARD,#E P.O. BOX 118 NEWPORT BEACH, CA 92663 - MONROVIA, CA 91016 Jam and Smudge Free Pdrdtng q _ www.Weryaom � ®gg6O / Use Ave 59fi0TM Ln d c S.1137 1-800-GO-AVERY 7� 6,v 47 N `6 505-213-014 505-213-002 507-065-041 Donald S Woodbury Rolf 5 & Hay Dehaan Guy H & Connie Roberts 1682 Washington St 8 9300 PreLoria P1 1980 Elsie Dr Boston, MA 02118 Dulles, VA 20189 West Bloomfield, MI 48324 507-065-004 507-065-043 507 -065-058 DexL•er L & Mar]orie Delaney Barry A & Patricia Mil. l.er R Loechner 201 Hast..ings Ave 6651 Dunham Rd 2144 Blendon P1 Missoula, MT 59801 Downers Grove, TL 60516 Saint Louis, MO 631,4p3� 505-184-026 507-065-009 505-211-00 /u / Samuel W & Betty Baek Samuel Rivkin "M* Oliber - & Evelyn ❑reyfuss 639 N June St 2815 Nichols Canyon Rd 293 Queensbury Dr Los Angeles, CA 90004 Los Angeles, CA 90046 Z65 Angeles, CA 90064 505-211-013 515-182- 5 505-211-005 Palm Canyon Holdings Pe roman ^' Hacienda Las Palmas Dba Haci. 9200 W Sunset 21vd 200 92 N Everly ❑r 443 5 OakhursL- Dr 207 Los Angeles, CA 90069 everly Hills, CA 90210 Beverly Hills, CA 90212 507-065-059 505-243-004 505-213-005 James & Jane Fatronite T-ee Kwan J & Ye S Dayan 6604 Bequctte Ave 12449 Pi.ne Creek Rd 4026 San Remo Way Pico Rivera, CA 90660 Cerritos, CA 90703 Tarzana, CA 91356 505-243-005 507-030-006 505-184-014 Jack Arian Joe Salvemini Lina S Khasky 503 N victory Blvd PO Box 10966 12464 Laurel. Terrace Dr Burbank, CA 91502 Burbank, CA 9151.0 Studio City, CA 91604 505-184-015 507-065-030 507-065-044 Barbara Wohlmaker. RubCn S & Irene Ayala Descanso Prop 12464 Laurel. Terrace ❑r 12941 Rhodes P1 14097 Proctor valley Rd Studio City, CA 91604 Chino, CA 91710 Jamul, CA 91935 507-065-034 507-065-02e 507-065-027 Jeannie T Silva Battery Street Dev Priscilla Sawyer 6155 Lubbock Ave 2877 Cataract P1 578 Aldwych Rd La Maya, CA 91942 E1 Cajon, CA 92020 E1 Cajon, CA 92020 507-065-001 507-065-008 507-065-005 Edward I & Robin Badillo Maria Dquila Palmera Prop 2222 Gum Tree Ln 954 Camino De La Reina 5344 E1 Noche Way Fallbrook, CA 92026 San Diego, CA 92108 San Diego, CA 92.124 505-213-016 505-221-014 505-211-007 Rolland D & Raydun Sandeen Doris & Gilman Knutson Carlman & Grethe Cos 4974 Copper Creek ➢r 269 S Paseo Laredo 73127 Shadow Mountain Or Banning, CA 92220 Cathedral City, CA 92234 Palm Desert, CA 92260 impression antibourrage et a s@chage rapide S ��� vwuw.averycom AVERY®sgso"�j tltifisez ie gabarrt 596OW 7 1-80MO-AVERY 505-184-01 505-I83-OOG 505-21.1-009 Asset I estments lnc Robert Anderson Douglas L Millar 00 1404 Palm Canyon Dr R 246 Vereda Norte 222 N Via Las Palmas Pa m Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 505-213-027 507-061-011 507-065-007 Louise Passey Posada Palms Inv Sandra H Hawes 247 W Stevens Rd 12 120 w Vereda Sur 750 Camino Norte Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507-03C-013 505-211-008 505-213-017 Galen Rogers Joseph Cl ayes Hosea E & Barbara Brown 121 S Palm canyon Dr 216 346 Tamarisk Rd 940 N Avenida Clivo3 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Spring3, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 505-213-003 bO5-213-010 505-213-011 David T & Shannon Wilsey Joseph GOdine7 Joseph Godinez 1276 N Palm Canyon Dr. 101 1276 N Palm Canyon Dr 103 127G N Palm Canyon Dr 104 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 505-21.3-012 505-213-013 505-213-018 Alexander & Clarisse Ediss Alexander & Clarisse Ediss Hosea E & Barbara Brown 1276 N Palm Canyon or 105 1276 N Palm Canyon Dr 106 1276 N Palm Canyon Dr ill Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, p . gs, CA 92�262 505-213-024 505-213-026 505-213- 8 xf/ Michael W Santo Joseph Godinez Ladd Patricia Cameron *M* 1276 N Palm Canyon Dr 206 1,276 N Palm Canyon Dr 208 66 E Mel Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 9226,92 (`� alm springs, CA 92262 505-213-029 50i-U65-0 I 507-065 11 7.add S & Patricia Cameron John W Virgrnia Frip-,en Doll. Stondell 667 E Mel Ave 291 Mel Ave 250 2 E Nei Ave 261 Paim Springs, CA 92262 P m Springs, CA 9J269 alm Spr.i.ngs, CA 92262 507 12 /� o 507-06Maras Glenn 5-031 Rena Nina Vanier i`'' Ivica Maras Glenn R Travis 291 Mel Ave 271 291 E Mel Ave 291. 291 E Mel Ave 202 P m Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92)67 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507-065-032 507-C6. 33 NI 507-065- Richard Clifford fern ado & Martha MUrdil Haro E & Joy Rascr 291 E Nei Ave 212 2 E Mel Ave 222 29 E Mel Ave 252 Palm springs, CA 92262 .a1.m Springs, CA 92262_ alm Springs, CA 92262 507-065-039 507-065-042 507-065-061 W & A Passarello Ronald J Diaz Linda Brothers 291 E Mel Ave 243 291 E Mel Ave 273 291 E Mel Ave 262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 l •v-r -nnn-v "I-,I_" (mpression antibourrage et A sechage rapid www.averytom Utl �Il3llsez le gabarit 5960"G , 1-80"0 AVERY py R /o 5960" 505-183-010 505-182-004 505-184-004 Rw Madison Redevelopment Agency City Of Busamalee Greenfield 100 S Sunrise Way 650 3200 E TahquiLz Canyon Way 2161 E Joyce Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 ?aim Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507-065-010 505-1B4-006 505-185-001 Rena R & Nina Vanier Casey Cr,i.ste Raymond S & Isabelle Bad *M* 1411 E Buena Vista Dr 1466 N Palm Canyon Dr 1401 N Palm Canyon It IA Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 505-165-002 505-185-003 505-165-004 Raymond S & Isabelle Bad *M* Raymond S & Isabelle Bad *M* Raymond S & Isabelle Bad *M* 1401 N Palm Canyon Dr 2A 1403 N Palm Canyon Dr 3.4 1401 N Palm Canyon Dr 4A Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Spr.i.ngs, CA 92262 505-185-005 505-185-006 505-185-007 Isabelle Baddour *M* Isabelle A & Raymond Bad *M' Raymond $ & Isabelle ]Bad *M* 1401 N Palm Canyon Ur 5A 1401 N Palm Canyon Dr 6A 1401 N Palm Canyon Dr 7A Palm Springs, CA 92262 Paim Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 505-185-008 505-185-009 505-184-012 Raymond S & Isabelle Bad FM* Raymond S & Isabelle Lad AM" Gail M Moore 1401 N Palm Canyon Dr 8A 1401 N Palm Canyon Dr 200 1305 N Indian Canyon Or Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 505-213-031 507-030-004 507-030-005 SCULL M & Sandra Aaronson Robert R Rodriguez Martin A & Barbara Cohen 1221 N Indian Canyon or. 277 E Stevens Rd 1420 N Indian Canyon Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Paim Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507-030-007 507-065-037 505-184-016 West End Leisure Crp Inc Dba Christopher, B Kennedy Judith Gerbershagen 268 E Camino Monte Vis PO Box 1822 PO Box 3067 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Paim Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CP. 92263 505-213-015 505-182-010 505-21 30 n Asp Foundation Inc City Of Palm Springs Had Las /�- PO Box 4182 PO Box 2743 P Box 2729 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 505-214-002 b05-213-022 505-1.84-027 City Of Palm Springs Michael. Santo Javid & David Xaghoubian PO Box 2743 690 E Sierra Way PO Box 1172 Palm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 505-184-013 505-213-020 505-213-00 Rose Tijerina-Swcar,i.ngen Steven A & Kathryn Reed Nancy 1 75 Colgate IT 8 via Campo 1Be usiness center Dr Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Bernardino, CA 92408 Impression antihourrage et 6 s€chage rapide ��3 www.avery.com AVER(®596 UU11se?le gaharit 595Wc 7 1=800-GO•Al ERY 929 507-065-002 507-065-038 507-065-063 Joseph G & Lorraine Cu1Lcn Parry A Yoch Charles M & Colleen Russell 27070 Val Deane Way 620 Newport Center Dr 280 176 Avenida Del Mar Ihlemet, CA 92544 Newport Beach, CA 92660 San Clemente, CA 92672 507-065-060 507-061 O5 507-065- 3 Joseph F & Pilar Parrigas Zen ealthsystem DeserLL Inc Berna . -'no & Lia ❑aquila 13674 Comanche x3237 PO ox 415 Tustin, CA 92782 ilio, CA 93011 ccano, CA 93475 507-065-029 505-221-005 507-065-045 Norma J Barsi. Mickey J Waygoner Marsha L Keeffer 995 Woodland Dr 212 12'rh St 3109 Hannan Ln Hillsborough, CA 94010 Petaluma, CA 94952 Soquel, CA 95073 505- 84 1 - /" 505-221-004 507-065-014 Las P as Assoc Dba Las Somk William J Giffin James W Kcarse 163 Hoones Ferry Rd 203 3238 SW Fairmount Blvd 2247 Pvcrgreen Point Rd e Oswego, OR 97035 Portland, OR 97239 Medina, WA 98039 505-213-019 505-1'6) 05 ""* 104 Printed *** Harry A & Mar3oric Smyth kMk Dan,. H & M Smith *M* 1055 Monroe St 11 Ames Rd Port Townsend, WA 98368 clah, WA 90912 a nd-r -nna-1 1 -a r e I r t - — PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is i3piee Tor COgl{r: t§ ;eITk'9'}ii Slump (2015.5.C.C.P) ZC�?Jl.+j C i ;��I �l• o No.2239 NOTICE IT NEARING Y COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS STATE OF CALIFORN[A County of Riverside CASE NOS.5.173E CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND 51140 CHANGE OF ZONING. SPENCER RECOVERY CENTER, 14M NORTH I CANYON DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Clry Council of in,Olt,of palm SpnngF,California,will hold a— ppublic hearing at Its meetgqmq of July.25,2007,The Clouncil Chambor ai9C tylisp,32o0 Eat l'ahqullte I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of Canyon way Palm Sprng$, the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen The purpose of sire hearing Is to consider an ap- peal by Spencer Recovery Center, Inc. for a---' years,and not a party to or interested in the Change of Zone from C-1 to 8-3 .,nil a Concil- above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a 'lro to use Permit to allow an assisted Irving ftlClli- P P ty to be nperetod at 1404 North Pelm Caacill printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING &Ve called The Lus Palmas Hatei Zane F1 Section 10. COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, _ y rx,wnm.�,.rronnh..<rvlm h• County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been .. �..� _ •�w.w adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the - - - Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of California under the date of March 24,1988.Case Number 191236;that the notice,of which the __i V annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smallerthan non pariel,has been published in each regular " Y and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dales,to wit: July 14e,,2007 --- ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION:The Call fornlo Environmental Quality Act(CEQAI defines All in the year 2007 tho actions herein as a Project,.The Planninq The pP� nentrlioatEir _ e ro �oofhe California this Qual ty�4et(CECA) and based on the outcome of the In,- 1 certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the teal Study conducted for this project, It has been deturm'ned that tho prcpc�ed change of zone will foregoing is true and correct. not have a significant Impact on the environment: thorefors, a Negative Declaration Is recom- mended. Dated at Palm Springs,California this---1Th,----day posed application,OF PROJE07 INFORMATION:The pre• posedrcava site plan and related dncu- munts are available for.ptulle review at Clry Hall Of .IDIy ,2U07 between hru hours of I'le a.m. and the pp m. t Monday through pat (WyGI please 204 if the 014ce F� of the scy Cleraule n appointment tment Is If you would Ilkc to schntlule an appalntment to review these � i documents. ✓. l COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Ru^.pone —.........-------- --------`-------•------------.....--- to thla notice may rI made verbally at the u rile 1 Hearing andimeats In y be before the hearing ngil ignatUPe ten comments may be made to the City Council by laver(far mail or hand delivery)Clark ldames Thomp::en ni Clerk 3200 Palm Springy CA 92262 ay Any challenge of the proposed project In court may be limited to raising only those issues ruwed a[the public hearing described In this notice or in written conrespendenco dellval'0 to the bity U Clark ar. or.nor,to the ppuhlic hearing. (GaVarn- meat Coda eclion 6500a[b][2]j. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard Questions regard- ing WE case may be directed to Kan LXon, SO- alai Planner,Department of planning.,erv¢as at (760)323-8245. nl Clud;d de uds Palen Sprinessta , puedeahabvQr ar con Nadine Flegar telefono('/ 0)a23-8245. Jama,, nampson,,City C a-N Published:7/14/2007 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NOS. 5-1139 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND 5.1140 CHANGE OF ZONE SPENCER RECOVERY CENTER, INC. 1404 NORTH PALM CANYON DRIVE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 25, 2007. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an appeal by Spencer Recovery Center, Inc. for a Change of Zone from C-1 to R-3 and a Conditional Use Permit to allow an assisted living facility to be operated at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive called "The Las Palmas Hotel", Zone C-1 Section 10. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) defines the actions herein as a "project". The Planning Department has reviewed this project under the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and based on the outcome of the Initial Study conducted for this project, it has been determined that the proposed change of zone will not have a significant impact on the environment; therefore, a Negative Declaration is recommended. REVIEW Or PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed application, site plan and related documents are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review these documents. COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (for mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk at, or prior, to the public hearing. (Government Code Section 65009[b][2]). An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Ken Lyon, Associate Planner, Department of Planning Services at (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245. mes Thompson, City Clerk = ocloos:� z` Department of Planning Services W " E Vicinity Map _s STEVENS RD ..fA rnlNo oet NorsrC -..+e"' 'ti y \V rr I - - -- MIND MONTC VA4T0. I Off,Iw•R7E �D I 0y ------ ._.. ....... _— JJ + z PPSEO EL MIRP➢OR Legend - -- ProjectSite Q 400'Radius i uSurrounding Parcels ' l I I I CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO: 5-1139 CUP, DESCRIPTION: To consider an appeal by 5.1140 CZ Spencer Recovery Center, Inc. for a Change of Zone from C-1 to R-3 and a Conditional Use APPLICANT: Spencer Recovery Center Permit to allow an assisted living facility to be operated at 1404 North Palm Canyon Drive called "The Las Palmas Hotel", Zone C-1, Section 10. oro� �a. Spencer Recovery Centers July 20, 2007 Public testimony statement from Spencer Recovery Centers on appeal for case#5,1139/1140 Re: Concerns raised by Palm Springs planning commission on 5/23/07 Dear Sir or Madam: Concern 1: The planning commission thought this change would be down zoning. We believe the definition of the two types of zoning is more parallel than different and that this would not constitute down zoning since intense resort style development is permissible in both zones Concern 2: The planning commission is concerned about the proposed use of a treatment facility in the specified area. The older development in this area was resort style hotels. Recent development has been medical related offices because Desert Regional Medical Center is so close by. Our business is similar to these newer uses. Concern 3: The planning commission expressed doubt about the stability of treatment centers- Chris Spencer has been in the recovery business for over 2 decades continually as a licensed, multi million,solvent business operation. Concem 4: Location. Spencer Recovery Centers understands tourist resort standing of Palm Springs. We have already restored another motel to hip and cool era of the 50's. We operate two other treatment centers in this environment. Our treatment centers are discrete and low key and cater to the more affluent clients. SRC is one of the top treatment centers in the country, thus attracting affluent clients seeking recovery;not being forced into recovery. In recent confidential exit interviews, SRC has learned that our clients, in addition to their tuition, spend between $1000&$3000 in other local services such as meals,shopping, etc.This shows the potential for up to $45000 and more per month to be spent in the local community and does not include many out of state family members expected to visit, stay, and use the local tourist facilities. Sincerely, James Brighenti Du0�91 25612 Mariner Drive San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 July 14, 2007 Palm Springs City Counsel Subject: Proposed Licensing for Spencer Recovery Center To Whom It May Concern: Drug addiction/alcoholism is the most under treated treatable disease there is. 12 months ago I could find no way out from under a black cloud of addiction. I was lost and dying from a disease I did not understand. I had burned every bridge I had ever crossed. I had given up. I had lost all hope. Luckily my father had not and in desperation he called Spencer Recovery_ With the help of the Spencer intake counselors and interventionists, he was able to plan and execute an intervention and subsequent treatment that saved my life and renewed our relationship. I completed and 28-day program and I have been clean, sober, and productive ever since. Because of this positive experience, I have relocated my family to live clean in California where we can enjoy life again. Sober, successful people surround me. Contributing great things to the community in which I now reside. I would not be alive today if it were not for the Spencer Recovery Center located in Laguna Beach California. I have seen the miracles they work and the positive effect it has had on the community. Palm Springs should feel honored to host a center like Spencer Recovery. Gratefully Yours, John Michael Day Spencer Recovery Client 060091.1 July 15, 2007 To Whom It May Concern, My son Michael went to Spencer Recovery Center in Laguna Beach, CA. I went through years of worrying that I was going to receive a call that my son had died of a drug overdose. In May of 2003, we were finally able to get through to my son and he admitted he had a problem and would get help. We had no idea where to send him. After researching many places we chose Spencer Recovery in Laguna Beach primarily because of the kind person that was helping us on the phone. Shortly after sending Michael to Spencer Recovery in Laguna Beach,we started noticing changes. This once scared and empty person, was now full of self esteem and had direction and structure in his life. My wife and I didn't get too excited because we were advised that drug addicts usually go through a period called "the pink cloud". In the middle of Michael's treatment program we found out that his insurance company would not pay for treatment and Michael would need to make plans to transfer. We were devastated but were glad he got 2 solid weeks out of the program. Michael was very upset. IIe finally was doing something that was making him feel better and now this bad news. While my husband and I were searching for ways to pay for the treatment program, our son called to tell us some wonderful news. The owner of Spencer Recovery Center agreed to let Michael stay and complete his treatment program AND stay on to work for the treatment program after is 28days are complete. This was a blessing. Today, our son Michael still continues to work for Spencer Recovery. He works in the intake office as a manager. In the past 4 years, he has made good on his debt,purchased a home and he has his health back. Even though we are 3000 miles away, we are closer now to him then we ever were when he was using drugs. We have our son back and we are forever grateful for the help that Spencer Recovery Center has given him. I feel that there are a lot of communities that are in need of a program like Spencer Recovery. Drug and alcohol dependency is rising and treatment is the only way to build a solid foundation for recovery. Palm Springs would be lucky to have Spencer Recovery as part of the community. SS c 1Mic ael J. o an, Sr. 65009 -0 Theresa Ft Silvio Brighenti Avon, CT (860) 676-0442 July 17, 2007 Re: Spencer Recovery Centers To the town of Palm Springs, Our association with Spencer Recovery began five years ago when we needed to find help for our son. We sent him to Spencers for treatment. The turnaround our son has made in his life is truly a blessing. I have been to their Center in California several times and find the facility to be outstanding and very professional. Their grounds are kept in impeccable condition and their service staff is very gracious. Our family has been rooted in Avon, Connecticut for decades and we have several businesses that have been built from the ground up. I would be proud to welcome Spencer Recovery Centers into our business community and truly feel they would be an asset to our town. Sincere Theresa It Silvio Brighenti Riverdale Farms OGDD9•� Robert T. Bartlett 260 East Fig Street Monrovia, California 91016 July 16, 2007 City of Palm Springs Ken Lyon, Department o f Planning Services Dear Mr. Lyon: in 1987, Chris Spencer tools an old, broken-down, small hotel that was a blight on the community and turned it into a handsome alcohol and drub rehabilitation center. The hotel was on a prominent corner and abutted a prime residential area. From 1987 through 2001, during the period Mr. Spencer remodeled the hotel and operated the center, I was Mayor pro-tem and Mayor of Monrovia. Ile went through a lengthy process to obtain a cons i tona use permitTC1JP). 'There was public opposition to an alcohol and drug Iacility at that location. The Planning Cornnnussioner and eventually the City Council approved the CUP. Spencer ran the center superbly. There were no problems created by his operation [or adjacent residents or the City of Monrovia, 1 am personally acquainted with Mr. Spencer. From his start in a small-scale alcohol and drug rehabilitation center he started in Monrovia, he has expanded to multiple locations. Mr. Spencer's Monrovia facility was a credit to this community but, more importantly, it provided a facility that permitted people suffering from alcohol and drug addictions to recover sobriety and self-esteem. Very truly yours, l R bert T. Bartlett w a - - -'� ✓� La��marY Nl�orel l�perierl�e Sio��e l�?3 July 12, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing to inform you of the positive experience as a neighbor of Spencer Recovery Center over the last five years. I can confidently say that Spencer Recovery has been a great neighbor. At no time have we had any negative issues with any personnel or guests of the recovery center, only positive experiences. The aesthetics of the properties have been kept in great shape, better than most in the area. We have worked together on keeping our block clean and have taken steps,working with the city,toward repairs to sidewalks and curbing. Spencer Recovery Center keeps a very peaceful and quiet operation, which seems to be extremely well run in helping to change people lives for the better. If you have any questions or if I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me. Chri topher Keller Owner La Casa del Camino Hotel 1289 South Coast Highway Laguna Beach, CA 92651 949-315-2222 chris@casacamino.net 060096 From. 18019446169 Page:212 Date 7/18/2007 10 53 22 AM THE JOURNEY Ar ,; 1I^ `1``�� p ' ci 7 Q, P July 14,2007 Re, Spencer Recovery Centers To Whom It May Concern, This letter is in great appreciation to W. Chris Spencer and Spencer Recovery Centers. Before meeting Mr. Spencer,my life was in total disarray. I admitted myself into Spencer's professionally built,accredited and well managed treatment facility in Laguna Beach,California. After building a solid sober foundation for myself and my family,Mr. Spencer and I begin to talk about how I could give back to my community and be in service much like he is. Mr. Spencer agreed to mentor me. I opened my first healing center much like the Spencer Recovery Centers model, and over the years Mr. Spencer continues to mentor our company. In 6 years, I have built a fantastic healing company with 8 properties in two states,helping thousands of people rebuild their lives and bring their fanulies back together again. Without Spencer Recovery Centers Healing facility and the incredible mentoring from Mr. Spencer, I do not know where I would be today. In my opinion,Mr. Spencer is a great asset to any community that is ready to heal its community members from the powerful grips of addiction. In belping me though nay journey,Mr. Spencer had nothing to gain from his assistance. He did it because he truly cares. Thank youth �es , 7 on -- President(Founder Journey healing Centers A HOLISTIC HEALING CENTER FORTH=ATME-T of<HEmI 'GVCN-LNup AND�YCHMVC.C.L.11.xbEAI l� 12a16 E. TURQUOISE AVENUE SCOTFSDALE. ARI7ONA 35259 YOLL,FRF.E: a0o-658-4880 FAX: 480-773-73a0 WWW.YHE5UN1)ANCECENTER.COM From unknown Page: 111 Date 7/18/2007 4:4612 PM y u ro ra <cm Robin McGeough Program Director of Residential Treatment Services Charter Oak Recovery Center 1161 E. Covina, Ca 91724 July is, 2007 To Whom It May Concern: I have had the distinct pleasure of working with Christopher Spencer since January 14Th 1994, as a Certified Addiction Treatment Professional and Program Director of a chemical dependence residential program. I have had numerous occasions to interact with Mr. Spencer on business and administrative issues. It is from this close working relationship that I, have gained the utmost respect and admiration for Mr. Spencer. Although Mr. Spencer has a vast professional history as president and owner of many licensed treatment facilities, I have been most impressed by his dedication and caring attitude toward clients in recovery. He continues to be interested and involved in the clinical activities of the treatment team and personally involved in the local recovery community to which he is a highly respected member. For there are many other fine qualities that I have personally observed, I most highly recommend Mr. Spencer to any endeavor in the field of addiction medicine and recovery services. Sincerely, r- Robin McGeough, C.A.T.C. Program Director C.O.R.C. DGDD93 1161 E Covina 6oulev d • Covina,CA 91724 0 Phone(626)966-1632 � Fax(626)859-5292