HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/19/2017 - STAFF REPORTS - 2.B. Iy
U N
w
A.
vqo v ea ' w
<,FaRN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: April 19, 2017 Public Hearing
SUBJECT: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATING
TO THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF
EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATIONS (CASE 5.1405 ZTA).
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY
This is a request to amend the Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) to add Section
94.12.00, "Extension of Time," which would establish standard procedures and criteria
for the consideration of Extension of Time (EOT) applications. The proposed
amendment has been developed at the direction of both the Planning Commission and
City Council.
RECOMMENDATION:
1) Waive the reading of the ordinance text in its entirety and read by title only; and
2) Introduce on first reading Ordinance No. , "AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 94.00
OF THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE (PSZC) RELATING TO THE CRITERIA
AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF EXTENSION OF TIME (EOT)
APPLICATIONS."
BACKGROUND:
Related Relevant City Actions
07/22/15 The Planning Commission appointed a subcommittee (Calerdine,
Lowe) to discuss guidelines for the review of EOT applications.
Aug./Sep. The Planning Commission subcommittee met on two occasions
2015 (08/19/15 and 09130/15) to discuss criteria and procedures for EOT
applications.
11/02/16 City Council directed staff to proceed with a Zone Text Amendment to
address criteria for the consideration of EOT applications.
ITEM NO. b
City Council Staff Report
April 19, 2017-- Page 2
Case 5.1405 ZTA
Related Relevant City Actions
The Planning Commission recommended approval of the draft
03/08/17 ordinance by a vote of 7 to 0. The Planning Commission had
previously discussed the ordinance at the meetings of 01/11/17 and
02122/17, and at a study session on 02/08/17.
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Currently, procedural requirements and standards for the processing of Extension of
Time (EOT) applications are found in multiple sections in the zoning code. The
identified criterion for approval of an EOT application is generally limited to a finding of
"good cause." The proposed amendment is intended to standardize the procedures for
EOT applications and provide substantive criteria for the Planning Commission to utilize
in reviewing requests for extensions.
The Planning Commission appointed a subcommittee (Calerdine, Lowe) in July 2015 to
study the process and criteria for EOT applications. The subcommittee met in August
and September of 2015, and then again in November 2016 to finalize their
recommendations. In addition, the City Council directed staff at the meeting of
November 2, 2016, to proceed with an amendment to establish criteria for the review of
EOT applications.
The draft ordinance addresses two areas relative to EOT applications: procedural
requirements for processing applications and criteria for the evaluation of applications.
The following procedural requirements are proposed for all EOT applications:
• Application: An application for an EOT shall be filed 60 days prior to the
expiration of the entitlement.
• Hearing: EOT applications shall be treated as a public hearing, which requires
publication of the hearing in the newspaper, a mailed notice of the hearing to
property owners within 500 feet of the subject site, and an electronic notice to the
neighborhood organizations within one-half mile of the subject site. The public
hearing requirements are detailed in PSZC Section 94.09.00.
• Approval Process: EOT applications shall be forwarded to the Planning
Commission for action. The action of the Planning Commission is final, unless
appealed to the City Council. The Planning Commission may approve the
extension, approve the extension with modifications to the conditions of approval,
or deny the extension request.
• Term: As proposed, extensions may be approved for a maximum of up to two
years beyond the initial entitlement. The ordinance gives the Planning
Commission a degree of flexibility in setting the extension period, as a shorter
period of time may be warranted for certain applications. The Planning
Commission discussed numerous options for the term for extensions, but
ultimately recommended that a time period of 24 months be adopted. It was
02
City Council Staff Report
April 19, 2017 -- Page 3
Case 5.1405 ZTA
noted in the discussions that the ordinance could be amended by City Council at
any point in the future should a longer time period be necessary, such as during
an economic downturn.
The Planning Commission also discussed at length the criteria for consideration of EOT
applications. The final criteria as proposed are listed below:
1. The requested extension of time is consistent with the General Plan and
any applicable specific plan, and the proposed project remains consistent
with those plans as the exist at the time the extension request is being
considered
2. The findings made in support of the original approval remain valid and are
still appropriate;
3. There have been no significant changes to the proposed project, or to
areas within the geographic proximity of the proposed project that negates
the appropriateness of the project, or new information concerning new or
substantially more severe environmental effects which would require a
reevaluation of the project under the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA);
4. The subject site has been properly maintained in accordance with the
Property Maintenance Standards of this Title;
5. The applicant has demonstrated convincingly and clearly that the project
will be substantially underway within the extended period.
6. The applicant has made reasonable, substantial and timely efforts to
exercise the entitlement and advance the project, such as, but not limited
to, the pre-payment of impact fees or submittal of permit applications; and
7. Extenuating circumstances, not within the applicant's control, (financial
inability and market conditions excepted), have prevented the applicant
from exercising the entitlement within the initial time period granted, but
that such circumstances are more likely than not to be removed in time for
the applicant to substantially begin the project within the extended period.
The criteria listed above substantially expand upon the concept of "good cause" in the
granting of EOT requests. Planning staff will provide an evaluation of the criteria in the
report that is drafted for review by the Planning Commission; the Planning Commission
will review the evaluation as a basis for making findings in support (or denial) of the
application request.
The ordinance proposes to standardize the extension process for all application types
03
City Council Staff Report
April 19, 2017 -- Page 4
Case 5.1405 ZTA
(Conditional Use Permit, Variance, Architectural Application, etc.). The draft ordinance
will revise all references in the zoning code to the extension process and refer to the
new section of the code (Section 94.12.00). However, it is important to note that the
proposed ordinance will not revise the extension process for Tentative Map
applications. Requirements for the extension of Tentative Map approvals are listed in
Chapter 9.63 of the Municipal Code, and are governed by the requirements of State
law. Extensions for map applications are limited to a period of one year; in cases where
a project requires the extension of both a subdivision map and a zoning entitlement
application, the Planning Commission may choose to limit the extension of the
entitlement to a period of one year to be coterminous with the extension of the map.
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:
The proposed Zone Text Amendment is not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines because
the proposed amendments to the Palm Springs Zoning Code will not result in a direct or
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment; and 15060(c)(3)
because the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA
Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no
potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
Jinn Fagg, AICP Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, P.E., P.L.S.
Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
David H. Ready, Esq., D.
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance
2. Planning Commission Minutes — 03/08/17
3. Planning Commission Minutes — 02/22/17
4. Comparison chart of EOT requirements for Coachella Valley cities
04
ORDINANCE NO,
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO
CHAPTER 94.00 OF THE PALM SPRINGS
ZONING CODE (PSZC) RELATING TO THE
CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW
OF EXTENSION OF TIME (EOT) APPLICATIONS.
City Attorney Summary
The proposed ordinance will establish standardized application
procedures and a list of criteria to be considered in evaluating
requests for extensions of entitlement applications.
THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DETERMINES AS FOLLOWS:
A. In July 2015, the Planning Commission established a subcommittee
to study the process and criteria for the evaluation of Extension of Time (EOT)
applications.
B. The Planning Commission subcommittee met and developed
recommendations to be considered by the Planning Commission.
C. In November 2016, the City Council directed staff to proceed with
amendments to the procedures and criteria for the consideration of EOT
applications, and requested that the Planning Commission review and forward
recommendations to the City Council.
D. On March 8, 2017, a public hearing on the proposed Zone Text
Amendment was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable
law, and after taking public testimony and reviewing all evidence presented in
connection with the hearing, the Planning Commission voted to 7 to 0 to
recommend approval of the proposed ordinance to the City Council.
E. Notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm
Springs to consider Case 5.1405 ZTA was given in accordance with applicable
law.
F. The proposed Zone Text Amendment is not subject to the
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) of
the CEQA Guidelines because the proposed amendments to the Palm Springs
Zoning Code will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical
change in the environment; and 15060(c)(3) because the activity is not a project
as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of
Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in
physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly.
05
Ordinance No.
Page 2
G. On April 19, 2017, a public hearing on the proposed Zone Text
Amendment was held by the City Council in accordance with application law, and
the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the hearing on the Zone Text Amendment,
including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony
presented.
H. The City Council hereby finds that approval of the proposed Zone
Text Amendment would:
1. Clearly establish and standardize the procedural requirements for
the processing of Extension of Time applications; and
2. Provide consistent and detailed criteria for the evaluation of
Extension of Time applications.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY
ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Section 94.12.00 is added to the Palm Springs Zoning Code
(PSZC) to read as follows:
94.12.00 Extension of Time.
A. Purpose.
The purpose of this section is to provide a mechanism for extending
the term of an entitlement previously granted under this chapter. This
section shall not apply to tentative subdivision maps, which may be
extended in accordance with Section 9.63.110. The provisions of this
section are not intended to limit the authority or the discretion of the
planning commission to determine whether good cause exists for an
extension of time.
B. Application.
An application for an extension of time shall be filed with, and on a
form provided by, the Department of Planning Services. Such application
must be filed at least sixty (60) days before the entitlement is due to
expire. The application shall be signed and acknowledged by the owner
of record of the property for which the extension of time is sought, and
shall be notarized as to the owner's signature.
C. Hearing and Notification.
06
Ordinance No.
Page 3
An application for an extension of time shall be heard by the
planning commission. The planning commission shall provide for a public
hearing to be held in the manner provided for in Section 94.09.00.
D. Criteria.
The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish by clear
and convincing evidence that the applicant has proceeded in good faith
and has exercised due diligence in complying with the conditions of
approval imposed on the entitlement in a timely manner. In determining
that good cause exists for an extension of time, the planning commission
must make the following findings:
1. The requested extension of time is consistent with the
General Plan and any applicable specific plan, and the
proposed project remains consistent with those plans as the
exist at the time the extension request is being considered;
2. The findings made in support of the original approval remain
valid and are still appropriate;
3. There have been no significant changes to the proposed
project, or to areas within the geographic proximity of the
proposed project that negates the appropriateness of the
project, or new information concerning new or substantially
more severe environmental effects which would require a
reevaluation of the project under the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA);
4. The subject site has been properly maintained in accordance
with the Property Maintenance Standards of this Title;
5. The applicant has demonstrated convincingly and clearly
that the project will be substantially underway within the
extended period.
6. The applicant has made reasonable, substantial and timely
efforts to exercise the entitlement and advance the project,
such as, but not limited to, the pre-payment of impact fees or
submittal of permit applications; and
7. Extenuating circumstances, not within the applicant's control,
(financial inability and market conditions excepted), have
prevented the applicant from exercising the entitlement
within the initial time period granted, but that such
circumstances are more likely than not to be removed in time
07
Ordinance No.
Page 4
for the applicant to substantially begin the project within the
extended period.
E. Decision.
The planning commission may take such action as it deems
appropriate regarding the extension of time application, including without
limitation:
1. Grant the extension of the previously approved entitlement;
2. Modify the previously imposed conditions of approval and/or
add new conditions of approval in connection with a grant of
extension; or
3. Deny the requested extension.
The decision of the planning commission is final unless appealed to the
city council in the manner provided by Chapter 2.05 of the Palm Springs
Municipal Code.
F. Extension of Time —Term.
The planning commission may grant extensions for a period of up
to twenty-four (24) months beyond the original expiration date of the
entitlement.
SECTION 2. PSZC Subsection 93.23.05(C), "Shopping Centers," is
hereby amended to read:
C. Time Limits.
Requests for extensions of time shall be made pursuant to the
requirements of Section 94.12.00.
SECTION 3. PSZC Subsection 93.23.07(F)(1), "Use of Permit," is hereby
amended to read:
1. Any conditional use permit that is granted shall be used within two
(2) years from the effective date thereof or within such additional
time as may be set in the conditions or approval, which shall not
exceed a total of five (5) years; otherwise, the permit shall be null
and void. Notwithstanding the foregoing, if a permit is required to
be used within less than five (5) years, the permittee may, prior to
its expiration, request an extension of time pursuant to Section
94.12.00 in which to use the permit. An extension of time may be
08
Ordinance No.
Page 5
granted by the commission upon a determination that valid reason
exists for permittee not using the permit within the required period
of time. If an extension is granted, the total time period allowed for
use of the permit shall not exceed a period of five (5) years,
calculated from the effective date of the issuance of the permit.
The term "use" shall mean the beginning of substantial construction
of the use that is authorized, which construction must thereafter be
pursued diligently to completion.
SECTION 4. PSZC Subsection 93.23.07(G)(4), 'Revocation or Voiding of
Conditional Use Permit," is hereby amended to read:
4. If the time limit for development expires and development has not
commended, or the use permitted by the conditional use permit
does not exist, the conditional use permit shall be considered void.
No notice need be given nor hearing held. An extension of time
may be approved pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.12.00.
SECTION 5. PSZC Subsection 94.02.00(F), "Time Limit for
Development," is hereby amended to read:
F. Time Limit for Development.
Unless otherwise stated by the commission or council, the time limit for
commencement of use or construction under a conditional use permit shall
be two (2) years from the effective date of approval. Extensions of time
may be approved pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.12.00.
SECTION 6. PSZC Subsections 94.02.00(I)(4) and 94.02.00(I)(5),
"Revocation or Voiding of Conditional Use Permit," is hereby amended to read:
4. If the time limit for development expires and development has not
commenced, or the use permitted by the conditional use permit
does not exist, the conditional use permit shall be considered void.
No notice need be given nor hearing held. An extension of time
may be approved pursuant to the requirements of Section 94.12.00.
5. Termination of a use granted herein for a period of one (1) calendar
year shall terminate the use rights granted without further notice or
public hearing. An extension of time may be approved pursuant to
the requirements of Section 94.12.00.
SECTION 7. PSZC Subsection 94.03.00(H), "Termination of
Proceedings," is hereby amended to read:
H. Termination of Proceedings.
09
Ordinance No.
Page 6
If, within two (2) years after the date of approval by the city council of the
preliminary development plan, the final development plan, as indicated in
Section 94.03.00(I), has not been approved by the planning commission,
the procedures and actions which have taken place up to that time shall
be null and void and the planned development district shall expire.
Extensions of time may be allowed pursuant to the requirements of
Section 94.12.00.
SECTION 8. PSZC Subsection 94.04.00(H), "Extensions of Time," is
hereby amended to read:
H. Extensions of Time.
Extensions of time may be granted pursuant to the requirements of
Section 94.12.00.
SECTION 9. PSZC Subsection 94.06.00(1)(a), `Revocation or Voiding of
Variance/Time Limits," is hereby amended to read:
(1)(a) Extensions of time may be granted pursuant to the requirements of
Section 94.12.00.
ADOPTED this _th day of , 2017.
ROBERT MOON
MAYOR
ATTEST:
KATHLEEN D. HART, MMC
INTERIM CITY CLERK
CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss.
10
Ordinance No.
Page 7
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS )
I, KATHLEEN D. HART, Interim City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs,
California, do hereby certify that Ordinance No. is a full, true, and correct
copy, and was introduced at a regular meeting of the Palm Springs City Council
on and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
KATHLEEN D. HART, MMC
INTERIM CITY CLERK
I1
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held March 8, 2017,
the Planning Commission took the following action:
2A. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATING TO
THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF EXTENSION OF TIME
APPLICATIONS (CASE 5.1405 ZTA). (FF) (Continued from the February 22, 2017
meeting.)
The Commission commented and/or requested clarification on:
• The language on time-limits.
• Subdivision map and PDD's.
• Effective date of ordinance and projects subject to the new regulations.
• Strategy to inform all the affected parties.
• Approval process for Tentative Tract Maps, Final Tract Maps and Planned
Development District (PDD's).
Chair Calerdine opened the public hearing and with no speakers coming forward the
public hearing was closed
The Commissioners discussed the following changes to the draft ordinance:
• Replace the criteria suggested by staff with the criteria proposed by
Commissioner Donenfeld at the 2/22/17 meeting;
• Add language requiring the applicant to demonstrate clear and convincing
evidence for the extension;
• Eliminate the language in Section F(2) as proposed by staff;
• Reference the extension process for map applications;
• Limit the extension to a maximum of 2 years beyond the original 2-year approval
period; and
• Correct the references in other sections of the zoning code to reflect the
maximum 2-year extension timeframe.
ACTION: Approve with changes as directed by the Commission.
Motion: Commissioner Middleton, seconded by Commissioner Donenfeld and
unanimously carried on a roll call vote.
I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs,
hereby certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Springs on the 8th day of March, 2017, by the following vote:
12
Planning Commission Minutes-Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
March 8,2017
AYES: Chair Calerdine, Vice-Chair Weremiuk, Commissioner Donenfeld,
Commissioner Hirschbein, Commissioner Hudson, Commissioner
Lowe, Commissioner Middleton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Terri Hintz
Planning Administrative Coordinator
2 13
EXCERPT OF MINUTES
At the Planning Commission meeting of the City of Palm Springs, held February 22,
2017, the Planning Commission took the following action:
3A. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS FOR A ZONE TEXT AMENDMENT RELATING TO
THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF EXTENSION OF TIME
APPLICATIONS (CASE 5.1405 ZTA). (FF) (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 8,
2017 MEETING.)
Planning Director Fagg summarized the proposed changes by the Commission as
outlined in the staff report.
Commissioner Middleton commented that previous discussion was made that City
Council during a time of recession or economic downturn could declare a suspension on
the time-limits to allow all projects to have a greater amount of time. It has some
advantages because it requires the City Council to make the findings and treats all
projects equally. (Planning Director responded that the City Council retains the ability to
modify any ordinances at any point.)
Vice-Chair Weremiuk requested commented on:
• D.5 - remove the word "any" for extenuating circumstances.
• Maps and PDD's (Planned Development Districts) should be specifically
mentioned in this ordinance.
Commissioner Donenfeld said he did research outside the Coachella Valley and found
that most of the jurisdictions have a limitation on the number of extensions with respect
to entitlements. He provided language for discussion and consideration for the
Commission to incorporate into the proposed ordinance.
Chair Calerdine opened the public hearing:
GRETCHEN GUTIERREZ, Desert Valley Builders Association, chief executive officer,
urged the Commission to move forward with the 5 (five) year time limit and requested
further definition on the "exceptions" - they are undefined in the current ordinance. She
indicated that the building industry has not caught up and is still in the process of
recovering from the last downturn; and requested sensitivity to the existing market
conditions.
ADAM TEIXEIRA, believes time extensions should be used in a cautious manner and
keep the projects moving forward as planned. No additional funding should be received
unless the projects have been approved by the City Council.
There being no further speakers the public hearing was closed.
14
Planning Commission Minutes-Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
February 22, 2017
Commissioner Middleton said this is one of the most important things the Commission
has worked on. She thinks the constant extensions of time have been an issue to the
neighbors and the new neighbors do not have an opportunity to weigh in on projects
that may have significant impact and entitlements should not be forever. She is pleased
that they are ready to take steps to limit the amount of time someone has to build on
their project. She agrees with Commissioner Donenfeld that the burden of proof should
be on the applicant and they should have a convincing reason for continuing.
Vice-Chair Weremiuk stated that she likes Commissioner Donenfeld's drafted language
and would like see A-G included instead of 1-5 and likes the burden of proof language.
She would like to see language that references how maps are governed and feels most
comfortable with the 2 year time extensions.
Commissioner Hirschbein thanked Commissioner Donenfeld for bringing forth the
proposed text to the Commission and feels a total of 4 years is sufficient for a project to
get started.
Commissioner Lowe appreciated the research provided by Commissioner Donenfeld
and agrees the burden of proof should be on the applicant. He suggested that item 3c
"there have been no significant changes to the proposed project or to areas within the
geographic proximity of the proposed project . . ." should include "that negates the
appropriateness of the project". He thinks a time limit of 7 years is too long and is okay
with 2 - 4 years.
Chair Calerdine requested clarification if a time extension is required for a phased
project that will be built over a series of time.
ACTION: Continue to the meeting of March 8, 2017 to allow staff to incorporate the
changes as discussed and bring back an amended resolution for final review.
Motion: Vice-Chair Weremiuk, seconded by Commissioner Lowe and unanimously
carried on a roll call vote.
I, TERRI HINTZ, Planning Administrative Coordinator for the City of Palm Springs,
hereby certify that the above action was taken by Planning Commission of the City of
Palm Springs on the 22nd day of February, 2017, by the following vote:
AYES: Chair Calerdine, Vice-Chair Weremiuk, Commissioner Donenfeld,
Commissioner Hirschbein, Commissioner Hudson, Commissioner
Lowe, Commissioner Middleton
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
2
15
Planning Commission Minutes-Excerpt
City of Palm Springs
February 22, 2017
Terri Hintz
Planning Administrative Coordinator
3 16
Entitlement Extension Comparison— Coachella Valley Cities
City Entitlement Length of Extension Limit on Number Criteria for Granting Extension
of Extensions
Palm Springs Planned Development None Specified; however, past None Specified Extensions may be allowed for good cause.
District(PD) practice has been to grant I-year (94.03.00(H)and(I))
extensions.
Coachella Architectural Review 1-year(17.72.010(J)(2)) No more than 3 a) No significant change has occurred in
(17.72.010(J)(2)) the surrounding neighborhood;
b) The project conforms to existing and
any new building and zone
requirements;
c) A request for the extension is
properly filed with the planning
director ten(10)days or more prior to
expiration; and
d) The applicant states upon affidavit
the reasons requiring an extension
and such other criteria as the planning
department shall set forth in the
application.
(17.72.010(J)(3)(a)-(d))
• Planning commission shall grant the
extension if good cause is set forth in
the application. (17.72.010(J)(4))
• Planning commission may impose any
additional conditions on the
architectural approval as a condition of
its renewal. (17.72.010(J)(2))
1106895.1
Entitlement Extension Comparison— Coachella Valley Cities
City Entitlement Length of Extension Limit on Number Criteria for Granting Extension
of Extensions
Desert Hot Springs Planned Development • Extension shall not exceed the None Specified • Requires finding that such extension is
District(PDD) length of time granted with the justified and not detrimental to the
original development plan public health safety and welfare.
approval.
(17.36.090(A))
(17.36.090(A))
• City Council may approve, approve
• Development plan shall lapse 5 with conditions, or deny.
years from the date of original - (17.36.090(B))
approval, or within the time
otherwise set by the City
Council or Planning
Commission.
(17.36.100(A))
Indian Wells Master Development 1-year(2L06.030)(e)) None Specified • Requires finding that such extension is
Plan justified and not detrimental to the
public health safety and welfare.
(21.06.030)(e)(2)(i))
• City Council may approve, approve
with conditions,or deny.
(21.06.030)(e)(2)(ii))
Indio Site Development Plan 1-year(I59.958(B)) No more than 3 Applicant must clearly show that
(159.958(B)) extenuating circumstances warrant
extension.(159.958(B))
La Quinta Development Review 2-years(9.200.080(D)(1)) None Specified Requires finding that such an extension is
Permit justified by the circumstances of the project.
(9.200.080(D)(1))
W 2
1106895.1
Entitlement Extension Comparison—Coachella Valley Cities
City Entitlement Length of Extension Limit on Number Criteria for Granting Extension
of Extensions
Palm Desert Precise Plan I-year(25.72.030(K)(2)) No more than 3 • Applicant must clearly show
(25.72.030(K)(3)) extenuating circumstances and must
clearly state the reasons why
construction has not commenced.
(25.72 030(K)(2))
• Planning commission may grant
additional time extensions._.provided
that there has not been adopted any
changes to zoning regulations that
would impact said precise plan.
(25.72.030(K)(3))
Rancho Miraee Preliminary I year(17.42.130) No more than one, • Requires finding that there have been
Development Plan subject to following: no changes in circumstances or law
(PDP) which would preclude the reviewing
If a PDP is processed authority from making the findings
concurrently with a upon which the original approval was
tentative ma the based.(17.68.070(E))
PDP shall si eligible
for extensions in The extension may be approved,
twelve month approved with modifications, or
increments disapproved. (17.68.070(E))
commensurate with
any city-approved or
state-mandated
mandated extension of
the tentative map.
(17.42.130)
ti 3
1106895.1
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PUBLIC NOTIFICATION
Date: April 19, 2017
Subject: Case 5.1405 ZTA
AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION
I, Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC, Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs,
California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
published in the Desert Sun on April 8, 2017.
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
C / �-
Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC
Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
1, Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC, Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs,
California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
posted at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive, on the exterior legal notice posting
board, and in the Office of the City Clerk on April 5, 2017.
1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC
Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk
AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING
I, Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC, Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk, of the City of Palm Springs,
California, do hereby certify that a copy of the attached Notice of Public Hearing was
mailed to each and every person on the attached list on April 6, 2017, in a sealed envelope,
with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (10
notices)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Cynthia A. Berardi, CMC
Interim Chief Deputy City Clerk 20
The Desert Sun
750 N Gene Autry Trail Certificate of Publication
Palm Springs, CA 92262 RECEIVED
760-778-4578/Fax 760-778-4731 CITY OF PAL Pi 5 P R j N G
State Of California ss: Z017 APR I AM 8. I
County of Riverside
OFFICE UE THE CITY CLEEPiR'
Advertiser: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS/LEGALS
PO BOX 2743
PALM SPRINGS CA 92263
Order# 0002052522
I am over the age of 18 years old, a citizen of I I .
the United States and not a party to, or have o
interest in this matter. 1 hereby certify that the - _- -NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
attached advertisement appeared in said CITY COUNCIL
newspaper(set in type not smaller than non CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
pariel)in each and entire issue of said ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE
newspaper and not in any supplement thereof RELATING TO THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES THE REVIEW OF
on the following dates,to wit: EXTENSION OF-.TIMEAPPLICATIONS
CASE 5.1405 ZTA . .
Newspaper:The Desert Sun NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs,California,will hold a public hearing
at Its meeting of April 19,2017.The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p.m.,in the Council Chamber at City
4/8/2017 Hall,3200 EastTahquitz Canyon Way,Palm Springs.
The purpose of this hearing is to consider an application by the City of Palm Springs to amend the Palm Springs
Zoning Code(PSZC)regarding criteria and procedures for the review of Extension of Time(EDT)applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEOA)Guidelines,
I acknowledge that I am a principal clerk of the the proposed Zone Text Amendment has been deemed a"project Staff has determined that the proposed
printer of The Desert Sun, printed and Zone Text Amendment(Case 5.1405 ZTA)may be deemed Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA
published weekly in the City of Palm Springs, under Section 15305(Minor Alterations in Land Use Limitations)of the Guidelines. The proposed Zone Text
County of Riverside, State of California.The Amendment only proposes insignificant changes to land use regulations.
adjudicated a Newspaper of REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed amendment and related documents are available for
Desert Sun was
general circulation March a Newspaper
by the public review a1 City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m.and 6:00 p.m.,Monday through Thursday. Please
contact the Office of the City Clerk at(760)323-8204 if you would like to schedule an appointment to review
Superior Court of the County of Riverside, t these documents.
State of California Case No. 191236. 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 can be made to the City Council by email at City.Clerk@
l palmspringsca.gov or letter(for mail or hand delivery)to:
Kathleen D.Hart,MMC
Interim City Clerk
declare under penalty of perjJury that the 3200E.Tahquft Canyon Way
foregoing is true and correct. Executed on I Palm Springs,CA 92262
this Bth da of APR 2017 in Palm Any challenge of the proposed project in court may be limited to raising only those issues raised at the public
Springs," rnia. 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][21).
/ An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this
( case may be directed Flinn Fagg,Director,at(760)323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carts,porfavor lame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Felipe Primes
-- telefono(160)323-8253.
Kathleen D.Hart,MMC
Interim City Clerk
Declarant
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING CODE
(PSZC) RELATING TO THE CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES FOR THE REVIEW OF
EXTENSION OF TIME (EOT) APPLICATIONS
CASE 5.1405 ZTA
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a
public hearing at its meeting of April 19, 2017. 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 this hearing is to consider an application by the City of Palm Springs to amend the
Palm Springs Zoning Code (PSZC) regarding criteria and procedures for the review of Extension of
Time (EOT) applications.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) Guidelines, the proposed Zone Text Amendment has been deemed a "project." Staff has
determined that the proposed Zone Text Amendment (Case 5.1405 ZTA) may be deemed
Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA under Section 15305 (Minor Alterations in Land
Use Limitations) of the Guidelines. The proposed Zone Text Amendment only proposes insignificant
changes to land use regulations.
REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The proposed amendment and related documents are
available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m., Monday through
Thursday. 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 can be made to the City Council by
email at City.ClerkCa)Palmspringsca.gov or letter (for mail or hand delivery) to:
Kathleen D. Hart, MMC
Interim 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 Flinn Fagg, Director, at (760) 323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con
Felipe Primera telefono (760) 323-8253.
Kathleen D. Hart, MMC
Interim City Clerk
21