HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-03 STAFF REPORTS 1C A �QpLMs'04
�y
i V N
H
°441FORN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
IRATE: MAY 3, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: DECISION TO OVERRIDE THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND
USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD-291
('THE SPRINGS" COMMERCIAL CENTER) LOCATED AT THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF GENE AUTRY TRAIL (STATE HIGHWAY
111) AND RAMON ROAD
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY
The City Council is required to respond to a finding by the Riverside County Airport
Land Use Commission (RCALUC) that the recently-approved commercial development
at the north-east corner of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon Road ("The Springs") is
inconsistent with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. The
Council may override the RCALUC with a two-thirds vote. A public hearing is required.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Open the public hearing and receive public testimony;
2. Adopt Resolution No. , "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, OVERRIDING THE
RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PD-291 ("THE SPRINGS" COMMERCIAL
CENTER) LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF GENE AUTRY
TRAIL (STATE HIGHWAY 111) AND RAMON ROAD" (A two-thirds
affirmative vote is required for passage.)
STAFF ANALYSIS:
Background
On October 19, 2005, the City Council approved Case 5.0984 / PD-291 for The Springs
Commercial Center located at the northeast corner of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon
Item No. 1 .C .
City Council Staff Report
May 3, 2006 -- Page 2
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Override
Road. The project will be developed on a vacant, thirty-seven (37) acre site and
includes approximately 393,000 square feet of commercial development anchored by a
Home Depot on the 37-acre site. The project is east of the south end of the Palm
Springs International Airport (across Gene Autry Trail). A Final Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was certified
for the project.
Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission I Caltrans Review
Since City approval of the project, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission
reviewed the project and determined that it is inconsistent with the Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan. (See attached RCALUC report, March 9, 2006). The report notes
that the City may override the RCALUC determination, and recommends that the
following conditions be included in an override action:
1. Provide Avigation Easements to the operator of Palm Springs Airport
<sic> prior to any permits being issued or sale to any entity exempt from
the Subdivision Map Act.
2. Install hooded or shielded outdoor lighting to prevent either the spillage of
lumens or reflection into the sky.
3. Incorporate noise attenuation measures into the building construction to
ensure interior noise levels ar at or below 45-decibel levels.
4. Children's schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, and nursing
homes are prohibited in Zones 81 and C. Additional prohibited uses in
Zone 81 include places of worship and above ground storage of
flammable materials.
5. The following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white,
green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an
aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward
an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an
airport, other than an FAA-approved navigational signal light or visual
approach slope indicator.
b. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft
engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an
aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an
airport.
c. Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would
attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect
safe air navigation within the area.
d. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be
detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or small aircraft
instrumentation.
6. Structures exceeding a height of 35 ft. in Zone 81, 70 ft. in Zones C and
D, or a 100:1 slope from the end of the runway require FAA 7460 review.
7. The attached notice shall be given to all prospective buyers and tenants.
City Council Staff Report
May 3, 2006 -- Page 3
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Override
The City also received comments from the Division of Aeronautics of the State
Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in which the department identifies the
economic importance of both the commercial project and the airport to the city and state
(see letter of March 6, 2006).
Discussion
Staff reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report of the project which states that
the site is within the 65 dB CNEL1 Noise Contour and that the project will "...clearly
experience single-event noise impacts from aircraft." However, the report notes that the
maximum noise level is expected to be 70 dBA NCEL at the western boundary of the
site, beyond which would be considered "normally unacceptable". The EIR required no
mitigation to this condition.
In addition, the EIR discussed the project's compatibility with the noise policies of the
RCALUCP as follows:
"Table 2B of the RCALUCP indicates that the maximum CNEL considered
normally acceptable for commercial/office projects is 60 decibels with noise
attenuating constructions [sic] features. A majority of the Springs Project lies
within the 60 decibel CNEL contour of the Palm Springs International Airport.
Commercial/office construction will include air conditioning and double paned
windows in compliance with RCACLUCP building design techniques to achieve a
reduction of interior noise levels. Thus, The Springs project complies with
RCACLUCP noise compatibility policies."
The EIR also addressed the project's compatibility with the safety policies of the
RCALUCP as follows:
"...the project would be incompatible with the intensity clustering provisions of
Policy 4.2.5(b)(2) & (4). According to this policy, the project must limit the
intensity (people/square acre) at any one time on site, to a maximum of 50
people per acre in Zone B1 and up to 150 people per acre in Zone C. Most
shopping centers and high-intensity retailers, like the proposed Home Depot, do
not comply with this criterion. Consequently, development of the project as
proposed would be incompatible with this element of the Plan and would
therefore, constitute a significant unavoidable adverse impact with regard to the
RCALUCP Safety Policy."
From the perspective of whether the project would expose the public to excessive noise
and safety hazards, land has traditionally been allowed to develop close to the airport in
accordance with the Part 150 and Part 77 studies, Airport Master Plan, and General
CNEL— Community Noise Equivalent Level. Equivalent sound level for a 24-hour period with a 10 dB
weighting applied to noise between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. and a 4.8 dB weighting applied to noise
between 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. Required metric for airport noise studies in California. —Appendix A,
Palm Springs Airport F.A.R. Part 150 Noise Compatibility Study.
City Council Staff Report
May 3, 2006 -- Page 4
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Override
Plan. Residential development exists all around the airport at densities of
approximately 2-4 units/acre and commercial development exists in the immediate
vicinity of the airport.
The only available land left for viable large commercial development is in the area
southeast of the airport where two large commercial centers already exist (Lowe's and
Walmart). Therefore, staff believes the project would only be a continuation of existing
development patterns around the airport and would not create any new noise or safety
problems that do not already exist. The project is also conditioned to limit building
heights in Compatibility Zone B1 to no higher than 35 feet and that all future structures
will require standard avigation easements and non-suit covenants, as requested by the
RCALUC (see discussion above).
Finally, it should be noted that the project is a commercial development located at the
intersection of two major thoroughfares (Highway 111 and Ramon Road), which has the
highest traffic volume of any intersection of the City. According to the discussion
regarding noise impacts in the project's EIR, the existing CNEL levels range from 60 dB
along the northern boundary to around 70 dB near Ramon Road. Therefore, the
existing ambient noise levels average 65 dB without the project.
The noise study prepared for the project also showed that with the implementation of
the project, noise levels 50 feet from the centerline of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon
Road will exceed 70 decibels. Given the existing and future ambient noise conditions
and the commercial nature of the project, the override of the RCALUCP for The Springs
Commercial Center is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the California
airport noise standards. In addition, an avigation easement is required for the
development, the buildings must be constructed in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code, and the development of the site as a commercial project would prevent
residential development from occurring close to the airport.
Staff recommends adoption of the draft resolution to override the Riverside County Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT: IFinance Director Review:
No fiscal impact.
C-r
i-Irgrig Ewing,,Al P Thomas J. Wil n, Assist. City Manager
Direct of PI nnin Services
City Council Staff Report
May 3, 2006 -- Page 5
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Override
David H. Ready, City Ma er
Attachments:
1. Draft Resolution to Override the RCALUCP
2. Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (RCALUCP) Chapter 3 —
Palm Springs International Airport Compatibility Maps
3. RCALUCP Appendix E-7; Background Data : Palm Springs International Airport
and Environs
4. RCALUC Staff Report (March 9, 2006)
5. Letter from Caltrans (March 6, 2006)
("li/1(
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
PALM SPRINGS OVERRIDING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY
AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN FOR THE
PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
HIGHWAY 111 (GENE AUTRY TRAIL) AND RAMON
ROAD.
WHEREAS, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission ("RCALUC") has been
designated as the Airport Land Use Commission for all public airports in the County of
Riverside; and
WHEREAS, on February 10, 2005, the RCALUC adopted the Riverside County Airport
Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Palm Springs International Airport ("RCALUCP");
and
WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs is the owner and operator of Palm Springs
International Airport; and
WHEREAS, Geiger LLC filed an application with the City pursuant to the City of Palm
:iprings Zoning Code, Section 94.03.00, for a Planned Development to construct The
Springs Commercial Center, a 393,000 square foot commercial shopping center,
Located at the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail, APNs 677-280-
041, 677-420-032, 677-420-033, and 677-420-034, Zone M-1-P, Section 17; and
WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for this project
pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
Guidelines; and
WHEREAS, on October 13, 2005, the RCALUC found that The Springs Commercial
Center was inconsistent with the RCALUCP with respect to proposed intensity; and
WHEREAS, on October 19, 2005, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs voted to
approve Case 5.0984 PD-291 for The Springs Commercial Center located at the
northeast corner of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon Road; and
WHEREAS, at said meeting, the City Council of the City of Palm Springs also voted to
certify the EIR and adopt a statement of overriding considerations for the project with
respect to air quality and hazards and hazardous materials; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21676.5(a) of the Public Utilities Code, the City of Palm
Springs may override the RCALUCP for the project with a two-thirds vote of the City
Council; and
y *+0
Resolution No.
Page 2
WHEREAS, the RCALUC and the California Division of Aeronautics were provided a
copy of the draft resolution and findings on January 23, 2006; and
WHEREAS, on May 3, 2006, the City Council held a public hearing to consider
overriding the RCALUCP for The Springs Commercial Center; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence
presented in connection with the hearing on this matter, including, but not limited to, the
>taff report, and all written and oral testimony presented.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE
AS FOLLOWS:
I ECTION 1. The action to override the RCALUCP is consistent with the purposes of
California Public Utilities Code Section 21670 in that the Council's action for the project
accounts for the orderly expansion of the airport. The Palm Springs International Airport
Master Plan, adopted in January 2003, does not indicate plans to further expand into
the area where the project is located.
Special circumstances exist that allow for control of the orderly expansion of the airport
because the City of Palm Springs is owner/operator of the airport. As owner/operator of
the airport, the City is able to fully analyze the impacts of the airport, without external
interference, on surrounding areas in the course of making land use decisions In
addition, the City, with the exception of a few remaining parcels is substantially built out.
Properties have traditionally developed close to the airport and there are many urban
Land uses surrounding the airport. However, the City has taken steps to mitigate the
affects of close proximity to the airport including the completion of a residential sound
insulation program for the majority of the homes within the 65 CNEL contour,
requirements for avigation easements, and the re-zoning of residential properties to
professional land uses in order to minimize future land use conflicts due to the operation
and future expansion of the airport.
SECTION 2. The action of the Council to override the RCALUCP is consistent with the
purpose of California Public Utilities Code Section 21670 to prevent the creation of new
noise and safety problems. The project is a planned development for approximately
393,000 square feet of retail space and is located within Compatibility Zones B1 and C.
In approving the project, the City Council adopted a Statement of Overriding
Considerations because the EIR found that the project is not compatible with the
provisions of the RCALUCP. The EIR discussed the project's compatibility with the
noise policies of the RCALUCP as follows:
"Table 28 of the RCALUCP indicates that the maximum
CNEL considered normally acceptable for commercial/office
projects is 60 decibels with noise attenuating constructions
[sic] features. A majority of the Springs Project lies within
the 60 decibel CNEL contour of the Palm Springs
Resolution No,
Page 3
International Airport. Commercial/office construction will
include air conditioning and double paned windows in
compliance with RCACLUCP building design techniques to
achieve a reduction of interior noise levels. Thus, The
Springs project complies with RCACLUCP noise
compatibility policies."
The EIR also addressed the project's compatibility with the safety policies of the
RCALUCP as follows:
"...the project would be incompatible with the intensity
clustering provisions of Policy 4.2.5(b)(2) & (4). According to
this policy, the project must limit the intensity (people/square
acre) at any one time on site, to a maximum of 50 people per
acre in Zone B1 and up to 150 people per acre in Zone C.
Most shopping centers and high-intensity retailers, like the
proposed Home Depot, do not comply with this criterion.
Consequently, development of the project as proposed
would be incompatible with this element of the Plan and
would therefore, constitute a significant unavoidable adverse
impact with regard to the RCALUCP Safety Policy."
The City Council weighed the benefits of the project against the significant
environmental impacts and found that for this project, the economic benefits to the City
outweighed the significant environmental impacts.
From the perspective of whether the project would expose the public to excessive noise
and safety hazards, land has traditionally been allowed to develop close to the airport in
accordance with the Part 150 and Part 77 studies, Airport Master Plan, and General
Plan. Residential development exists all around the airport at densities of
approximately 2-4 units/acre and commercial development exists in the immediate
vicinity of the airport. The only available land left for viable large commercial
development is in the area southeast of the airport where two large commercial centers
already exist (Lowe's and Walmart). Therefore, the project would only be a continuation
of existing development patterns around the airport and would not create any new noise
or safety problems that do not already exist. The project is also conditioned to limit
building heights in Compatibility Zone 61 to no higher than 35 feet and that all future
structures will require standard avigation easements and non-suit covenants.
[in addition, the City is currently updating the General Plan with land use measures that
minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards. The General
Plan is proposing to designate land immediately abutting the airport as non-residential
uses or industrial uses and discouraging the conversion of such properties to residential
uses in order to minimize future noise and safety conflicts with the expansion and
operation of the airport.
Resolution No.
F'age 4
:)ECTION 3: The action of the Council to override the RCALUCP also is consistent with
the purpose of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 to promote the overall goals and
objectives of the California airport noise standards. The California Airport Noise
Standards state that the basis for the acceptable level of aircraft noise for persons living
in the vicinity of airports is a Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL) of 65 decibels.
Part of the site is located within 65 dB CNEL contour. The adopted Palm Springs
International Airport Master Plan indicates that the noise levels around the airport will
actually decrease over time due to new, quieter jet technology and the reduction of
evening flights. The EIR prepared for the project concluded that, "...there are no site
constraints to the project from the nearby airport operation."
The project being contemplated is a commercial development only and is located at the
intersection of two major thoroughfares (Highway 111 and Ramon Road), which has the
highest traffic volume of any intersection of the city. According to the discussion
regarding noise impacts in the project's EIR, the existing CNEL levels range from 60 dB
along the northern boundary to around 70 dB near Ramon Road. Therefore, the
existing ambient noise levels average 65 dB without the project. The noise study
prepared for the project also showed that with the implementation of the project, noise
Levels 50 feet from the centerline of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon Road will exceed 70
decibels. Given the existing and future ambient noise conditions and the commercial
nature of the project, the override of the RCALUCP for The Springs Commercial Center
is consistent with the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise
;standards. In addition, an avigation easement is required for the development, the
buildings must be constructed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, and the
development of the site as a commercial project would prevent residential development
from occurring close to the airport.
SECTION 4: Based on the above findings, the City Council hereby overrides the
Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the project located at the
northeast corner of Highway 111 (Gene Autry Trail) and Ramon Road.
ADOPTED THIS day of May, 2006.
David H. Ready, City Manager
ATTEST:
James Thompson, City Clerk
Resolution No.
Page 5
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
i.1P�r*r
CHAPTER 3 INDIVIDUAL AIRPORT POLICIES AND COMPATIBILITY MAPS
PS. PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
PSA Compatibility Map Delineation
1.1 Airpoz2 Master Plan Status: The Airport Master Plan adopted by the Palm Springs City
Council in 2002 is the basis for the Compatibility Plan.
1.2 Airfield Con zgazration: Establishment of a precision instrument approach procedure
on Runway 31L is proposed, but no other runway system changes are indicated in
the Master Plan.
1.3 Airport Activity: Despite a projected increase from 109,500 aircraft operations in
2002 to 170,260 in 2020, the Master Plan anticipates Pahn Springs International
Airport noise contours to slightly shrink in most locations. This impact reduction
reflects the reduced single-event noise levels produced by the aircraft that will
make up the future fleet mix at the airport compared to those operating there to-
day. For the purposes of the Compatibility Plan, a composite of the 2002 and 2020
noise contours is used.
1.4 Airport Inflnezrre Area: The locations of the standard flight paths flown by aircraft
approaching and departing the airport are the primary factors defining the influ-
ence area for Palm Springs International Airport. Close-in areas west of the airport
are affected by sideline noise,but the more distant areas are seldom overflown and
thus are excluded from the airport influence area.
PS.2 Additional Compatibility Policies
2.1 Noire Exposure in Residential Areas: The limit of 60 dB CNEL set by Countywide
Policy 4.1.4 as the maximum noise exposure considered normally acceptable for
new residential land uses shall not be applied to the environs of Palm Springs In-
ternational Airport. For this airport, the criterion shall instead be 62 dB CNEL.
This higher threshold takes into account the ambient noise conditions in the area
and also the coininunity's long-standing exposure to the noise of airline aircraft op-
erations. Dwellings may require incorporation of special noise level reduction
measures into their design to ensure that the interior noise limit of 45 dB CNEL
(Countywide Policy 4.1.6) is not exceeded.
2.2 Zone C Residential Densities: The criteria set forth in Countywide Policy 3.1.3(a) and
the Basic Compatibility Criteria matrix (Table 2A) notwithstanding, residential den-
sities in Zone C northwest of the airport shall either be kept to a very low density
of no more than 0.2 dwelling units per acre as indicated in the table or be in the
range of 3.0 to 15.0 dwelling units per acre. The choice between these two options
is at the discretion of the City of Palm Springs, the only affected land use jurisdic-
tions. (Criteria for Zone C southeast of the airport remain as indicated in Table
2A.)
2.3 Zone D Residential Densities: The criteria set forth in Countywide Policy 3.1.3(b) and
the Basic Compatibility Criteria matrix (Table 2A) notwithstanding, the high-
density option for Compatibility Zone D at Palen Springs International Airport shall
3-26 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document(Adopted March 2005)
INDIVIDUAL AIRPORT POLICIES AND COMPATIBILITY MAPS CHAPTER 3
allow residential densities as low as 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre to the extent
that such densities are typical of existing (as of the adoption date of this plan) resi-
dential development in nearby areas of the community.
2.4 Soutbeast Indnstiiall Consmercial Area: Within the areas designated by a (1) and a (2)
on the Palm Springs International Airport Compatibility Map, the following usage
intensity criteria shall apply:
(a) In Couepatibility Zone B 1:
(1) An average of up to 40 people per acre shall be allowed on a site and up to
80 people shall be allowed to occupy any single acre of the site.
(2) If the percentage of qualifying open land on the site (see Countywide Pol-
icy 4.2.4) is increased from 30% to at least 35%, the site shall be allowed
to have an average of up to 45 people per acre and any single acre shall be
allowed to have up 90 people per acre.
(3) If the percentage of qualifying open land on the site is increased to 40% or
more, the site shall be allowed to have an average of up to 50 people per
acre and any single acre shall be allowed to have up 100 people per acre.
(b) In Cooafiatibilzt i Zone C.-
(1) An average of up to 80 people per acre shall be allowed on a site and up to
160 people shall be allowed to occupy any single acre of the site.
(2) If the percentage of qualifying open land on the site is increased from 20%
to at least 25%, the site shall be allowed to have an average of up to 90
people per acre and any single acre shall be allowed to have up 180 people
per acre
(3) If the percentage of qualifying open land on the site is increased to 30% or
more, the site shall be allowed to have an average of up to 100 people per
acre and any single acre shall be allowed to have up 200 people per acre.
(c) To the extent feasible, open land should be situated along the extended run-
way ccn terhnes or other primary flight tracks.
(d) The above bonuses for extra open land on a site are in addition to the inten-
sity bonuses for risk-reduction building design indicated in Table 2A. In both
cases, incorporation of the features necessary to warrant the intensity bonuses
is at tlic option of the City of Pahn Springs and the project proponents and is
not required by ALUC policy.
(e) The Ililcnslty bonuses for extra open land provided here are judged to repre-
sent a balance between the ALUC objective of enhancing safety in the airport
environs and needs of the community for more intensive development of the
area Involved. The resulting intensities remain consistent with the guidelines
set in the Calzfbinia Airport Land Use Planning Handbook given the character of
the airport activity and the surrounding community.
2.5 E4anded Buyer Awareness Measures: In addition to the requirements for avigation
easement dedication or deed notification as indicated in Table 2A, any new single-
Riverside County Airport Land Use Com{: I%bdrty Plan Policy Document(Adopted March 2005) 3-27
CHAPTER 3 INDIVIDUAL AIRPORT POLICIES AND COMPATIBILITY MAPS
family or multi-family residential development proposed for construction anywhere
within the Palm Springs International Airport influence area, except for Covatibil-
io Zone E, shall include the following measures intended to ensure that prospective
buyers or renters are informed about the presence of aircraft overflights of the
property.
(a) During uutial sales of properties within newly created subdivisions, large air-
port-related informational signs shall be installed and maintained by the devel-
oper. These signs shall be installed in conspicuous locations and shall clearly
depict the proxniuty of the property to the airport and aircraft traffic patterns.
(b) An informational brochure shall be provided to prospective buyers or renters
showing the locations of aircraft flight patterns. The frequency of overflights,
the typical altitudes of the aircraft, and the range of noise levels that can be
expected from individual aircraft overflights shall be described.
3-213 Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document(Adopted March 2005)
INONIOVAL AIPPoRT POLICIES Al p COMPATIOUTY MAPS CH Ell
I t q
;� -��r�� Legend
Compatibility Zones
Alryoa lMlueam Area Boundn,
Zone
Zone Bt
ib. £f' Helohl RaaiawO adayZone
-
_'�. Boundary tines
" /t AIrPaR Peapany Una
—GiN 0m1b
ti� r y. Notes
-- -1 2 - �, Y 71 l sn\.. -
an a mansions mauurea loam NnN
ai ends aai
t I� eemennee
1 1 '7 Vl 1A �� pT=BSPu mm osa ennla
\ t
G ry S , Sea caplerP Table 211orcompabbiLy omens
{, i {� \\y X��li2S � I'S � �§ I OSee POIry P921
y:.YN�a ._x
A - I•-emu-1i i " "fi- �7 -.F-.• \
�— � ii tier✓k h1 I-
sail
w
i
Riverside County r *-� '"13 �M1��✓k.`�
{ _ a F S\ 4 S"-" ty
Ly - q _ i �' s Airport Land Use Commission
. I Riverside County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
{- - � Policy Document
(aaoptea Mann zaosl
Map PS-1
a am
_
Compatibility Map
N a Palm Springs International Airport
is�
OBSTRUCTION TABLE OBSTRUCTION TABLE OBSTRUCTION TABLE OBSTRUCTION LEGEND
oep=t oek=[ ae.ewmee Ro=. asy+ Go m ogml oek=i Ya.erv=Im surcoo. o prmm oek=t Ye.wcm surteu m
Omerl Y EleM7— PaK]]Srt(ott EI•w[lon Pmebo[I=n W 015=flllm Yyerl[I=n Elrv�len Pert]]SURoe. Elne[I=n Pn.4NNbC Ca.u'm
p mttbn Yeavpl Ilm pwollm Porl]]Surtoee Ele�ollm pMeVet[Im PL OlmolUan C9ElRUCTCN
v u n ®CNOYp ar NIATPLE O85lItUCPgIS
r= a. ' r 1[IPIXyinpNlC WSIkYCTYN
aaa wiu as • •e wv.r ;w a'= r' m , nWu[mnr mu tt x m wnira¢ au —A—MY
axin-& 1.
nr Irmo' ii a( ma w+[imTnihnn ,e m vwu —
n � r _ ev'Nv��menvrr^,+:M..rw i+wnnr
www tw:m unrrn . �+I..rrmmwmxonmr
mMZ�v{ri(nM uaw u, ain r ,n Y� [mw[ •�tlw eeMw x•aifxc tt'nm ,ti'=v
w v a �[ .[[SM�Su uinia nr r�t'aa�iS�Lrnsw.may'j��wm Yr
''�" � "•.'1.'�/:�r"'�".w"'rwN"in..+arvn�i.a v`.mn
t � _ Y f• '.. � �/ .f\ a�mtx rnmo M1 �/, \ / � _ / / y ice'.
V .U�l� %�. 'h /� l\ -� —P�✓--v 5rf : y f - ! 4 `Y{y - iA'{y�4 f\
�.PM j6 t,I s. vs
Ma
J J / / F// { Y 1✓ h'.:vas.va _\ i �. ew �v"" ""` yY'R ,� 1 T.!?ri`� Y J-7
�, �` �'�4 I l S y y -. ✓` �„ .tr. .�.k�>�,, l'n✓r
,-
'/ '
L 1�, t
d a a- -
f N`� �,j� ��� "''v'`.tst� ; Y'#��y�asti�s�� .y '`y,p,�/.°�^tT�}s�--.,. •�� - , ,r�.nt�rr - - �..t �-� �&�\
1 �'��' �-'�'r��-a.+.�" y-''z-`-.� --a•�L' a��-/� i- - I`� 5G�42/ 'L`a'e`,�".q•� �y� �' �#b r�-.- Tas"*S'. ,�" - }-. --+� 5
s .i `ir^•�P yY 1`. §/� -4Y _ a5J t f3"i § '(, { { n r 'r. r/I '` Y ;};' 1^_1st. '! `v
a
• 2 F,*y6x Kt "m, i t "INTER
K{ 4 £�k � ��a""/ �1�" F 'f G } ] y t� 1 &� S PALM SPRINGS INIERNAIIGNAL AIRPORT
S
'41
PART 77 AIRSPACE DRAWING
#{'�'. [ q, ;. i✓ a] ,.r' r Y� L� Yl { Z ) k}�" ~ y , "e, AtlOptltl by ALUC PALM SPRINGS CAUFGRNIF
'�'? ,i,R,.- F>` -. F ✓ x r./ 67,':t_a 3''...% - x`ecpm .s ^rs�rnrs"xsaaus�•_",emm.?STr
Map PS-2
4"�
INDIVIDUAL AIRPORT POLICIES AND COMPATIBILITY MAPS CHAPTERS
fifil,-U
E
L
N Off,
10
ffp,9
L
ITT ig MIM FN 71
WN,
� . W, s.
MEE
7
70
65 N
"R 3 F1 yFamuqvl, !,17bill 60
TIPiID"I<AFe Fed C,
I Ar
MUM,
I PHI-1, 1 1-11 BRIM.
ffl 3 -z
[vA -�7
It
L44 .
5 17-M 1ER
Limp
MI&
Hall
L4
,,9-A----'IL I
Tri
E,SIR.-
-----------
NMI
WIN F.A I TlLc,.Tl
4,000-
0
FEET 8.000,
2002 [2020
Note.
Annual Operations 109,500 Annual Operations 170,260 Contours shown represent composite
3
Average Annual Day 04 Average Annual Day 473
of 2002 and 2020 contours.
Source.Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan Study(May 2003)
Map PS-3
Noise Compatibility Contours
Palm Springs International
Riverside CountYAlrPon'Land Use Compatibility Plan Policy Document (Adopted March 2005) 3-29
E7
Background Data:
Palm Springs International Airport
and Environs
INTRODUCTION
Palm Springs International Airport, the sole air carrier airport in Riverside County, provides both
scheduled airline and general aviation access to the Coachella Valley and surrounding desert region.
Airlines serving the airport provide nonstop service all along the west coast, including Canada, and as
far east as Chicago. In 2002,almost 1.3 million enplaning and deplaning passengers passed through the
airport. Together with general aviation activity, total aircraft operations reached nearly 110,000. Some
127 general aviation aircraft are based at the airport.
A new Master Plan, adopted by the Palm Springs City Council in May 2003, envisions continued
growth of the airport. Total airline passengers are projected to reach 2.7 million in 2020, over double
the present passenger volume. Aircraft operations and based aircraft are both expected nearly double,
reaching 170,000 and 220, respectively. To accommodate this growth, major improvements to the air-
line terminal and construction of new general aviation aircraft hangars are planned. Establishment of a
Precision instrument approach procedure from the south is proposed, but no physical changes to the
runway system are included in the plan.
From a land use compatibility perspective, the projected increases in airport activity might be expected
to result in greater impacts. However, airline and corporate jets are the major source of current noise
impacts and these aircraft will get quieter as newer models are added to the airline and general aviation
fleets. The effect on Pahn Springs International Airport noise impacts is that the long-range (2022)
noise contours are expected to be slightly smaller than the present contours despite the projected activ-
ity growth. The larger, current contours are therefore used for compatibility planning purposes.
Lands in the immediate vicinity of the airport are heavily urbanized. Residential uses predominate to
the north and industrial uses to the south. Except for additional industrial development planned along
the airport's northeast side and as infill to the south,most opportunities for new land use development
are two miles or more distant.
Information about the airport and its surroundings is summarized on the following pages. Exhibits
PS-1 through PS-7 focus on the airport's features, activity, and noise impacts. Current and planned
land uses are described in the tables and maps presented in Exhibits PS-8 through PS-10.
Riverside County ALUCP—East County Airports Background Data (March 2005) E7-1
CHAPTER E7 BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
GENERAL INFORMATION AIRPORT PLANNING DOCUMENTS
. Airport Ownership: City of Palm Springs . Airport Master Plan
. year Opened., 1939 >Adopted by City Council,May 2003
. Property Size . Airport Layout Plan Drawing
> Fee title: 932 acres > Last updated,May 2003
>Avigation easements: 16 acres > FAR Part 150 Airport Noise Compatibility Program
.Airport Classification: Primary Commercial Service > Approved by FAA,June 1994
> Airport Elevation: 474 feet MSL
I1UNWAY/TAxrmAY DESIGN TRAFFIC PATTERNS AND APPROACH PROCEDURES
Runway 13R-31L . Airplane Traffic Patterns
. Critical Aircraft., DC-10,B-747 > Runways 13L,13R: Left traffic
. Airport Reference Code: D-IV > Runways 31 L.31 R: Right traffic
. Dimensions: 10,000 ft.long,150 ft.wide > Pattern Altitude: 1,000 ft.AGL small aircraft,1,500 ft.
> Runway 13R end displaced 3,000 ft. AGL others
> Runway 31 L end displaced 1,500 ft. . Instrument Approach Procedures(lowest minimums)
. Pavement Strength: (main landing gear configuration) > Runway 31 L VOR or GPS-B
> 105,000 Ibs(single wheel) • Circling (1 Yn mile visibility, 1,900 ft.descent height)
> 200,000 Ibs (dual wheel) . Standard InsL Departure Procedures(initial direction)
>330,000 Ibs (dual-tandem wheel) > Runways 13L/R: Climbing left turn to 040°
>800,000Ibs (double-dual-tandem-wheel) > Runways 31LJR: Climbing right turn
.Average Gradient., 0.8%(rising to north) . Visual Approach Aids
. Runway Lighting: High-intensity edge lights(HIRL) > Runway 13R: VASI (3.0°);REIL
. Primary Taxiways: Full-length parallel on both sides > Runway 31 L: PAPI (3.0°);REIL
> Runway 13L: PAPI (3.5°);REIL
Runway 13L-31R > Runway 31 R: PAPI (3.5°);REIL
. Critical Aircraft., Medium twin . Operational Restrictions/Noise Abatement Procedures
. Airport Reference Code: B-II > Calm winds: Use Runway 13
. Dimensions: 4,952 ft.long,75 ft.wide > Noise-sensitive area all quadrants; use quiet flight pro-
Pavement Strength: (main landing gear configuration) cedures
> 12,500 lbs(single wheel) > Runways 13R,31 Lthresholds displaced for noise
> 60,000 Ibs(dual wheel) abatement
.Average Gradient., 0.9%(rising to north)
. Runway Lighting: Medium-intensity edge lights(MIRL) APPROACH PROTECTION
• Primary Taxiways: Full-length parallel on east side . Runway Protection Zones(RPZ)
> Rwys 13L,31 R: 1,000 ft.long;all on airport property
> Runway 13R: 1,700 ft.;most on airport
> Runway 31 L: 1,700 ft.;Yz on airport
. Approach Obstacles
> Runway 13R: None close in;distant rising terrain
> Runway 31 L: None close in;distant rising terrain
BUILDING AREA PLANNED FACILITY IMPROVEMENTS
n Location: South side and northwest along property line . Airfield
i. Aircraft Parking Capacity > Add approach light system to Runway 31 L
> Hangar spaces: 75(includes FBO,Skywest hangars) > Establish Rwy 31L Cat.I precision inst.approach
>Tiedowns: 90 . Building Area
>. Other Major Facilities > Replace air traffic control tower
>Air traffic control tower > Expand terminal apron
> Pilots lounge . Property
> Services > No planned acquisition
> Fuel: 1 WILL,Jet A(via truck,6:00 a.m.to 10:00 p.m.)
> Commercial airline service
> Other: Aircraft rental&instruction;aircraft mainte-
nance&modification;sightseeing tours
Exhibit PS-1
Airport Features Summary
Pallm Springs International Airport
E7-2 Riverside County ALUCP—East County Airports Background Data (March 2005)
y 1f)n4W1
-- ------ -- -- - --- - — - - -
ir
�. a
all
7n
r j �
Z
EXISM60111LPWRaIFACIgTrb OLTIMA ENLOING IFACILfiIEB k F
n~� r}�yn= e TZ TL�V _ - u> 4 >•.,,.,.rm as vs nos vn
-G € _ COfJS.i24 iYeilil0i ____
____ __- mx.tea..,,. - :,-is"_r="-'.T` -y'-,'".""='"`w_--_------ _ _- _ .m.:.a r.wx,•.. a s- City of
?'=:—-- =;_:T°r= ." o..r'1�•,•,'Aya•,"r U r Palm Springs,CaMoma
LEGEND FL
RIME
PALM SPPINGB•INiERNATIIXlAL AIRPORT
""- '" "--- _ - - AIRPORT LAYOUT DRAWING
_
-..�n_._.L—L`m_e—_..-sv_m_:n_gam_..?J_n_ml__—________ -_—rur_a�r�vvnmv:e.-_ —__—_—_._____ —n_._:e_>__-.__- -N' N—,w_-"F_._r_.:___a�._.e_-•�,x Ya-n'u vr��u_��__:ej
_Lim uP�rx"rv-x. �k-fi.;:.'x-i�ew..w_,�xe,d:�:.�^',�'�;:�'t'�'rza'.�-ter.-ry.l_",;;z a• __ -----_- a CALEORNU
ldi
I ir associates
•- 2 n•72
J r_
Fxhlbit PS-2
G3
BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER E7
(BASED AIRCRAFT TIME OF DAY DISTRIBUTION
Current a Future b Current ` Future b
2002 data 2025 Airline
Aircraft Type Day 77% 76%
Single-Engine 99 152 Evening 140/ 19%
Twin-Engine Piston 20 35 Night 9% 5%
Turboprop 4 18 Other Airplanes
Turbojet 2 11 Day 78% no
Helicopters 2 1 Evening 15% change
Total 127 220 Night 7%
Helicopters
AIRLINEACTIYITy Day 81% no
Current a Future b Evening 15% 'change
2002 data 2025 Night 4%
Enplaned Passengers 642,458 1,350,000
Air Carrier Operations 35,786 56,460 RUNWAY USE DISTRIBUTION
— Current ° Future
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS General Aviation,Local
Current a Future b Takeoffs&Landings
2002 data 2025 Runway 13L 35% no
Total Runway3lR 65% change
Annual 109,544 170,260 Runway 13R 0%
Average Day 304 473 Runway 31 L 0%
General Aviation,Itinerant
Distribution by Aircraft Type Takeoffs&Landings
Single-Engine 51% 49% Runway 13L 17% no
Twin-Engine Runway 31 R 32% change
Piston&Turboprop 4% 5% Runway 13R 18%
Business Jet 8% 11% Runway 31 L 33%
Helicopter 2% 3% Business Jet&Commuter Airline
Airline,Jet&Turboprop 35% 32% Takeoffs&Landings
Runwayl31- 4% no
Distribution by Type of Operation Runway31R 5% change
Local 140/. 14% Runway13R 32%
(incl.touch-and-goes) Runway 31 L 60%
Itinerant 86% 86% Air Carrier
Takeoffs&Landings
Runway13L 0% no
Runway311R 0% change
Runway 13R 35%
Runway31L 65%
FLIGHT TRACK USAGE
Current and Future
• Approaches generally straight-in except for tough-and-go
. Departures turn eastward to avoid residential areas and
San Jacinto Mountains
Motes
a Source: Airport management records
b Source: 2003 Airport Master Plan forecast for 2020 assumed as 2025 for compatibility planning purposes
Source: 2003 Airport Master Plan estimates
Exhibit PS-3
Airport Activity Data Summary
Palm Springs International Airport
Riverside County ALUCP—East County Airports Background Data (March 2005) E7-3
CWU-TERE7 BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
E
I------ L
C Sao
'kk jfi I_N=f ", �7 .......
1 Ass
R.
jr
OR Ne. M
$ IN W,
"Towns,
hm
f IA
911 � I --a--L -
Ing
65 C
C ELjj
ULM=
PiTF
t IM 60C
LL" -EPH
IRA
- r� - : � ,
M
rr
L ER
K I! R'
I'M
'AMIL
11111MMI RUN' jF
-1 HIM Lim 11111
IM
ll whi ""m f
Z2 r
03
U Zg�
MHO R cIT*nm
LI-TA.
pf"'Ib?
V"
I U! [IrUd IF
E [2002 4,009
n A ual Operations 109,500
Average
verage Annual Day 304
N 0 FEET 8,000.
Source.,Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan(May 2003)
Exhibit PS-4
Existing Noise Impacts
Palm Springs International
ETA RIverside CountyALUCP—East County Airports Background Data(March 2005)
BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORTAND ENVIRONS CHAPTER E7
m ,
FIRM
- n -a -
- - - - - -
I''" :♦ffH` i�.n3a� 1 J� I td� � h� I dA lull lElEfAlln P�+M BYi>fl'iF1�611 _
IIFna-
iy Y 1 F.,l SUi ?c�.. �. F 3flJC �� IJ'� ' � � •i�yy�lli L'11111E�F'J!�-0GTJO�# 'L�t���`'E'�II� IppILWI
�'_L� JJ d3 }ila a., '�It� I J;_ mra Ik i 1]IiE4�fl.➢ 4 .uu �g
UPI TEIir 1vRi l+5f J Lf .i +� '—t� IMIIA4"�"5�Es�r
I� IMIFbt� ftl� Mc
� w`lMAF
L f
W` i t (�uli,U1W3 _
65 N
60
3i �� r ". JfllF9¢ullWLk�e�HltilllCticl � —ti. - amGl m � CBL
13
PT
TZ
- 'I RaiF6'JIlu� r'imTilml
W,
,f, 0."dP'mRRI �HffI' _ (i'H3V ��I�ov�ib3uolc'L�w -] r r f �' e S�
"Tm
9 I��nar:
6E Uoil] MEL
VE,. IHAYI 21
�r�. -
e 2025 4,000'
Annual Operations 170,300 1
Average Annual Day 473 A
N 0 FEET 8,000,
� Source:Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan(May2003)
a
Exhibit PS-5
Future Noise Impacts
Palm Springs International
Riverside CountyALUCP—East County Airports Background Data(March 20o5) E7-5
CH.aPTER E7 BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
I I
I / \
_ ----- Airport Property Line
E -- — Arrivals 8.000,
Departures ,
--—— Touch and Go
N 0 FEET 16,000'
a
Source:Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan(May 2003)
Exhibit PS-6
Modeled Flight Tracks
Palm Springs International Airport
E7—fi Riverside CountyALUCP—East County Airports Background Data(March 2005)
BACKGROUND DATA'PALMS SPRINGS INTERNATONALARROMAND tWIRONS CIA&P,,ERE,
Legend
v
J
Compatibility Zones
ZDu.A g
r"I I Znr,El
so a
a Ba
—T C
ir.D
&.E
%
j ight C..p.1rcifty,Factors
Noise and Overflight
A 7-R' "L p- R" ) 12ITS and"lufture
K" ::--6101dB10NF1L Avrm,a Aar.N!0,
S
a 55 us CNEL Contour Not SlRNa
T -Al Gaa.DI Traft Pat..Eaviu.p.
N-Ls f (approxon tely80%oforcraftoverRighis
SaFety,and Airspace CompatopUlfty Factors
i LIM
I Airlart Orlan.n.Ara.darn RNI,Intanot,C.nD.D•
SHIM—RA"'WER0 F (Sh.n.,I,for T�aoffa to IS N.rftmal)
—Aa I AirarnItAppmea AccrecatiFiskintenotCwtou,
Se
e RE and.n1a from the SnuilvDtl;Wiftful
(Shatrai only for
j, 1,500 foot to raftat d,TuD,cl thI, man
- --------PAR Pan T Coalcal Surface LI
Ito—
Cur
U
Tomain Perinnuiron of PAR Pan Surfaces
PR
Boundary 1-ines
Afi,,oq F.,Rq Una
———enure
It'
t� Si
0 1171g rT Aimmft a0cident not,Intnut,contours am demetl from
a—v ralio�jda accident fc,aGlan data in California Drinvon of
;1, z�'��Or Q1 Ro,�'Ra Rd Aemneudw database.�C0nI0uR rhOW MIRVB
ritormiloo;(highostoomentralions)ofnRm.amcnxcfidenls
-LI
eenere
L 'D aV,haa DLT mou,fladlomr1aOlm akmrN,.I
nt
W�n�M �'z
Riverside County
D
Airport Land Use Commission
to Riverside County
ez,-MM
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
R cc
East County Airports Background Data
(March 205)
ahlbit PS-7
Compatibility Factors Map
1 0 1
Palm Springs International Airport
R
F-�7W,"PT17
BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER E7
This page intentionally blank
Riverside County ALUCP—East County Airports Background Data (March 2005) E7-7
` j/.
CHAPTER E7 BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
AIRPORT SITE AIRPORT ENVIRONS LAND USE JURISDICTIONS
> Location > County of Riverside
> Central Riverside County > Nearest unincorporated area 21/2 miles north
> Eastern edge of city;2 miles from Palm Springs central > City of Cathedral City
business district > City limits within'/C mile east of airport and 2 miles
. Nearby Terrain southeast(along runway approach)
> Flat floor of Coachella Valley in immediate vicinity;air- > City of Palm Springs
port elevation 474 ft.MSL >Airport entirely within the city limits
> Murray Hill(elevation 2,210 ft.)4±miles south > City of Rancho Mirage
> Base of San Jacinto Mountains 3 miles west;Mt.San > City limits 3±miles southeast along future precision in-
Jacinto peak(elevation 10,804 ft.)10±miles west strument approach route
STATUS OF COMMUNITY PLANS
> City of Cathedral City
> General plan adopted July 2002
> City of Palm Springs
> General Plan adopted March 1993
> City of Rancho Mirage
> General Plan adopted 1996
EXISTING AIRPORT AREA LAND USES PLANNED AIRPORT AREA LAND USES
.. General Character . City of Cathedral City
> Mostly urban uses,particularly residential,except un- > Southeast: Mostly existing resort/low-density residen-
developed desert land to northeast and southeast tial and open space;scattered commercial uses
I. Runway Approaches . City of Palm Springs
> Northwest(Runways 13R/L): Residential within 1/2 mile > North: Industrial uses bordering airport property;exist-
of Rwy 13R end(landing threshold displaced 3,000 ft.); ing low-density residential beyond
religious facility 4,000±ft.from runway end;desert be- > East: Industrial uses adjacent to airport
yond 1 Y2 mile > Southeast: Large industrial area off runway ends
>Southeast(Runways 31 R/L): Generally undeveloped > South and West: Infill of existing urban uses
desert within 1%miles,except some commercial/in- > City of Rancho Mirage
dustrial uses within 1A mile of Rwy 31 L end (landing >West of Hwy 111 beneath future ILS approach corri-
threshold displaced 1,500 ft.);urban residential and dor: Infill commercial and industrial uses
golf courses beyond 11/2 mile
I. Traffic Patterns
> Northeast: Whitewater River Storm Channel(1 mile
distant);residential and golf course beyond
> No pattern on southwest
ESTABLISHED AIRPORT COMPATIBILITY MEASURES
> City of Cathedral City General Plan > City of Palm Springs General Plan
>Single-family residential conditionally acceptable > Residential uses normally acceptable between 60 and
within 55-CNEL contour;normally unacceptable within 70 CNEL; rural/low-density residential clearly unac-
70-CNEL contour ceptable above 70-CNEL;medium-to high-density
> Multi-family residences and other noise-sensitive de- residential normally unacceptable between 70 and 75
velopment conditionally acceptable within 60 CNEL CNEL and clearly unacceptable above 75 CNEL
noise contour and normally unacceptable above 70 > City of Palm Springs Zoning Codes
CNEL > Within Airport(A)zone,height of structures limited to
30 feet;soundproofing and avigation easement guide-
lines established
> No airport-related height limit zoning
. City of Rancho Mirage General Plan
> Residential and other noise-sensitive uses condition-
ally acceptable below 55 CNEL;generally unaccept-
able above 65 CNEL
Exhibit PS-8
Airport Environs Information
Pahn Springs International Airport
E7—�13 Riverside County ALUCP—East County Airports Background Data IMarch2005)
I lfi1�C��
eACKORCUNODATA PALM SPFINGS IMERNARCIal AtRPORr AND ENVIRONS CHAPPER ET
_ ) Legend
ir, w- I��♦ ., l y- A 'CryLimns
...r \ W V'F read Property Line i
NRumvay
Compatibility zones
Verry,Hrgh DemsM1y Resdenlal(>20 du/ac)
I H gM1 Dans ty Res tlent al(141 20 dulac)
"f.b yAO Mad um H gM1 Dens ry Residential(81 140 dµrac)
P T _ :i Metlum Dens IS Restlenlal(5180 on/ac)
'raj "Low Density Res tlenl al(2150 tlWac)
Very Low Density Residential()420 tlulac)
V�- Y DI B+ ' .+ I ;fit klP -Moblle Home Park
Ig+ 4t a y ^Hgh lntensry,COmmerc al1011'ce
L �s ®Low lntensry Gommerc al lodce
.. DllcelRmmors Park
'ems ra hD J 3Y- `Heavy Industrial
wriLight lonsio al/Warehous ng
'�r Mwad use
Airport
r tall School
lam
r` Olhel public/Insl Wlanel
- �M Parks 6 Recreation
.'i Rural Restlental(25100acparceis)
�` ure(>io o ec parcels)
Open S
Open Sp aae/Conservatlon
IMM Federal Lands
State Lands
Indian Lands
DUnclovered
_ h
roes scombined andsimplified
he
on of the fallibi sources
F ® I Riverside County General Plan(October 2003)
�It 7' � City y02)of Cathedral City General Plan(Ju20
Z - i l CIry of Palm Springs General Plan(March 1993)
j C 1 . i City of Rancho Mirage(1998)
wil
a-� 3 L -1k kr �C
4000 0 4000 Feet
Y
Riverside County
I I Airport Land Use Commission
D
A Riverside County
Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan
D? ` M1 a �. � � East County Airports Background Data
(March 2005)
4 -.
Exhibti PS-9
General Plan Land Use Designations
Palm Springs International Airport Environs
BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER E7
CITY OF CATHEDRAL CITY:
GENERAL PLAN(2002)
Residential Land Use Non-Residential Land Use
> Compatibility Zone . Compatibility Zone D
> Residential designations with densities ranging from >Zone D intensity limits(100 people/acre)apply to
2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units/acre and 5.1 to 8.0 dwelling areas designated as Low-Intensity Commercial/Office
units/acre conflict with Zone C compatibility criteria south-southeast of airport[C3]
south-southeast of airport[Cl]
. Compatibility Zone D
>Residential designations with densities ranging from
2.1 to 5.0 dwelling units/acre 5.1 to 8.0 dwelling
units/acre east and southeast of airport potentially
conflict with the high-and-low options of Zone D [C2]
Other Policies
. General Plan
> No acknowledgement of ALUC coordination
> Noise policy allowing up to 70 dB CNEL for residential
development conflicts with Compatibility Plan limit of
60 dB CNEL
. Zoning Codes
> No airport-related height limit zoning established
Note:This is an initial land use consistency review prepared for the purpose of identifying areas where a conflict exists or
potentially exists with ALUC compatibility zone criteria. This review is based upon available general plan documents and
does not take into account existing land use. When a conflict between the general plan and compatibility criteria exists,it is
not deemed inconsistent when the general plan is merely representing existing development. A more comprehensive
analysis is necessary at the time a general plan land modification is presented to the ALUC for review.
Exhibit PS-10
General Plan Consistency Review (Preliminary)
Palm Springs International Airport Environs
Riverside County ALUCP—East County Airports Background Data(March 2005) E7-9
c�
CHAPTER E7 BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS:
GENERAL PLAN(1993),AND ZONING CODES
Residential Land Use Non-Residential Land Use
Compatibility Zone B1 . Compatibility Zone A
> Residential development within this zone is existing > Light Industrial/Warehousing designation at the
and therefore not in conflict with the ALUCP northern edge of airport and Other Public/Institutional
. Compatibility Zone C designation at the southern edge of the airport conflict
> Planned residential development in these areas north with Zone A compatibility criteria;no structures are
of airport are consistent with Policy PS.2.2 which allowed in Zone A[P3]
allows residential densities of either less than 0.2 du/ac > Compatibility Zone B1
or between 3.0 and 15.0 du/ac[P1 a] > Basic Zone B1 intensity limits(25 people/acre)apply
> Residential designations with densities ranging from to areas designated as Light Industrial Warehousing at
2.1 to 5.0 du/acre southeast of airport are consistent the north-western edge of the airport[P4]
with Policy PS.2.2[P1 b] >Within the designated portion of Zone B1,Policy
> Compatibility Zone D PS.2.4(a)permits usage intensities of 40 to 50 people
> Planned residential development in these areas are per acre depending upon the amount of open land on
consistent with Policy PS.2.3 which allows residential the site. Most of the Light Industrial/Warehousing
densities of either less than 0.2 du/ac or at least 3.0 uses planned for this area are expected to be
du/ac[P2] consistent with these criteria,but specific higher-
• Compatibility Zone E intensity uses such as retail stores may not be[P5]
> No inconsistencies noted > Compatibility Zone C
> Planned Light Industrial Warehousing on the north
Other Policies side of the airport are assumed to be consistent with
. General Plan the basic intensity limit of 75 people/acre;high-
> No acknowledgment of ALUC coordination intensity uses must be prevented,however[P6]
> Noise policy allows residential development up to 70 >Within the designated portion of Zone C,Policy
dB CNEL conflicts with Compatibility Plan limit of 60 PS.2.4(b) permits usage intensities of 80 tol00 people
dB CNEL per acre depending upon the amount of open land on
> Zoning Codes the site. Most of the Light Industrial/Warehousing
>No height limit zoning established uses planned for this area are expected to be
consistent with these criteria,but specific higher-
intensity uses such as retail stores may not be [P7]
> Compatibility Zone
> Basic intensity limit in Zone D is 100 people/acre.
Most of the Light Industrial/Warehousing uses
planned for this area are expected to be consistent
with these criteria,but specific higher-intensity uses
such as retail stores may not be[P8]
> Compatibility Zone
> No inconsistencies noted
Note.,This is an initial land use consistency review prepared for the purpose of identifying areas where a conflict exists or
potentially exists with ALUC compatibility zone criteria. This review is based upon available general plan documents and
does not take into account existing land use. When a conflict between the general plan and compatibility criteria exists,it is
not deemed inconsistent when the general plan is merely representing existing development. A more comprehensive
analysis is necessary at the time a general plan land modification is presented to the ALUC for review.
Exhibit PS-10, continued
E7-10 Riverside County ALUCP—East County Airports Background Data(March 2005)
6 oy
l_
BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS CHAPTER E7
CITY OF RANCHO MIRAGE:
GENERAL PLAN(1998)
IVon-Residential Land Use Other Policies
. Compatibility Zone E . General Plan
> No inconsistencies noted > No acknowledgement of ALUC coordination
> Noise policy conditional acceptance of up to 65 dB
CNEL for residential development conflicts with
Compatibility Plan limit of 60 dB CNEL
. Zoning Codes
> No airport-related height limit zoning established
(Vote:This is an initial land use consistency review prepared for the purpose of identifying areas where a conflict exists or
potentially exists with ALUC compatibility zone criteria. This review is based upon available general plan documents and
does not take into account existing land use. When a conflict between the general plan and compatibility criteria exists,it is
not deemed inconsistent when the general plan is merely representing existing development. A more comprehensive
analysis is necessary at the time a general plan land modification is presented to the ALUC for review.
Exhibit PS-10, continued
Riverside County ALUCP—East County Airports Background Data (March 2005) E7-11
V_V-7t)(0)
A.
CHAPTER E7 BACKGROUND DATA: PALM SPRINGS INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AND ENVIRONS
_ r �
l I
P2 -- - �- 4 -- -- -
>� k
1
> I
�mY�
z - �
Y t
u III\\
P6el [ RIIIOm If BLS lil �����
x1
1011
L J
{. r m,
trclt
ij
r,�
ICI � �-j l 1 + ICI Jt'�.�� - it 'k C�• I_A t I� k,dF e
THE
� I�! k
kg II �� III P7 r_
p
e I r Ik1iI ii Iz f �i q'p
N � T
°v Legend
e� Inconsistent 5,000'
tt7 Potentially Inconsistent
s �� Consistent as Noted in Table N 0 ET 10,000,
6
Exhibit PS-10,continued
E7-12 Riverside CountyALUCP—East County Airports Background Data(March 2005)
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION
STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM: VI. K. OVERRULE NOTICE
HEARING DATE: March 9, 2006 (originally heard October 13, 2005)
CASE NUMBER: PS-05-102—MG Resolutions
APPROVING JURISDICTION: City of Palm Springs Overrule
JURISDICTION CASE NO: Draft EIR
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
A retail center consisting of approximately 393,000 sq. ft. on 37 acres.
PROJECT LOCATION:
The site is located at the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail within the City of
Pahn Springs, from approximately 1,400 to 4,200 feet southeast of the runways at Palm Springs
International Airport.
LAND USE PLAN:
Adjacent Airport: Palm Springs Airport
a. Airport Influence Area: Zone A, B1 and C
b. Noise Levels: Inside 60 and 55CNEL
MAJOR ISSUES:
LAND USE AND DENSITY: The proposed site is located from approximately 1,400 to 4,200 feet
southeast of the runways. The proposal is for a retail center consisting of approximately 393,000 sq.
ft,. on 37 acres.
A very small portion of the site at the southwest end is located within Zone A,but no structures are
there. Approximately half of the proposed site (the easterly portion) of the site with two large
buildings and 4 smaller retail buildings are located within Zone C. Zone C allows up to 80% lot
coverage and a maximum average density of 75 persons per acre, with allowable clustering on a
single acre of up to 150 persons. Zone 13-1 contains one large building and seven smaller buildings.
Zone B 1 allows up to 70% lot coverage and an average density of tip to 25 persons per acre, with
allowable clustering on a single acre of up to 50 persons. The Palm Springs plan has additional
policies added that allow 30 people per acre for the B-1 and 80 for Zone C and additional if more
open space is included. The proposed maximum allowable density for the entire site is 1,990
persons. The site contains 1,913 parking spaces which would estimate approximately 2,780 people
al � !a
Staff Report
]Page 2 of 3
on the site. The CBC method would produce about 7000 people.As the EIR states the plan does not
meet the criteria for the open space. Based on the proposed building layout within the safety zones,
the proposed density and use is Inconsistent subject to noise and height issues.
NOISE: The site will get significant over flight and the western half of the project is inside of the
current and near future 60 CNEL.
PART 77. The highest elevation of any structure or terrain on the site is 453 MSL and the runway
elevations are 395 and 404 MSL. FAA 7460 review is required for structures exceeding a height of
35 ft. in Zone B 1, 70 ft. in Zones C and D, or a 100:1 slope from the end of the runway.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a finding of INCONSISTENCY for the project.
CONDITIONS: For the City to Utilize if they choose to overrule the Commission as per PUC
21676 (see attached).
I. Provide Avigation Easements to the operator of Palm Springs Airport prior to any permits
being issued or sale to any entity exempt from the Subdivision Map Act.
2. Install hooded or shielded outdoor lighting to prevent either the spillage of lumens or
reflection into the sky.
3. Incorporate noise attenuation measures into the building construction to ensure interior noise
levels are at or below 45-decibel levels.
4. Children's schools,day care centers,libraries,hospitals,and nursing homes are prohibited in
Zones B I and C. Additional prohibited uses in Zone B I include places of worship and above
ground storage of flammable materials.
5. The following uses shall be prohibited:
a. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or
amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an
initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight
final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved
navigational signal light or visual approach slope indicator.
b. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an
initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight
final approach towards a landing at an airport.
r" �671
Staff Report
Page 3 of 3
C. Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large
concentrations of birds,or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the
area.
d. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the
operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation.
6. Structures exceeding a height of 35ft. in Zone B 1, 70 ft. in Zones C and D,or a 100:1 slope
from the end of the runway require FAA 7460 review.
7. The attached notice shall be given to all prospective buyers and tenants.
Addendum: March 9, 2006 this case was heard in October and found inconsistent. The City of
Palm Springs has notified the ALUC as required per PUC21676 that they intend to overrule the
ALUC. That statute requires that any local agency that wishes to overrule an ALUC must notify the
ALUC and Caltrans Aeronautics 45 days prior to that action and to include the findings that they are
proposing.The Letter notifying the ALUC of the proposed Override was postmarked February
14, dated January 23 and received in the ALUC staff office on February 16. Those findings
must implement the intent of PUC 21670.
Alternatives to the Commission are:
1. Make no comment
2. Comment to the findings or facts
The applicant has provided a listing of near by uses (Lowe's and Walmart along Ramon Road).
None of these were ever reviewed by the ALUC. The proposed overrule does attempt to explain
the nexus between the action and `minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety
hazards, but the Airport Land Use Handbook does not enter into the findings, discussion and usage
as required by C) QA (Public Resources Code 21096).
SAEDCOWAIRPORTSIALUC\Palm SpringslPS-05-102.sroverrule.doe
arrl°U�
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER Governor
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION , .
DIVISION OF AERONAUTICS MS 40
1120 N STREETT.
P.O.BOX 942873 Flex your power!
SACRAMENTO,CA 94273-0001 Be energy efficient!
PHONE(916)654-4959
FAX(916)653-9531
March 6, 2006
Jing Yeo
City of Palm Springs
Department of Planning and Zoning
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Dear Jing Yeo:
Re: Proposed Overrule of Riverside County Airport Land Use Connnission for "The Springs"project
Thank you for including the California Department of Transportation (Department),Division of
Aeronautics in the overrule process for the above-referenced project. We have reviewed the specific
findings to be used to overrule the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and offer the following
comments.
State Law, California Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 21676 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.htm➢),
requires the Department to review the specific findings that a local government intends to use when
proposing to overrule an ALUC. We specifically look to see if the findings proposed will support what is
required in State law, Public Utilities Code 21670 et seq. The findings must show evidence that the city is
"...minimizing the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public
airports."
The proposed project is a planned development for approximately 393,000 square feet of retail space. The
project site is located approximately a quarter mile southeast of the Palm Springs International Airport.
According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook(Handbook) the project site is located
in the Inner Approach/Departure Zone &the Inner Turning Zone. The southwest corner of the project site
is adjacent to the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ) for Runway 31L.
The RPZ is the most critical of the airport safety zones, considered to be at "very high risk" due its
proximity to the end of the runway. The Handbook generally recommends prohibiting all new structures
within the RPZ. Just beyond the RPZ is the Inner Approach/Departure Zone, which is considered to be at
"substantial risk". The RPZ together with the inner safety zones encompass 30 to 50 percent of the near-
airport aircraft accident sites.
In the specific findings Section 1, paragraph 2 points out that "with the exception of a few remaining
parcels the area is substantially built out. Properties have traditionally developed close to the airport and
there are many land uses surrounding the airport that would otherwise be considered incompatible with
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
the current Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (RCALUCP)." The Department
doesn't feel this is a valid finding that supports PUC 21676. A history of bad land use decisions doesn't
justify another. Furthermore, developing the last remaining open space around the airport takes away a
potential area for a pilot to crash land a disabled aircraft in the event the pilot can't fly the aircraft back to
the airport.
Another finding the Department doesn't feel is valid is found in Section 2. Your finding reads that the
economic benefits of the project to the City outweigh the significant environmental impacts. We
understand this to mean that the project is so economically important to the City that the City is willing
to ignore the noise and safety impacts. The Palm Springs Regional Airport has a very real economic
benefit to not only the City of Palm Springs but to the State of California as well. This finding is not a
good reason to support the project or one that minimizes the public's exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards within areas around public airports. Aviation contributes nearly 9 percent of both total
state employment (1.7 million jobs) and total state output ($110.7 billion) annually. These benefits were
identified in a recent study, "Aviation in California: Benefits to Our Economy and Way of Life,"
prepared for the Division of Aeronautics which is available at
http.i/www.dot.ca.gov/hq/planninWaeronaut/. Aviation improves mobility, generates tax revenue, saves
lives through emergency response, medical and fire fighting services, annually transports air cargo
valued at over $170 billion and generates over $14 billion in tourist dollars, which in turn improves our
economy and quality-of-life.
Also in Section 2 it states that the project would only be a continuation of existing development patterns
around the airport and would not create any new noise or safety problems that do not already exist. This
is false. Currently the parcel to be developed is bare land. Developing that land will create new noise
and safety problems.
Protecting people and property on the ground from the potential consequences of near-airport aircraft
accidents is a fundamental land use compatibility-planning objective. While the chance of an aircraft
injuring someone on the ground is historically quite low, an aircraft accident is a high consequence event.
The need for compatible land uses around airports in California is both a local and a State issue. We
strongly feel that the protection of airports from the encroachment of incompatible land uses is vital to the
safety of airport operations, to the well being of communities surrounding aviation facilities, and to
California's economic future.
These comments reflect the areas of concern to the Department's Division of Aeronautics. We appreciate
the opportunity to review and comment on this project. If you have any questions, please call me at
(916)654-7075.
Sincerely,
' �
RON BOLYARD
Aviation Planner
c: Riverside County ALUC, Palm Springs International Airport
"Caltrans improves mobility across California"
l ��J
PROOF OF PUBLICATION This is space for County Clerk's Filin,^,Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P) jr,1R cG T,ii 0: 6
Jr iI LLr , J I r
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
County of Riverside
-
NOTICE Or PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of I CASE NO. 5-09U PD-2s1
the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen "THE SPRINGS" COMMERCIAL CENTER
Cars.and Ilat a party{0 or interested In the NORTH
FJZ[CORNER OF
Y p y GENE AUTRY TRAIL AND RAMON ROAD
above-entitled matter.I am the principal cleric of a NOTICE IS HEREBY GWEN That rho City Council
printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING of me City Or Palm Springs, California will hold a
Public hearing at its meetinri of Ma 3 2006.'rho
COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, CITY Col ncil moetber in City
Hall,32 6.00 Eat 006 the
printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, Canyon Way, Pulm Spring„ quit,
County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been The purposp of the hearin is to requi.st to over-
adjudged a newspaper Of general circulation by the ride the Riverside County�.Irpport Land use eom-
Su Superior Court of the Count Of Riverside,State of patibillry plan for Planned Yet
PD.2a1
p' y (The Springs' Commercial Cenrer) located at the
California under the date of March 24, 1988.Case wsyhl lij and RamOf on Road zone M-�-P IvvM�p,
Number 191236; that the notice,of which the Soalon 77.
annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller
than non pariel,has been published in each regular (�i*^�m•'J.6��.,,o:.„., _y,
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in anyi.:!:;--�i•li ?-'
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit!
April nJ rt�
All in the year 2006 I.•- j,i �_ _. -- '---_
711
'II III III II' I
i certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the
foregoing is true and correct. s • _
of -.- A Pit_----RRR`ggg— ZUU6 n'�_-- REVIEW O XT,s ula 0 -_
Dated at Palm Spri &-Cali rnla thus-----Z4 day T INFORMATION,Tho,half
arting documents rerdardlhp
t Is bun for public revi a aT our
-�� lira of . P a.m. and Liho
-'---- p.m„ Monde City
Cg h Fngayy. Pleas" c204 tV the
/ OIDce of the sch Clerk at p60) ment2to If iew
would Ilk,to schedule an appolnlment to review
�� these document„
-- ----- COMMENT ON THIS APpLICATIOM Respparise
SI natur 1 — to th,j notice may to made verbally at The Fwsc
g J Hearing And/or in writing before the heatingp who-
ten corriments may be made to The City council
by teller(for mall of hand dellvery) toThompson, CI Clerk I
- 3200eE Tsi q&:z G nyan Way
Palm Spring!, CA 22e2
Any challenge of The proposed pro)act In court
f may bo Minded to racing only(hose issue; raised
publlC hearing described In this node,,, or
Clerk k uon bprrespondnnce dellvurod lv the City
1 Cl at, or prior, to the ppubllC hearing. (Govern-
sAnent Coda Section 6500 (b)(2)).
Inte°eapeq per`onsl be W be given
d eQ d tlo I;,Bard
in thlr case may be directed to Crag A. Ewing,
AlCP,3D3actor of Plnnning Services Depeirtment,
(7 ) 3245.
51 neceslTa ayuda con estu Carta,podaVor Ilamo a
Is Clutlud do Palm Springs Y puede habtar con
Nadlrio Fleger Iclefono (766) s23-e246_
Jame•: nompsOn, Lily Llerc
I P4blishod:4/22/2OOE P
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO. 5.0984 PD-291
"THE SPRINGS" COMMERCIAL CENTER
NORTHEAST CORNER OF GENE AUTRY TRAIL AND RAMON ROAD
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will
hold a public hearing at its meeting of May 3, 2006. 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 request to override the Riverside County Airport Land Use
Compatibility Plan for Planned Development PD-291 ("The Springs" Commercial Center)
located at the northeast corner of Gene Autry Trail (State Highway 111) and Ramon Road,
Zone M-1-P, WM1P, Section 17.
REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents
regarding this project 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 Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Department, (760) 323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor llame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar
con Nadine Fieger telefono (760) 323-8245.
/f es Thompson, City Clerk
f�
Department of Planning Services uE
Vicinity Map s
`\ `O
1 MISSION OR
HIM 1111111
lot
c _
—
m
z
m
RAM1O J RD
� m a
- o z
m
CAMINO PARQCELA a ��.� �
� r
Legend _
z in
U 500 Fee[F- p
SUNNY DUNES RD A
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
CASE NO: 5.0984 PD-291 DESCRIPTION:
The purpose of the hearing is to request to override the
APPLICANT: Geiger, LLC Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for
Planned Development 291 ("The Springs" Commercial Center)
located at the northeast corner of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon
Road, Zone M-1-P, Section 17. APN: 677-430-001, 677-420-
034.
n1S