Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
7/6/2005 - STAFF REPORTS (3)
M STATE OF CALIFORNIA-THE RESOURCES AGENCY DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME ENVIRONMENTAL FILING FEE CASH RECEIPT Receipt# 200500837 LeadAgency. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Date 07/22/2005 County Agency of Filing: Riverside Document No' 200500837 Project Title, GPA CASE 5.1043 Project Applicant Name: V.L.HAVENER Phone Number 760323-1292 Project Applicant Address 1349 SAGEBRUSH RD PALM SPRINGS,CA 92264 Project Applicant Private Entity CPIECK APPLICABLE FEES. ❑Environmental Impact Report ❑Negative Declaration ❑Application Fee Water Diversion(Stale Water Resources Control Board Only) ❑Project Subject to Certified Regrdatay Programs ❑X CountyAdinnistrationFee $64.00 ❑X Project that is exempt from fees(Delvlmimis Exemption) ❑Project that is exempt front fees(Nance ie Exemption) Total Received $64.00 Signature and title of person receiving payment: •' Ti :� F' C"7 T rr1 (� Notes: ie,; z�rn "C ^� C,i.) ;=C ar Notice of Determination Form C 'To: ❑ Office of Planning and Research From: (Public Agency) City of Palm Springs PO Box 3044, 1400 Tenth Street,Room 212 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way PO Box 2743 Sacramento,CA 95812-3044 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 17 County Clerk (Address) County of Riverside Attn:Cindy Koehler, Dept. Clerk 11iC°l:R5iP0 `eJNll, 2720 Gateway Drive Riversde, CA 92507 fe$ a �. 22 Subject., Filing)of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 2,1108 or 21152 of the l3(Z1 c Rggv41res Code. DePut)� A General Plan Amendment ["esi ire(,pc}3 Project:Title n.a Diane Bullock 760-323-8245 State Clearinghouse Number Lead Agency Area Code/Telephone/Extension (If submitted to Clearinghouse) Contact Person City of Palm Springs, County of Riverside Project: Location(include county) GeVy o� PoAw, Ss�i,,y� t, 2sv 'ts�e C ,kA- An?root" 1Ct U- cCrtS60rcxcreA bI C�IIe A� d2 twdo :l t l KKR I P.Seo V�o �de� c �1� Cesx .e p��'� Q Project Description: The project is an application by Judy and Virgil I3avener for an Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to re-designate approximately 12 acres South of Calle de Ricardo, North of Camino Parocela, East of E1 Placer and West of Paseo Dorotea, from L-4 (Low Density Residential, 4 units per acre) to M15 (Medium Density Residential 12-15 units per acre) which brings consistency with the zoning ordinance and existing This is o advise Cityof Palm Springs This is to advise that the has approved the above described project on Lead Agency Responsible Agency 07/06/2005 and has made the following determinations regarding the above described project: (Dale) 1.The project[E]will Vwill not]have a significant effect on the environment. 2. V An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. V1 A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. 3.Mitigation measures [L]were /]were not]made a condition of the approval of the project. 4.A statement of Overriding Considerations [[]was 7was not]adopted for this project. 5.Findings [/]were ❑were not]made pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. This is to certify that the final EIR with comments and responses and record of project approval is available to the General Public at: City of Palm S in 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way-PO Box 2743-Palm Springs,CA-92263-2743 1� u. 07/13/,2:005_,.� ��- , , � „Diregtor of Planning Stgr tune(Public Agency) Date ��"�' - Title Date received for filing at OPR: /' January 2004 26 ? 7v � California Department of Fish and Game Certificate of Fee Exemption De Minimis Impact Finding Project Title: Project Location (including County): The project consists of approximately 12 acres bordered North by Calle de Ricardo, South by Camino Parocela, East by Paseo Dorotea and West by El Placer in the County of Riverside, City of Palm Springs. Name and Address of Project Proponent: General Plan Amendment by Judy and Virgil Havener Project Description: The project is an application by Judy and Virgil Havener for an Amendment to the General Plan Land Use Map to re-designate approximately 12 acres South of Calle de Ricardo, North of Camino Parocela, East of El Placer and West of Paseo Dorotea, from L-4 (Low Density Residential, 4 units per acre) to MI5 (Medium Density Residential 12-15 units per acre). Findings of Exemption: 1. An Initial Study has been conducted by the City of Palm Springs to evaluate the potential for adverse environmental impacts. 2. A Negative Declaration has been prepared by the City of Palm Springs. 3. The lead agency has no evidence before it, including the information in the Initial Study, the Negative Declaration and public comments, to indicate that the proposed project could have any potential for an adverse effect on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the fish and wildlife depends. Certification: I hereby certify that the lead agency has made the above findings and that based upon the record, the project will not individually or cumulatively had an adverse effect on fish or wildlife resources, as defined in Section 711.2 of the Fish and Game Code. 07/13/2005 Norm anchola Date Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs Reference: CCR Section 753.5 U � N c * RROflAEE0 E,4 °q<,FORN�P City Council Staff Report DATE: July 6, 2005 Public Hearing SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT FOR (A) CASE 5.1044 TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM P AND L4 TO M15 LOCATED ON APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES SOUTH OF CALLE RICARDO, NORTH OF CAMINO PAROCELA, EAST OF EL PLACER, AND WEST OF PASEO DOROTEA, AND (B) CASE 5.1043 TO CHANGE THE DESIGNATION FROM L2 TO L4 LOCATED IN A PORTION OF THE MESA TRACT. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Norm Canchola, Interim Director of Planning Services SUMMARY There exists a condition on the General Plan map where several areas of the city are inconsistent and not congruous with the zoning ordinance and the existing neighborhood pattern. The General Plan Steering Committee has identified approximately 12 acres south of Calle De Ricardo, north of Camino Parocela, east of El Placer, and west of Paseo Dorotea, and a portion of the Mesa Tract, as areas that should be amended. If approved, the City's General Plan Land Use Element will be amended. The Planning Commission held public hearings on each proposal and associated application. The Planning Commission recommends approval of the proposed General Plan Amendments. All proposed amendments are associated with items on tonight's City Council Agenda PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA TO (A) RE-DESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES SOUTH OF CALLE DE RICARDO, NORTH OF CAMINO PAROCELA, EAST OF EL PLACER, AND WEST OF PASEO DOROTEA, FROM P (PROFESSIONAL) AND L-4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 UNITS PER ACRE) TO M15 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 12-15 UNITS PER ACRE) ), FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 3760 CALLE DE CARLOS, AND 4022 CALLE DE CARLOS AND SURROUNDING AREA, AND (B) RE-DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE MESA TRACT FROM L2 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER ACRE) Item No. 1 . B . City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 2 General Plan Amendment TO L4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 UNITS PER ACRE) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1901 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE AND SURROUNDING AREA. 2. Order filing of the Notice of Determinations regarding the Environmental Assessments and Negative Declarations that have been prepared for these projects. STAFF ANALYSIS: (A) 5.1044— Judy and Virgil Havener The proposed project is to amend the General Plan Land Use Element to re-designate approximately (12) twelve acres from P (Professional) and L4 (Low Density Residential 4 units/acre) to M15 (Medium Density Residential 12-15 units/acre) bordered by Calle de Ricardo (North), Camino Parocela (South), El Placer (West) and Paseo Dorotea (East). While the applicant has filed an application for, the City of Palm Springs has expanded the General Plan Amendment to include the entire area (Exhibit A) for these properties have a similar situation. The density allowed by the General Plan is inconsistent with the allowed density of the Zone. Currently the General Plan for half of Calle De Ricardo is P which allows for Professional only, and from Calle de Carlos to Camino Parocela it is L4 which allows for a maximum density of 4 units per acre. The Zone is R2 which allows an extra unit for any excess square footage over the minimum 3000 sq. ft. of lot area for each dwelling unit. Staff has reviewed all of the properties in the area bordered by Calle de Ricardo to the North, Camino Parocela to the South, El Placer to the West and Paseo Dorotea to the East and found that over 90% are multi- family four and five plexes and are inconsistent with the General Plan but, consistent with the Zone. The General Plan Designation directly adjacent to the project on El Placer is M15 and also reflects the same neighborhood pattern as the proposed project. The amendment to the General Plan Map Designation will correct the discord between the density allowed by the General Plan and the density allowed by the Zone, and bring consistency to the existing neighborhood. (B) 5.1043 — Bob and Rebecca La Venia The proposed project is to amend the General Plan — Land Use Element to re-designate a portion of the Mesa Tract from L2 (Low Density Residential 2 units per acre) to L4 (Low Density Residential 4 units per acre). While the applicant has filed an application for the property located at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive, the City of Palm Springs has expanded the General Plan Amendment to include a portion of the Mesa Tract (Exhibit B) for these properties have a similar situation. The density allowed by the General Plan is inconsistent with the allowed density of the Zone. Currently the General Plan designation is L2, which allows for a maximum density of 2 units per acre. The General Plan Amendment will change the designation to L4 which allows for a maximum density of 4 units per acre. The zone is RIC which allows for 10,000 square foot lots or 4.356 lots per acre. Staff has reviewed all of the properties in the Mesa Tract and found that over 70% are inconsistent with the General Plan, but consistent with the Zone. The amendment to the General Plan Map designation will correct the difference in the City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 3 General Plan Amendment density allowed by the General Plan and the density allowed by the Zone. Pursuant to Section 21000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code and Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines, Negative Declarations were prepared for Case No. 5.1044 and 5.1043. The Environmental Assessment for each General Plan Amendment was prepared in conjunction with the related actions which are on tonight's City Council agenda. Those Environmental Assessments are hereby incorporated by reference into this staff report and are available for public review at the offices of the Department of Planning Services. FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. ;i el - � Norm Canchola, David Ready, City Manage`,r--;Z� Interim Director of Planning Services Attachments: 1. Case 5.1043-Vicinity Map 2, Case 5.1044-Vicinity Map 3. Case 5.1043 Map of Existing General Plan designation 4. Case 5.1044 Map of Existing General Plan designation 5. Draft Resolution 6. Case 5.1043 Map of Proposed General Plan Amendment (Exhibit A) 7. Case 5,1044 Map of Proposed General Plan Amendment (Exhibit B) 8. Conditions of Approval (Exhibit C) 9. 5.1043 Planning Commission Staff Report 10. 5.1044 Planning Commission Staff Report 11. Case 5.1044 Copy of the Negative Declaration (for the City Council packet only, otherwise on file in the Planning Services Department). 12. Case 5.1043 Copy of the Negative Declaration (for the City Council packet only, otherwise on file in the Planning Services Department). N Department of Planning Services - I_ .P ~ 4 _ Vicinity Map S AIRPORT CENTRE DR w Jr m w 7 I rm 0 RAMON RD :;u J CALLE DE RICARDO CALLE DECARLOS Uj D CAMINO PAROCELA o CL CL r ( O W I p l CAMINO SAN SIMEON CAMINO SAN MIGUEL SUNNY DUNES RD CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO.: 5.1044/ 3.2669 / 3.2670 DESCRIPTION: General Plan Amendment/ An application by Judy and Virgil Havener for a General Architectural Approval Plan Amendment and Architectural Approval. The General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan APPLICANT: Judy and Virgil Havener Map designation from L4 to M15. The Architectural Approval to construct two, four unit apartment buildings. Located at 3760 &4022 Calle DeCarlos, Zone R-2, Section 19. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 4 General Plan Amendment N Department Of Planning Services E_ = 3N Vicinity Map OVERLOOK RD EL PORTAL ---� EL PORTAL cn rntND c �vPAs iL1 1 n CALLE BRAVO 1 z 0 z 0� v CIS VIA HUERTO S P 1 Legend I SITE 1=400_pamus LA VERNE VVY \ � LILiIAIVA DR CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE N0..-5.1043 DESCRIPTION: An application by Bob & Rebecca La Venia for a General Plan Amendment General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Map designation from L2 to L4, Located at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zone R-1-C, Section 27, APN 513390044 APPLICANT: Bob and Rebecca La Venia City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 5 General Plan Amendment 4;ti. pR Department of Planning Services vv E hL�-~ Vicinity Map S AIRPORT CENTRE DR -j � L m \ uJ FT RAMON RIDO A A _ CALLE DE RJCARDO CALLE DECARLOS 1 � o U CAMINO PAr RQCELA L CAMINO SAN SIMEQN 1 �-H CAMINO SAN MIGUEL SUNNY DUNES RD CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO.: 5.1044/ 3.2669 / 3.2670 DESCRIPTION: An application by Judy and Virgil General Plan Amendment/ Havener for a General Plan Amendment and Architectural Approval. The General Plan Amendment Architectural Approval to change the General Plan Map designation from L4 to N/115. The Architectural Approval to construct two, four APPLICANT: Judy and Virgil Havener unit apartment buildings. Located at 3760 & 4022 Calle DeCarlos, Zone R-2, Section 19. 680-061-001 680-061-007 680-045-007 1� Jeremias & Rosalin Agregado Mario B & Juvy Agregado Silvino R & Rosita Agresor 3719 E Camino Parocela 3822 E Camino San Simeon 3810 E Camino Parocela Palm Springs, CA 92264-1355 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1321 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1331 680-043-003 680-046-001 680-061-006 Roy & Elizabeth Agriam Oscar A Aguirre Elias A & Florentina Balanay 3789 E Calle De Ricardo 3921 E Calle De Carlos 3890 E Camino San Simeon Palm Springs, CA 92264-4112 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1263 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1321 680-046-010 680-044-010 680-041-006 Danilo Batoon Michael J & Mary Brady John & Arden Brudvik 3916 E Camino Parocela 14814 110Th St 49250 Paradise Ave Palm Springs, CA 92264-1354 Foreston, MN 56330-9525 Morongo Valle, CA 92256-9714 680-041-011 680-061-003 680-045-008 John & Arden Brudvik Julie T Butac Ray Cabacungan 49250 Paradise Ave 4045 E Camino Parocela 3772 E Camino Parocela Morongo Valle, CA 92256-9714 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1330 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1433 680-035-019 660-061-009 680-043-008 Jon & Nicola Caffery Jaro & Frances Chladek Mavis A Cowing 3655 E Ramon Rd 3760 E Camino San Simeon PO Box 1081 Palm Springs, CA 92264-0696 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1314 Torrance, CA 90505-0081 680-043-005 680-061-010 677-530-001 Eagle Construction Inc Merle Fickett Golden State Enterprises 31855 Date Palm Dr 3-500 3712 E Camino San Simeon PO Box 1318 Cathedral Cit, CA 92234-3863 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1314 Palm Desert, CA 92261-1318 677-530-002 677-530-003 680-035-014 Golden State Enterprises Golden State Enterprises Virgil Havener PO Box 1318 PO Box 1318 255 N E1 Cielo Rd 435 Palm Desert, CA 92261-1318 Palm Desert, CA 92261-1318 Palm Springs, CA 92262-6974 680-035-015 680-035-016 680-045-001 Virgil Havener Virgil Havener Housing Authority Of County 255 N El Cielo Rd 435 255 N El Cielo Rd 435 5555 Arlington Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262-6974 Palm Springs, CA 92262-6974 Riverside, CA 92504-2506 680-041-012 680-041-013 680-041-014 Pipes P Johanna Pipes P Johanna Pipes P Johanna 7209 Rindge Ave 7209 Rindge Ave 7209 Rindge Ave Playa Del Rey, CA 90293-8060 Playa Del Rey, CA 90293-8060 Playa Del Rey, CA 90293-8060 680-042-010 680-042-012 680-045-002 David W & Trudy Johnston David W & Trudy Johnston Norman D & Patsy Lee 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 398 N Farrell Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262-6340 Palm Springs, CA 92262-6340 Palm Springs, CA 92262-6557 `/_o 02 e J dos 680-062-010 680-062-004 680-046-001 Fred & Edita Agbayani Ferdinand A & Facomia Agriam Oscar A Aguirre 4082 E Camino San Simeon 3957 E Camino Parocela 3921 E Calle De Carlos Palm Springs, CA 92264-1319 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1353 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1263 680-046-010 680-044-010 680-062-002 Danilo Batoon Michael J & Mary Brady Rodrigo & Julie Butac 3916 E Camino Parocela 14814 110Th St 4045 E Camino Parocela Palm Springs, CA 92264-1354 Forestcn, MN 56330-9525 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1330 G30-046-004 680-044-003 680-044-006 Rodrigo T & Julie Butac Esther Carrillo Mark Cassle *M* 4045 E Camino Parocela 44295 Las Vistas Dr 69507 Borrego Rd Palm Springs, CA 92264-1330 La Quints, CA 92253-6810 Cathedral Cit, CA 92234-4922 680-042-007 680-042-008 680-044-005 A Cohen A Cohen A Cohen 3040 Prospect Ave 3040 Prospect Ave 3040 Prospect Ave Rosemead, CA 91770-2245 Rosemead, CA 91770-2245 Rosemead, CA 91770-2245 680-046-002 680-042-009 680-044-008 Steven R & Lisa Dempton *B* Raul Escamilla Tr Foster 71438 Halgar Rd 9811 W Charleston Blvd 2202 80560 Pebble Beach Dr Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-4232 Las Vegas, NV 89117-7528 La Quints, CA 92253-3241 680-046-006 680-062-007 677-530-005 Jovito J & Carmelita Fronda Nicolas L & Valentina GarnicE Golden State Enterprises 4027 E Camino San Simeon 3950 E Camino San Simeon PO Box 1318 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1320 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1310 Palm Desert, CA 92261-1318 677-530-006 677-530-007 G80-062-001 Golden State Enterprises Golden State Enterprises Ronnie L Hallett PO Box 1318 PO Box 1318 923 S Calle Tomas Palm Desert, CA 92261-1318 Palm Desert, CA 92261-1316 Palm Springs, CA 92264-3443 680-046-009 680-046-003 680-044-004 Helen J Hart Housing Authority County Of f Ruben Jaimes 3962 E Camino Parocela 5555 Arlington Ave PO Box 276 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1354 Riverside, CA 92504-2506 Palm Springs, CA 92263-0276 G80-044-009 680-042-010 680-042-012 Felipe Jimenez _ David W & Trudy Johnston David W & Trudy Johnston 33955 Via Echo 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr Cathedral Cit, CA 92234-2025 Palm Springs, CA 92262-G340 Palm Springs, CA 92262-6340 680-042-013 680-042-014 G80-062-008 David W & Trudy Johnston J David W & Trudy Johnston Natividad & Eleanor Montoya 147 S Tahquitz Dr 147 S Tahquitz Dr 3974 E Camino San Simeon Palm Springs, CA 92262-6340 1 Palm Springs, CA 92262-6340 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1310 680-061-002 680-041-007 680-045-006 Michael A & Aileen Macadang Jeromino & Refugio Martin Alfonso D & Hermelinda Medi, 3733 E Camino Parocela 3850 E Calle De Ricardo 3660 E Camino Parocela Palm Springs, CA 92264-1355 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1236 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1331 680-035-013 680-045-009 660-045-005 James Meister Michael E & Elizabeth Noland Arturo P & Maria Nool 1459 Alameda PO Box 3121 3881 E Calle De Carlos Redwood City, CA 94061-3132 Cathedral Cit, CA 92235-3121 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1203 680-045-003 680-045-010 680-043-004 Humberto S & Donilia Nunez Sonia A Oliva Ernest Payne 2916 Vaquero Ave 3720 E Camino Parocela PO Box 735 Los Angeles, CA 90032-3011 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1356 Palm Springs, CA 92263-0735 680-043-001 680-041-004 680-045-004 James M Penn Redevelopment Agency City Of R Redmond *M* 451 Wheeler Ave PO Box 2743 PO Box 3061 San Francisco, CA 94134-2447 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Palm Springs, CA 92263-3061 680-044-001 680-043-007 680-061-005 Steven B & Janet Reid Amado L & Felipa Salinas Belle A Snyder PO Box 4317 3761 E Camino San Miguel 3871 E Camino Parocela Palm Springs, CA 92263-4317 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1325 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1329 680-061-004 680-041-008 680-041-009 Linda Stevens Thomas Topp Thomas Topp 3841 E Camino Parocela PO Box 2102 PO Box 2102 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1329 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2102 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2102 680-041-010 680-043-002 680-035-017 Thomas Topp Thomas Topp Sanford B & Mary Ziskind PO Box 2102 PO Box 2102 1043 E Suntan Ln Palm Springs, CA 92263-2102 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2102 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8426 680-043-006 *** 52 Printed *** Sanford B & Mary Ziskind 1043 E Suntan Ln Palm Springs, CA 92264-6426 680-062-005 680-042-011 680-046-007 Veronica & Luis Murray Palm Springs Boardof Realtor: Jose & Flordelina Ramoran 3939 E Camino Parocela 4045 E Ramon Rd 4060 E Camino Parocela Palm Springs, CA 92264-1353 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1231 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1332 680-062-003 680-044-001 680-044-002 Socimo & Clemencia Ramoran Steven B & Janet Reid Hector & Maria Rodriguez 3975 E Camino Parocela PO Box 4317 PO Box 1351 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1353 Palm Springs, CA 92263-4317 Corona, CA 92878-1351 680-046-005 680-062-009 *** 38 Printed *** James & Nancy Stuart James F Weed 1037 E Tamarisk Rd 629 E1 Placer Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262-5828 Palm Springs, CA 92264-1142 MR BILL DAVIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION, MR PETER DIXON MS TRISHA DAVIS C C.JULY6,2005,HEARING ">';: (TENNIS CLUB AREA) (TENNIS CLUB AREA) 51044,-'VIRGIL.&.3uryd laven,er 1836 VIA AGUILA 3375 FOOTHILL ROAD#821 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 CARPINTERIA,CA 93013 MR FRANK TYSEN (C/O CASA CODY COUNTRY INN) MS CHRISTINE HAMMOND MR BOB WEITHORN _ SMALL HOTELS (TAHQUITZ RIVER ESTATES) (TENNIS CLUB/SMALL HOTELS) 175 SOUTH CAHUILLA ROAD 1155 SOUTH CAMINO REAL 261 SOUTH BELARDO ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR TIM HOHMEIER (MS ROXANN PLOSS) MR PHIL TEDESCO (DEEPWELL) OLD LAS PALMAS (DEEPWELL RANCH) 1387 CALLE DE MARIA 930 CHIA 335 BIG CANYON DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MR MARSHALL ROATH MR JOHN HURTER MS SHERYL HAMLIN (RACQUET CLUB AREA) (HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB AREA) PO BOX 2824 565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2824 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUAbALIENTEBANDOFCAHUILLA INDIANS INDIANS--D -6 L�,�J-J 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CASE 5.1044 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS VERIFICATION NOTICE v PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT ATTN MS LORETTA D MOFFETT HISTORIC SITE REP-D=0=J PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2743 CASE 5.1044 CASE 5.1044&5.1043 MR PETE MORUZZI SPONSORS&OWNERS"=t--D-D MR AND MRS VIRGIL HAVENER PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE 1349 SAGEBRUSH ROAD PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 i 511-190-001 511-190-008 511-190-009 Palm Canyon Mobileclub Lloyd & Minna Maryanov Lawrence C Bershon PO Box 9118 2060 S La Merced Way 2068 S La Merced Way ' Fountain Vall, CA 92728-9118 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9032 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9032 � 511-190-010 511-190-011 511-190-012 Eddie & Lee Madick James V Bradford Rene & Pat Etienne 2074 S La Merced Way 2082 S La Merced Way 4137 Don Ibarra P1 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9032 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9032 Los Angeles, CA 90008-4212 511-190-013 511-190-014 511-190-015 , Mitch D Susnar Powell F Edge Charlotte T Levy 114 E La Verne Way 126 E La Verne Way PO Box 42 ' Palm Springs, CA 92264-9015 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9015 Skokie, IL 60076-0042 Sll-190-016 511-190-017 511-190-018 Bruce Bartley Irving & Martha Kazan Pamela R Molloy 6200 Longwood Rd 162 E La Verne Way 207 E Kirkwall Rd Little Rock, AR 72207-2719 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9015 Glendora, CA 91740-5651 511-190-019 511-190-020 511-190-021 Jack S & Geraldine Alhad *B* Rose T Schwimer Stanley R & Harriet Litt 5319 Butterworth Rd PO Box 3061 PO Box 351 Mercer Island, WA 98040-4729 Beverly Hills, CA 90212-0061 Mercer Island, WA 98040-0351 511-190-022 511-190-023 511-190-024 Peter Eckert Nathan T Kessler Sanford & Kathleen Steiner 827 14Th St 234 E La Verne Way 1421 Lama Rd Santa Monica, CA 90403-1703 , Palm Springs, CA 92264-9015 Kalamazoo, MI 49008-2604 511-190-025 511-190-026 511-190-027 Stacy B Ward Tr Earnow Robert F & Joanne Kraft ! 2091 S Ramitas Way 508 N Kings Rd 1 4846 S Knoll Ct Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 Los Angeles, CA 90048-6022 W Bloomfield, MI 48323-2521 511-190-028 511-190-029 511-190-030 Stanley M & Barbara Spie *B* Steve M Lieser Eugene P & Honey Glick_ *M* 709 Calle Del Resplendor 14554 Keswick St 2071 S Ramitas Way ' Santa Fe, NM 87505-5969 Van Nuys, CA 91405-1201 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 511-190-031 511-190-032 511-190-033 Roger F & Barbara Etheringtoi Kurt Haggstrom H P Shields 2700 Newport Blvd 222 2063 S Ramitas Way 3160 Oak Rd 310 Newport Beach, CA 92663-3731 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 Walnut Creek, CA 94597 511-1.90-034 511-190-035 511-190-036 Kenneth G Simmonds Robert L Lahatt Rob W Parkins 2057 S Ramitas Way 1500 SW STh Ave 2501 2051 S Ramitas Way Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 Portland, OR 97201-5438 ' Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 511-190-037 511-190-038 511-190-039 Berte T Weinberg Julienne J & R Leyda Leonard & Maryellen Schneidm 591 S Swidler P1 2630 SW Vista Ave 153 Lake St Orange, CA 92869-5220 Portland, OR 97201-8446 Sherborn, MA 01770-1607 511-190-040 511-190-041 511-190-042 Garabet & Alice Vakian Edward M Aronin Gary W & Mary Stray 4048 Falling Leaf Dr 8140 Calabar Ave 2033 S Ramitas Way ' Encino, CA 91316-4419 Playa Del Rey, CA 90293-7812 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 511-190-043 511-190-044 511-190-045 Shirley A Cruse Marvin W & Jacquelyn Heyboer Norman S & Merle Panish 2009 S Ramitas Way 2027 S Ramitas Way 3048 Dannyhill Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 Los Angeles, CA 90064-2006 511-190-046 511-190-047 511-190-048 Weston Holding Cc Renata Young Robert J Kuehl 2154 NE Broadway St 2017 S Ramitas Way 2013 S Ramitas Way Portland, OR 97232-1561 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 511-190-049 511-190-050 511-190-051 Ralph J & Ralph Santora Emily H Mcgrath Gerald S Jacobs 1420 Sunset Ave 2007 S Ramitas Way 2003 S Ramitas Way ' Santa Monica, CA 90405-5845 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9027 ' 511-190-052 511-190-053 511-190-054 , Shelly R Montez Barbara Egger Anthony B & Nancy Fisher 245 Calle Bravo 875 La Playa St 277 2905 Paper Ln Palm Springs, CA 92264-9065 San Francisco, CA 94121-3259 Newport Beach, CA 92660-3311 511-190-055 511-190-056 511-190-057 Kent Mathews Edward & Stephanie Booker Duwayne E Trost 11734 NE Halsey St 8148 California Ave PO Box 8275 ' Portland, OR 97232-1438 Whittier, CA 90602-2821 Black Butte R, OR 97759-8275 511-190-058 511-190-059 511-190-060 William L Rogers Connie M Hancock Edward R & Jolene Skillin 2155 SW 75Th Ave 193 Calle Bravo PO Box 240 Portland, OR 97225-3709 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9065 Angola, IN 46703-0240 1511-190-061 511-190-062 511-190-063 William K & Kathleen Paxson Elsa S Kunin Irwin A & Shirley Baker *M* 31670 SW Arbor Glen Loop ' 171 Calle Bravo 2828 Salem Ave Wilsonville, OR 97070-9440 Palm Springs, CA 92264-3007 Saint Louis P, MN 55416-1918 511-190-064 511-190-065 Sll-190-066 Virgina J Wire Mary A Wallentine Kenneth W & Claudia Wulf 157 Calls Bravo 151 Calls Bravo 2002 S La Merced Way Palm Springs, CA 92264-9065 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9065 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9066 511-190-067 1511-190-068 511-190-069 'Edmund A & Rachel Mantini Mack Silbert Arnold I & Vivian Missner 22416 Skylake P1 2018 S La Merced Way 6625 N Kenton Ave Santa Clarita, CA 91350-5236 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9066 Lincolnwood, IL 60712-3321 511-190-070 511-190-071 511-190-072 Richard H Helfant *B* Heidi L Herpel Gerald S & Sandra Ostroff 1624 Via Arriba 4403 Ocean Front Walk 101 218 Main St Palos Verdes , CA 90274-1233 Marina Del Re, CA 90292-6732 Kirkland, WA 98033--6108 511-190-073 511-190-074 511-190-075 Jerome Pershin Co Lawrence & Iris Simon Arthur Wolf 25225 Franklin Park Dr 152 E Via Huerto 4811 Louise Ave Franklin, MI 48025-1291 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9067 Encino, CA 91316-3928 511-190-076 511-190-077 511-190-078 Tr Moldawer ' Harry T Kramar Berford Co PO Box 2849 41 Geldert Ct_ PO Box 2624 ' Palm Springs, CA 92263-2849 Tiburon, CA 94920-1460 Rapid City, SD 57709-2624 511-190-079 511-190-080 �� 511-190-081 Richard M Meyerson Justin M & Marianne Fishbein Myrle T Gaber 527 3Rd Ave 187 197 E Via Huerto 6155 Woodman Ave 217 New York, NY 10016-4168 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9067 Van Nuys, CA 91401-2971 511-190-082 511-190-083 511-190-084 Sally T Mink Sidney & Sharlene Ladin Norman D & Rhonda Tscriida 183 E Via Huerto 3450 Fairway Ln 2948 NE 160Th Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-9067 Minnetonka, MN 55305-4451 Portland, OR 97230-5114 511-190-085 511-190-086 511-190-087 ' Sylvia & Robert Schneeweiss Holding Dennis L , Liss Brix 190 Laurel Brook Rd 2626 Skyway Dr30 H St ' Middlefield, CT 06455-1217 ' Grand Prairie, TX 75052-7609 San Rafael, CA 94901-1792 511-190-088 511-190-089 511-190-090 John Dobbins Hendrik & Doreen Deboer West Homeowners Assn Inc 1366 E San Jacinto Way 103 E Via Huerto 1111 E Ramon Rd Palm Springs, CA 92262-5806 Palm Springs, CA 92264-9067 Palm Springs, CA 92264-7795 511-191-001 511-191-003 511-191-004 ! Ngon D & Christina Nguyen Helen L Smith Barbara Layden 1614 E Morava P1 APO Box 235 15809 NE Sacramento St Anaheim, CA 92805-5435 Palm Springs, CA 92263-0235 Portland, OR 97230-5217 511-191-005 511-191-006 511-191-007 Douglas J & Nancy Rumsey Anita L Legg *M* Eli V & Susan Giaquinto *M* 13 Hetzel In 5301 Laurel Canyon Blvd 24.5 2183 16Th Ave Port Jervis, NY 12771-3722 N Hollywood, CA 91607-2777 San Francisco, CA 94116-1846 511-191-008 511-191-009 511-191-010 Dennis R & Dawn Ainsworth Tr Bennett Lyn & Bernice Eubanks 13480 Salmon River Rd 441 Linda Vista Ave 611 S Palm Canyon Dr 7224 San Diego, CA 92129-2610 Pasadena, CA 91105-1119 Palm Springs, CA 92264-7453 511-191-011 511-191-012 511-191-013 Robert C Dykes Jon B Gardner ' Ernest T & Gaile Hohman 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 11 3615 S Carolina St 5 56479 Eclipse Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-6253 San Pedro, CA 90731-0267 Bend, OR 97707-2016 511-191-014 511-191-015 511-191-016 Marilyn E Lucea Alan F Reeder Heike Peters 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 14 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 15 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 16 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8380 Palm Springs, CA 92264-6493 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8953 511-191-017 511--191-019 511-191-020 Irene Davis Gary N & Maria Schubert Gary N & Maria Schubert 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 17 256 Melrose Dr 256 Melrose Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-6023 Oxnard, CA 93035-4431 Oxnard, CA 93035-4431 511-191-021 511-191-022 511-191-023 Gary N & Maria Schubert Perk A & Phyllis Slingsby Marion J Bulman 256 Melrose Dr 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 22 716 Indiana Ct 4 Oxnard, CA 93035-4431 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8952 El Segundo, CA 90245-3403 511-191-024 511-191-025 511-191-026 John T Stevens Goldrich & Kest Industries Ralph J Raya 446 College Ave 5150 Overland Ave 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 26 Santa Rosa, CA 95401-8952 iCulver City, CA 90230-4914 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8952 511-191-027 511-191-028 511-191-029 Stuart M Weiss Pamela Heintzleman Joseph Darwish 1043 S Crescent Heights Blvd 1231 Poplar St 3419 Geary Blvd 2 Los Angeles, CA 90035-0426 Ramona, CA 92065-1839 San Francisco, CA 94118-3341 511-191-030 511-191-031 511-191-032 Ingeborg M & Dilara Mehmed Reginald & Maria Ignacio Dawn & Dennis Ainsworth 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 30 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 31 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 32 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8381 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8381 Palm Springs, CA 92264-2610 511-191-033 511-191-034 511-191-035 Dennis R & Dawn Ainsworth Sherrie Lindborg Lazlo I & Piroska Balogh 13480 Salmon River Rd 1314 Marquette Ave 1406 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 35 San Diego, CA 92129-2610 Minneapolis, MN 55403-4125 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8951 511-191-036 511-191-037 511-191-03B Robert T & Judith Mitchell Patrick Sullivan ,Jeffery G Larsen 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 36 1060 Goldeneye Vw 52395 Bermudas Palm Springs, CA 92264-8951 Carlsbad, CA 92009-1224 'La QuinEa, CA 92253-4418 C 511-191-039 511-191-040 511-191-041 Cinda Miller Sandra J Ivins Jason & Kara Nichols 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 39 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 40 1201 S Manzanita Ave Palm Springs, CA 92264-8950 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8950 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8408 511-191-042 511-191-043 511-191-044 Stephen S Standaart Aida Shihadeh IDolores K & Edward Skehar_ � 6033 STh Ave Ne 532 Pasee Rosal 701 Ascot Ct Seattle, WA 98115-6515 Chula Vista, CA 91910-8024 Libertyville, IL 60048-5238 511-191-045 511-191-046 511-191-047 Carolynne Rhodes Sheryl L Durffee Robert J Pests 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 45 403 N Orchid Tree Ln P 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 47 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8950 Palm Springs, CA 92262-6568 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8949 511-191-049 511-1.91-050 511-191-051 Harold & Arlene Levitch Bob Gendelman Alfred L Milliner 3720 S Stone St 9735 Reseda Blvd 50 5150 Overland Ave � Spokane, WA 99223-4569 Northridge, CA 91324-1348 Culver City, CA 90230-4996 511-191-052 511-191-053 511-191-054 J N Bonnell Tr Steinberg Beryl R Hall 980 E Parocela Pl N A 924 15Th St 1 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 54 Palm Springs, CA 92664 Santa Monica, CA 90403-3137 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8382 511-191-055 511-191-056 511-191-057 John D Rousseau Charles A Selner Harry C Lines *M* 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 55 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 56 27 Commerce St 5C Palm Springs, CA 92264-8382 , Palm Springs, CA 92264-8382 New York, NY 10014-5753 511-191-058 511-191-059 511-3.91-060 Carla J Weber Gerald T Willmont Beverly A Riley 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 58 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 59 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 60 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8382 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8382 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8948 � 511-191-061 511-191-062 I511-191-063 ' Robert C & Patricia Cienkus Donald G & Brenda Johnson Newton L Butler 4552 N Lockwood Ave 2728 E 20Th St 1900 S Palm Canyon ➢r 63 Chicago, IL 60630-3724 Signal Hill, CA. 90755-1005 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8948 511-191-064 511-191-065 511-191-066 Robert C & Patricia Cienkus Tr Friedman Amie & John Lee 4552 N Lockwood Ave 18224 Crater Lake Ct 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 66 Chicago, IL 60630-3724 Fountain Vall, CA 92708-5917 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8948 511-191-067 511-191-068 511-191-069 David J Ticonchuk Orlando T & Mary Green Nachshon Lustig 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 67 20215 Scobey Ave PO Box 5171 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8384 Carson, CA 90746-3058 ' Palm Springs, CA 92263-5171 511-191-070 511-191-071 511-191-072 Steffan T Hemming James E & Kay Chabot Stephen M Harris PO Box 2405 PO Box 224 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 72 Palm Springs, CA 92263-2405 Long Beach, WA 98631-0224 Palm Springs, CA 92264-0020 511-191-073 511-191-074 511-191-075 Jeremy B Watkins Irving & Phyllis Pozepoff :Tr Barthel 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 73 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 74 PO Box 11041 Palm Springs, CA 92264-6919 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8947 Tacoma, WA 98411-1005 511-191-076 511-191-077 511-191-078 Joseph R Lettieri Gregory S & Linda Cutshall Gary N & Maria Schubert 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 102 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 126 256 Melrose Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-8371 Palm Springs, CA 92264-4678 Oxnard, CA 93035-4431 511-191-079 511-191-080 511-191-081 Martin C Cutshall Scott Edwards Juan R & Irene Michael 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 105 1350 N Crescent Heights Blvd 1916 Cactus Rd ' Palm Springs, CA 92264-8945 Los Angeles, CA 90046-2886 San Diego, CA 92154-8107 511 -191-082 511-191-063 511-191-084 Stanley K & Phyllis Dickens Troy R Stiles Juan M &' Griselda Arenas 73244 Bursera Wav 2144 California St Nw 9205 Dinsdale St Palm Desert, CA 92260-5706 Washington, DC 20008-1878 Downey, CA 90240-6324 511-191-085 511-191-086 511-191-087 Diane M Cognata Josue J Andrade Charles C & Joan Corrado 1950 S Palm Cyn 111 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 112 917 Hartzell St ' Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8966 Pacific Palis, CA 90272-3619 511-191-068 511-1.91-089 511-191-090 Claybourn D & A Shelton Charles W Caldwell Clinton E & Rosalie Young 304 Portland Cir 35791 Canada Cir 301 Browning Ct 'Huntington Be, CA 92646-0267 Cathedral Cit, CA 92234-7913 Roseville, CA 95747-5832 1511-191-091 511-191-092 511-191-093 Carla V Higuera , Ignacio & Nora Austrian Dennis R & Dawn Ainsworth 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 117 30675 Avenida Juarez 13480 Salmon River Rd ' Palm Springs, CA 92264-8966 Cathedral Cit, CA 92234-2912 San Diego, CA 92129-2610 511-191-094 511-19i-095 511-191-096 Daniel L & Mary Sitko Ernest A & Leotta Cutshall ,Robert C & Patricia Cienkus 481 Round Lk 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 121 710 Waukegan Rd Horton, MI 49246-9738 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8945 Glenview, IL 60025-4104 511-191-097 511-191-098 511-191-099 Kenneth J Macmurray Robert T Rimac Jonathan D Beckman 1175 Park Grove Dr 400 S Farrell Dr B107 7410 Delaware Ln Milpitas, CA 95035-3532 Palm Springs, CA 92262-8965 Vancouver, WA 98664-2143 C 511-191-100 511-191-101 511-191.-102 iGreaory S & Linda Cutshall Stephenson George & Sandra Piccardi 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 126 18146 Deer Park Ln PO Box 1099 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8945 Victorville, CA 92392-3936 Big Bear Lake, CA 92315-1099 ' 511-191-103 511-191-104 511-191-105 - Gregory T Scalice Allen E Layton ( Edward B & Hilary Frigillana 1950 Palm Canyon Dr 129 23348 Batey Ave 5441 Azure Ct Palm Springs, CA 92264-6066 Harbor City, CA 90710-3052 Byron, CA 94514-9218 511-191-106 511-191-107 511-191-108 ( Jonathan D & Jodi Beckman Gerald L & Bonnie Antalick Fred G Fuerst : 7410 Delaware Ln 14 Bear Fountain Ct 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 1.3,1 ' Vancouver, WA 98664 Wentzville, MO 63385-3519 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8963 511-191-109 511-191-110 511-191-112 Howard Lam Warren B & Virginia Vesper Garth May 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 135 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 136 48698 Desert Flower Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-8945 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8963 Palm Desert, CA 92260-6236 511-191-113 511-191-114 511-191-115 Dennis C Stephens Tr Root Elizabeth Flores PO Box 14312 1089 Kaski Ln 1950 S Palm Cyn 141 San Francisco, CA 94114-0312 Concord, CA 94518-8427 Palm Springs, CA 92264 511-i9l-116 511-191-117 511-191-118 Thomas G & Opha Cowgill Dianne E Boger David L & Alan Petersen PO Box 1118 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 143 1788 N Widdows Way San Andreas, CA 95249-1118 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8373 Orange, CA 92865-4366 511-191-119 511-191-120 511-191-121 Robert R Quinlan Sheila Weiers Mary A Kaestner 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 145 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 146 3184 Oakcrest Dr Nw Palm Springs, CA 92264-6373 Palm Springs, CA 92264-4723 Salem, OR 97304-1219 511-191-122 511-191-123 511-191-124 ' Tr Gordon Rick L & Linda Pinson Michael A Scebbi 2212 Danville Blvd 3210 Fanwood Ave 3222 Ashgate Way Alamo, CA 94507-2661 Long Beach, CA 90808-1703 Ontario, CA 91761-0364 511-191-125 Sll-191-126 511-191-127 Glenn G Bulow Denise Wislon David Gehin 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 151 11950 S Palm Canyon Dr 152 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 153 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8945 Palm Springs, CA 92264-SS50 Palm Springs, CA 92264-0951 511-191-126 511-191-129 511-191-130 Richard M & Francesca Kerr Barbara A Hitchcock Betty L Stahl 7716 175Th St Sw 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 155 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 156 Edmonds, WA 98026-5024 Palm Springs, CA 92262-5904 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8961 511-191-131 511-191-132 511-191-133 Charles & Joan Corrado Robert Adams Steven P Moniz 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 157 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 158 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 159 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8945 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8961 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8961 Sll-191-134 511-191-135 511-191-136 Randall D Steele William P Wolf 'IPriscilla Mercado 68385 Los Gatos Rd 2215 Market St 478 1950 S Palm Canyon Dr 162 Cathedral Cit, CA 92234-3675 San Francisco, CA 94114-1612 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8961 Sll-191-137 511-191-138 511-191-139 Sharon A Castle Thomas P Ross Jules & Dorothy Kosloff 12272 2Nd St 3770 Torito Cir 5110 N 40Th St 100 Yucaipa, CA 92399-4212 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8937 Phoenix, AZ 85018-2143 511-191-140 511-191-141 511-191-142 Meredith & Alan Bowers Daniel P Stimpert Christopher & Patricia Roger 3195 Serena Ave 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 167 795 Camino Magnifico Carpinteria, CA 93013 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8945 San Marcos, CA 92069-8945 511-191-143 Sll-191-144 511-191-145 Francesca Harrison Frances G Chicosky Hassell W Scott 19419 Pacific Coast Hwy 1471 E E1 Alameda 8158 Whited Rd Malibu, CA 90265-5411 Palm Springs, CA 92262-5844 Sebastopol, CA 95472-4037 511-191-146 511-191-147 511-191-148 Nicholas Kostecki Dawn Grindeman Christian J Pettersen 1900 S Palm Canyon Dr 172 6091 Saturn St 751 Sylvanoak Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-8945 ' Los Angeles, CA 90035-6402 Glendale, CA 91206-2143 511-191-149 513-390-003 513-390-004 Michael L Williams Richard R & Penny Olsen Donald T Macewan 5150 Overland Ave 75008 W Hanks Rd 1885 S Mesa Dr Culver City, CA. 90230-4914 Prosser, WA 99350-6670 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8305 I 513-390-005 513-390-010 513-390-016 Gainer Linda M Kelly Robert L Kuperman 25819 Skylark Dr 235 W El Portal 501 S Palm Canyon Dr Torrance, CA 90505-8933 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8319 Palm Springs, CA 92264-7437 513-390-017 513-390-018 513-390-024 Melvin A & Carol Gerrard *M* Tr Tompkins Carl A Pizzuti 246 W Camino Alturas 74923 Us Highway 111 244 215 W Camino Alturas Palm Springs, CA 92264-8980 Indian Wells, CA 92210-7134 Palm Springs, CA 92264-3231 513-390-025 513-390-026 513-390-028 Thomas F & Judy Hauseur Frederick R & Jeanne Howard Aaron & Lyndi Dani 211 W Camino Alturas PO Box 169 255 N El Cielo Rd 168 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8902 Yakima, WA 98907-0169 Palm Springs, CA 92262-4843 513-390-030 513-390-035 513-390-043 Nick Carnegis Michael Brannon Deborah P Hafer *M* 2106 Waugh Dr PO Box 2587 3696 Hidden Trail Dr Houston, TX 77006-1116 Palm Springs, CA 92263-8929 Jamul, CA 9193E-2108 513-390-046 513-390-047 513-390-048 Jeffrey A & Michelle Weaver Robert & Geraldine Harman Robert & Geraldine Harman 340 S Farrell Dr A202 199 Desert Lakes Dr 199 Desert Lakes Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262-7932 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-4053 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270-405 513-400-006 513-400-007 513-400-008 Judith K Hemley Celia K & Douglas Lohmar. Christopher J Sheldon 256 W Camino Buena Vista 244 W Camino Buena Vista 230 W Camino Buena Vista Palm Springs, CA 92264-8904 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8904 Palm Springs, CA 92264-890� 513-400-009 513-400-010 513-400-011 Erwin R & Beverly Null Jonathan D & Margaret Gordon Gerald W & Vicki. Hayek 220 W Camino Buena Vista 2550 Garden Ln 1960 S Mesa Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-8904 Greenwood Vil, CO 80121-1601 Palm Springs, CA 92264-897? 513-400-012 513-400-013 513-400-018 Mitchell M & Jean Perara Bob A & Rebecca La Venia George A & Flint Pearson 1965 S Palm Canyon Dr 1855 S Palm Canyon Dr 16868 A St Palm Springs, CA 92264-8917 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8938 Huntington Be, CA 92647-483 513-400-027 513-400-030 513-400-031 James Nielsen Howard H Wiefels Rosemary H Cooley 210 W Camino Carmelita 255 W Camino Buena Vista 1993 S Mesa Dr Palm Springs, CA 92264-2604 i Palm Springs, CA 92264-8904 Palm Springs, CA 92264-2604 513-400-037 513-400-038 *** 260 Printed *** Kathleen A Keane Bernard A & Barbara Sherwyn 6087 Pitcairn St 1988 S Mesa Dr Cypress, CA 90630-8973 Palm Springs, CA 92264-8973 Sll-191-002 511.-191-018 511-191-048 Steve Ayres Marietta & William Glasier Helen &Henning Langelo 11A Dorothy Rd RR #2 3065 Transcanada Hwy NO 1 3065 Allenby Rd London SW 11211 England Mill Bay BC Canada VO4 Duncan BC Canada V9L 6Y ' 511-191-111 513-390-031 513-400-040 S Pierce & S Samson S. Brown & WD Burton Mildred Bollin RTE De Beaumont St 1907. Mesa Dr 1998 Mesa Dr Peter Jersey JE 37BQ UK Palm Springs CA 92264 Palm Springs CA 92264 *** 266 Printed *** CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. 5.1043 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 6, 2005. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: A) Case 5.1044 13.2669 / 3.2670 an application by Judy and Virgil Havener. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and an Architectural Approval. The General Plan Amendment is to change the General Plan Map designation of L4 to M15 for the area bound by Calle de Ricardo to the North, Camino Parocela to the South, Paseo Dorotea to the East, and El Placer to the West. The Architectural Approval is to construct a 4 unit, single story apartment building, located at 4022 Calle De Carlo§, Zone R-2, Section 19, APN'S 680-043- 008, and 680-044-007.; and B) Case 5,1043 an application by Bob and Rebecca La Venia. The proposed involves a General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment is to change the General Plan Map designation of L2 to L4. located at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zone R-1-C, Section 27 Pursuant to Section 21000 et seq. of the Public Resources Code and Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declarations have been prepared for Case No. 5.1044 GPA and 5.1043 GPA. 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 Planning Commission by letter (mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400) feet of the subject property. An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Department of Planning Services, (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede hablar con Nadine Fieger (760) 323-8364. es Thompson, City Clerk No. 2654 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO.511043 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting,of Jul yy 6, 2005. The City Council meeting begins at 6.00 P M. in the Council Chamber at City Hall,3200 East Tahquitz 77�� F OF PUBLICATION Thi Canyon Way, Palm Spnngs. P1�00 The purpose of the hearing is to consider (2015.5.C.C•P) STATE OF CALIFORNIA County of Riverside A) Case 5.1044 /3.2669 / 3.2670 an application 1 am a citizen Of the United States and a resident Of by Judy and Virgil Havener.The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and an Ar- the County aforesaid;I o over the age t e eon chitectural Approval. The General Plan Amend- years,and not a party to or interested in the mom rs to than e the General Plan Map designs- above-entitled matter.1 am the principal clerk of a Ricardo 4toothe North, Camino Parocela toathe South, Passe points. to the East, and EI Placer printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING to the West.The Architectural Approval Is to con- structcirculation, a 4 unit, single story apartment building,lo- cated at 4022 Call.De Carlos,Zane R-2, Section printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, 19, APN'S 680-043-008, and 680-04,1-007.; and County of Riverside,and which newspaper has been adjudged a newspaper of general Circulation by the o.... ,P s•r ._r„ t of the County of Riverside,State Of Superior Con' Number 191236;that the nottice,.Of which theCxse annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller , I than non panel,ills been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: I LI r J'�"•✓(' ' �.is June 2-5-°-'-,-2--0--0-5--------------- co°a... - betel La V „. The prop involve.aa Plan Amendment. The ieneral Plan Amendment _________ B Case 5 10h3 an application All in the year 2005 b Bob and Re- enra. used in General Y I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. is to change the General Plan Map designation of L2 to Lot located at 1901 Souf Palm Canyon Drive, Zone R-1-C, Section 27 Dated at Palm Springs,California this-----281b----day Pursuant to Section 21000 at seq. of the Public Resources Code and Section 15063 of the Cali- ' 2005 rations have m ntalrQuali y Act, Negative Decla- En e - -------, h e prepared for Case No 5 1044 Of- ----"- nnC----�"----- ----� GPA and 5,7043 GPA. . Response to this notice may be made verbally e P wd,.--_ — the public hoar mg and/or m y be before the ;p -----------'-----"- Planning WrittenComm comments may(mail made to the x �.•.-----^----'-_- "-"- -'�m- Planning Commission by letter(marl or hand de- Signature Ilv.iy) to: James Thompson, City Clerk �C- 3200 East Tahquitz Canyyon Way � Palm Springs, CA 92262 t:1 Lfp '�••• _Ltl If an Individual or group challenges the lotion in Issues Issues raised may be limited to only those 4rp issues raised at the public` hosing described In this notice or in written correspondence at or Err- or 0 ( or to the meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is be- st," ing sent to all piaparty owners within four hun- r,, dyed (400)feet of the subject property An oppor- tunity will be given at said hearings for all inter- ested persons to be heard Questions regarding this case may be directed to Department of Plan- Cs7a 1, ( 1_ ( ning Services, (760) 323-8245 o Si neceslta ayuda con sale carts,p ti�J lv,, ortavor Ilene a - Is Ciudad de Palm 3Trmgqs y. suede hablar con it ,Nadine Fieger(7fi0J 323-8364. - - James Thompson, City Clerk Pub: June 25, 2005 City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 6 General Plan Amendment CASE 5.1043 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION WY I' TWIN PAL 9 It L c�TL s S L J C I B�EYRDII ; 0 O�r 001<R - —— _ _ L] -�uR_ CALL - BRAVO.._ iP FA llflff �y E3 LiL VER-N,HL- YIJ 5-.. II � l j icA O D (FAch. r 1_L171LI f C20 PRADO SA— RdTl� f L ; Y i _— --- - . .>._ V � - ��✓dn�idalc�Rkr�n[n� 1�L �V, �r'rJ-F� ^I zr, City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 7 General Plan Amendment CASE 5.1044 EXISTING GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION r i E � Y �� 11 it j 1 � , I � ( i ✓ l / 1 i / ✓i // i/ ./ ✓// 2/// ✓✓ ✓ / // r// } / / ✓- •f� /,, r ,// / / ✓ / // 1✓ rx ! �/ /e.! ✓ // / / v �. ✓i / i / y / ✓l ✓ ✓ / /t✓! / / / /fr // i/ i / / /✓ !, / /// /✓ ' ris / /i/ /i✓'/ r✓ ✓ //i � ✓�/ / /✓ / ✓ /i/r/� i�r/�r / ii ! �/ �% /r!/ Q%r�// i/ it » i // // 3�. �.h� / -. ___,.!..._..._..��A�,IN-0,S - � IIt ( rye' i _ t , , F _ u X GUE _ City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 8 General Plan Amendment RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT SO AS TO: (A) REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 12 ACRES SOUTH OF CALLE DE RICARDO, NORTH OF CAMINO PAROCELA, EAST OF EL PLACER, AND WEST OF PASEO DOROTEA, FROM P (PROFESSIONAL) AND L- 4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 UNITS PER ACRE) TO M15 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 12-15 UNITS PER ACRE). (B) RE-DESIGNATE A PORTION OF THE THE MESA TRACT FROM L2 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 2 UNITS PER ACRE) TO L4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 UNITS PER ACRE) FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1901 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE AND SURROUNDING AREA . WHEREAS, Judy and Virgil Havener (the "applicant') has filed Case 5.1044 with the City for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Map designation from P and L4 to MI5 for the properties located at 3760 Calle de Carlos, and 4022 Calle de Carlos and, WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs (the "applicant') has expanded Case 5.1044 for a General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation from L4 to M15 for approximately 12 acres, which includes the properties at 3760 Calle de Carlos, and 4022 Calle de Carlos; and WHEREAS, Bob and Rebecca La Venia (the "applicant') has filed Case 5.1043 with the City for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Map designation from L2 to L4 for the property located at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive; and WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs (the "applicant') has expanded Case 5.1043 for a General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation from L2 to L4 for the Mesa area (Exhibit B), which includes the property at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive; and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case No. 5.1044 and 5.1043, requests to amend the General Plan - Land Use Element was given in accordance with applicable law; and City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 9 General Plan Amendment WHEREAS, on June 8, 2005 a public hearing to consider Case No. 5.1044 and 5.1043 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on July 6, 2005 a public hearing to consider Case No. 5.1044 and 5.1043, requests to amend the General Plan - Land Use Element, was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, an Environmental Assessment was prepared and staff found that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA and with regards to Case No. 5.1044 and 5.1043, the City Council finds that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration adequately address the general setting of the project and its potentially significant impacts. Section 2: The Amendment to the General Plan Map will re-designate the P (Professional) and L-4 (Low Density Residential) land use designation with the M15 (Medium Density Residential), for approximately 12 acres south of Calle De Ricardo, north of Camino Parocela, east of El Placer, and west of Paseo Dorotea (Exhibit A). This will permit the allowed density to change from 3-4 units per acre to 12-15 units per acre, which is consistent with the existing Zone designation and existing developments in this area. Section 3: The Amendment to the General Plan Map designation will re-designate P (Professional) and L2 (Low Density Residential) land use designation with the L4 (Low Density Residential) land use designation located in a portion of the Mesa Tract (Exhibit B). This will permit the allowed density to change from 1-2 units per acre to 3-4 units per acre, which is consistent with the existing Zone designation and existing developments in this area. Section 4: The proposed General Plan Amendments to change the General Plan Map designations are necessary and proper at this time, and will not be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 10 General Plan Amendment ADOPTED THIS 6th day of July, 2005. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 11 General Plan Amendment EXHIBIT A L2 TO L4 N 'M ------- MZBjA-E` Y 'J T CD GLO6K R T-1 AU r CALLS BRAVO cP "LJLL A V�RM VVY-- I N'QjjjD F-S "L gyp,-1 J qO PRAD SAN' JOSE R iT I FP D D rr P- pl, City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 12 General Plan Amendment EXHIBIT B P AND L4 TO M15 .. r� 111 t -.f - � {f �rt ti� ;�tt + i 1 �# Mir f : 4 _-1- JL If � �� Iti `^f , 1, : I ��� SAWSIM60NI PITI � I � NA I CHID. I N VI G E L.-- - City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 13 General Plan Amendment EXHIBIT C CASE 5.1044 AND 5.1043 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL JULY 6, 2005 Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Administrative: 1. Any proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.1044 and 5.1043 and Case 3.2669 and 3.2670 which are development project cases associated with Case 5.1044. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the applicant shall not, thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 14 General Plan Amendment TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES CASE 5.1043 - GPA - APPLICATION BY BOB AND REBECCA LA VENIA, FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO AMEND THE GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FOR APPROXIMATELY 0.538 ACRES WEST OF SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, SOUTH OF EAST PALM CANYON DRIVE, AND NORTH OF AVENIDA GRANADA FROM L2 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 2 UNITS PER ACRE) TO L4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL - 4 UNITS PER ACRE). THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT 1901 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE R-1-C, SECTION 27, APN 513390044. RECOMMENDATION That the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council: 1. Order the filing of a Negative Declaration; and 2. Approve Case No. 5.1043 for a General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation of L2 (low Density Residential) to L4 (Low Density Residential) for the property located at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive and the Mesa area (Exhibit B), Zone R-1-C, Section 27. BACKGROUND An application has been filed by Bob and Rebecca La Venia for a General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation from L2 to L4 for the property located at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive. While the applicant has filed an application for the specific property, the City of Palm Springs has expanded the General Plan Amendment to include the Mesa area (Exhibit B) for these properties have a similar situation. The density allowed by the General Plan is inconsistent with the allowed density of the Zone. The General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation will correct the difference in the density allowed by the General Plan and the density allowed by the Zone. Currently the General Plan designation is L2 designation, which allows for a maximum density of 2 units per acre. The General Plan amendment will change the designation to L4 designation, which allows for a maximum density of 4 units per acre. The Zone is R-1-C, which allows for 10,000 square foot lots OR 4.356 lots per acre. Staff has reviewed all of the properties in the Mesa area and found that over 70% are inconsistent with the General Plan, but consistent with the Zone. The General Plan Amendment will correct the differences in the allowed density between the General Plan and the Zone. The subject area located in the Mesa (Exhibit B) area: to the east is South Palm Canyon Drive, to the west are the mountains, to the south is Avenida Granada, and to the north is East Palm Canyon Drive. The subject property is one lot of approximately 0.538 acres (23,435 square feet). The Planning Commission on November 24, 2005 voted 6-0 to recommend to the City Council to approve the Tentative Parcel Map to subdivide the one lot into two lots of approximately 0.258 acres (11,238 square feet) each. The approval of the Tentative Parcel Map is predicated upon the approval of the General Plan Amendment. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 15 General Plan Amendment ANALYSIS The General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance are inconsistent for the area. The subject property is designated L2 by the General Plan Map and is Zoned R-1-C (Single-Family Residential). The General Plan density allows for 2 units per acre or 21,780 square feet per lot and a maximum of 2 lots. The R-1-C Zone allows for 10,000 square foot lot areas or 4.35 lots per acre. Approximately 70% of the surrounding properties are less than 0.50 acres (21,780 square feet) in area. Given the existing and future development of the surrounding properties, staff found that a L4 designation would be more appropriate for the area. The proposed L4 General Plan designation will allow the density to be consistent with the R-1-C Zone and will not change any of the development standards already in place by the Zoning Ordinance. The existing lot size at 1901 'South Palm Canyon Drive is 23,435 square feet. The L2 designation would allow only 1 unit, while the proposed L4 designation would allow 2 units. The R-1-C Zone allows a lot area of 10,000 square feet and allowed 2 lots. The proposed L4 General Plan designation would be compatible with the surrounding properties. Staff has prepared a table that outlines the surrounding properties with the General Plan designation and Zone. General Plan Zoning Land Uses North RC, H43121 R-2, R-3 Multiple-Family Residential / Hotel South L2, PR R-2, R-3 Multiple-Family Residential / Hotel East C 0-20 Open Space West M15, H43/21 R-2, R-3 Multiple-Family Residential / Hotel Currently the properties designated L2 are single-family residences that transition the multiple- family residential to the east and the mountains to the west. The proposed L4 designation will not change the development pattern for this neighborhood. The development standards will remain the same, for the R-1-C Zone is not changing, only the allowed density per the General Plan. The General Plan is undergoing an update of land use designations, which includes the subject property area. The City of Palm Springs has identified this area as one of the areas that is known to be inconsistent with the Zoning Ordinance and that a change in the General Plan Map designation would be compatible with the existing developments in this area. Therefore the request for the General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map is consistent with the goals of the City and the General Plan Update. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for the proposed General Plan Amendment in accordance with the regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Negative Declaration found the General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation will not have any significant impacts to the environment. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 16 General Plan Amendment NOTIFICATION A Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative Declaration were published in the newspaper and mailed to local agencies and interested parties. The public hearing notice for the proposed project was published in the Desert Sun newspaper. A public hearing notice was sent to all property owners within 400' of the project site. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any inquiries. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution 3. Draft Conditions of Approval (Exhibit A) 4. Map of area (Exhibit B) 5. Copy of Notice of Intent to Adopt (for the Planning Commission packet only, otherwise on file in the Planning Services Department) 6. Copy of Negative Declaration (for the Planning Commission packet only, otherwise on file in the Planning Services Department) City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 17 General Plan Amendment RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE GENERAL PLAN MAP DESIGNATION FROM L2 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 1-2 UNITS/ACRE) TO L4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 3-4 UNITS/ACRE), IN ORDER TO INCREASE THE ALLOWED GENERAL PLAN DENSITY TO THAT OF THE R-1-C ZONE LOCATED AT 1901 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE, ZONE R-1-C, SECTION 27. WHEREAS, Bob and Rebecca La Venia (the "applicant') has filed Case 5.1043 with the City for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Map designation from L2 to L4 for the property located at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive; and WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs (the "applicant') has expanded Case 5.1043 for a General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation from L2 to L4 for the Mesa area (Exhibit B), which includes the property at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive; and WHEREAS, the General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation from L2 to L4 for the Mesa area (Exhibit B) will not change the Zone designation of R-1-C for the Mesa area (Exhibit B); and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case No. 5.1043; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2005 a public hearing to consider Case No. 5.1043 was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that the Initial Study and Negative Declaration adequately address the general setting of the General Plan Amendment, its potentially significant impacts; and Section 2: The General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation will replace the L2 (Low Density Residential) land use designation with the L4 (Low Density Residential) land use designation. This will allow the allowed density to change from 1-2 units per acre to 3-4 units per acre, which is consistent with the existing Zone designation and existing developments in this area. Section 3: The subject area is located in the Mesa area (Exhibit B): to the east is South Palm Canyon Drive, to the west are the mountains, to the south is Avenida Granada, and to the north is East Palm Canyon Drive. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 18 General Plan Amendment Section 4: The proposed General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Map designation from L2 to L4 is necessary and proper at this time, and will not be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval to the City Council of the General Plan Amendment to the General Plan Map designation from L2 to L4 for the proposed area (Exhibit B), subject to Conditions of Approval in Exhibit A. ADOPTED THIS 8th day of June, 2005. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Chairman of the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 19 General Plan Amendment DATE: June 8, 2005 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Interim Director of Planning and Zoning 1. CASE NO. 5.1044 GPA (GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT) APPLICATION BY JUDY AND VIRGIL HAVENER, OWNERS, TO RE-DESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY (12) TWELVE ACRES OF LAND BORDERED BY CALLE DE RICARDO (NORTH), CAMINO PAROCELA (SOUTH), EL PLACER (WEST) AND PASEO DOROTEA (EAST), FROM P (PROFESSIONA), AND L-4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 UNITS/ACRE) TO M15 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 12-15 UNITS/ACRE). 2. CASE NO. 3.2669 (MAJ) MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATION BY ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ, AGENT FOR JUDY AND VIRGIL HAVENER TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR UNIT SINGLE STORY APARTMENT BUILDING, 3,486 SQ.FT IN SIZE LOCATED ON A 10,019 SQ. FT. LOT AT 3760 CALLE DE CARLOS, ZONE R2, SECTION 19, APN 680-043-008. 3. CASE NO. 3.2670 (MAJ) MAJOR ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATIONS BY ENRIQUE RODRIGUEZ, AGENT FOR JUDY AND VIRGIL HAVENER TO CONSTRUCT A FOUR UNIT SINGLE STORY APARTMENT BUILDING 3,486 SQ.FT. IN SIZE LOCATED ON A 9,960 SQ. FT. LOT AT 4022 CALLE DE CARLOS, ZONE R2, SECTION 19, APN 680-044-007. RECOMMENDATION 1. That the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council to order the filing of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and; 2. Approve Case No. 5.1044 a request to amend the General Plan Map from L4 (Low Density Residential 4 units/acre) to M15 (Medium Density Residential 12-15 units/acre) for approximately twelve acres bordered by Calle de Ricardo (North), Camino Parocela (South), El Placer(West) and Paseo Dorotea (East). 3. Approve Case No. 3.2669 to construct a four unit single story apartment building 3,486 sq. ft. in size located on a 10, 0190 sq. ft. lot, approximately one quarter of an acre, located at 3760 Calle de Carlos, Lot#18. 4. Approve Case No. 3.2670 to construct a four unit single story apartment building 3,486 sq. ft. in size located on a 9,960 sq. ft. lot, approximately one quarter of an acre, located at 4022 Calle de Carlos Lot#19. BACKGROUND An application has been submitted by Judy and Virgil Havener in order to re-designate 3760 Calle de Carlos, and 4022 Calle de Carlos from L4 (Low Density Residential 4 units/acre) to M15 (Medium Density Residential 12-15 units/acre). The City of Palm Springs has expanded the gross area to approximately 12 acres to include all the properties in the vicinity under like circumstance. This area is bordered by Calle de Ricardo (North), Camino Parocela (South), El Placer (West), and Paseo Dorotea (East). The specific area proposed for development consists of 2 lots (APN #s 680-044-007, and 680-043-008). Two applications have been submitted (3.2669 and 3.2670) by Enrique Rodriguez, agent for Judy and Virgil Havener, to construct a four-unit single story apartment building 3,486 sq. ft. in size on each of the above-mentioned lots. Both lots are designated L4 by the General Plan and zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family). The City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 20 General Plan Amendment zoning is inconsistent with the General Plan (GP) designation of L4. The L4 designation is typically associated with traditional single-family residential housing. The 2 lots are surrounded by multi-family development to the South, West, North, and East. The General Plan designation directly west of the blocks, on El Placer is designated M15. Given the existing and future development around the lots, staff found that an M15 designation would be more appropriate for the block. The Subdivision Map Act requires subdivisions to be perfectly consistent with the General Plan. Development which does not include a subdivision can be generally consistent with the General Plan. Since the request for the General Plan Amendment for the similar surrounding properties in the vicinity and proposed development of the two lots are not a subdivision, the principle of general consistency is acceptable and applicable. The proposed M15 designation is generally consistent with existing development in the area, would allow multi-family development consistent with the surrounding development and match the abutting General Plan designation to the West. Example 1: On March 23, 2005 two projects of similar design, drawn by the same architect, located at 549 and 563 El Placer (adjacent and directly to the West of the proposed projects), were approved by the Planning Commission. Those projects were approved based on numbers 1 and 3 below, copied from the staff reports: 1. Appropriate residential development under the M15 designation includes traditional single-family homes, garden apartments, mobile-home parks, multiple-family structures and hotels. The General Plan designation of M-15 density determines the unit designation to be 3.96 based on the existing lot size. The lot size for four units should be 102 sq. ft. larger than the existing lot. Zoning Ordinance 92.03.03 (C) states there shall be a minimum of three thousand (3000) sq, ft. of lot area for each dwelling unit. In determining the number of units allowed, any footage over three thousand sq. ft. shall qualify the property for an additional unit. (Maximum allowable; provided all other ordinance requirements relating to such standards as parking, open space, setbacks, etc. are met). 2. Based on Zoning Ordinance 92.03.03, maximum allowable is interpreted by staff as the maximum density allowable by the General Plan. If it were a subdivision, you could not round up, but because this project is not a subdivision, because of general consistency, you can round up the General Plan density figure; therefore allowing the extra unit. Multiple family dwellings in the R2 are permitted by right of zone. In this project, to interpret where the zone code is consistent with the General Plan, more square footage in each dwelling would be required to allow the extra unit. Under the zoning ordinance, dividing the lot size by 3000 sq. ft. mathematically the numbers figure out to be 3838 sq. ft., therefore, allowing the extra unit. Because it is not a subdivision, the Zoning and General Plan are generally consistent, allowing the extra unit by right of zone. 3. There is an inconsistency with the General Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. Under Population Density Standards, the General Plan states that in addition to any other standards established in this General Plan, projects, which are worthy of the higher density designation, will be judged according to the following criteria. The level of density increase granted will depend on the extent to which higher standards are provided: City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 21 General Plan Amendment General Plan Policy 3.6.1(d) states that design of new residential development include architectural details and elements, which provide visual character and interest, avoiding flat planar walls and "box-like" appearances. Policy 3.6.2 limits new development to one and two story structures. A minimum of 50% of the lot area shall be maintained as on-site open space/recreational area not including parking and drive areas. ANALYSIS The existing lot size at 3760 Calle de Carlos is 9,960 sq. ft. According to table 1.0, the L-4 designation would allow only .91 units/acre. With the proposed M15 designation, 3.42 units would be allowed on the existing lot size. Under M15, a lot size of 11,617 sq. ft. would allow four units. Based on the fact that it is not a subdivision, it can be generally consistent with the General Plan; therefore rounding up and allowing the extra unit. Similar to the approved project on El Placer mentioned above, using the R2 development standards, Zoning Ordinance 92.03.03 (C), for determining the number of units allowed; any footage over three thousand sq. ft. shall qualify the property for an additional unit. Mathematically the numbers figure out to be 3320 sq. ft. Because it is not a subdivision, the Zoning and General Plan are generally consistent, allowing the extra unit by right of zone. At 4022 Calle de Carlos the L-4 GP designation would allow .92 units/acre. Under the proposed M15 designation, 3.45 units would be allowed based on the existing lot size of 10,019 sq. ft. Under M15, the lot size that allows four units should be 11,617. Mathematically the square footage figures out to be 3339, which is over 3,000 sq. ft. Based on the fact that it is not a subdivision, it can be generally consistent with the General Plan; therefore rounding up and allowing the extra unit. The Zoning and General Plan are generally consistent, allowing the extra unit by right of zone. The proposed project includes architectural details and elements, which provide visual character and interest. Based on Policy 3.6.2, it is a one story structure. 50% of the lot area is proposed as on-site open space/recreational area. The only other General Plan Designation that could possibly be considered is the H-30, Medium-High-Density Residential designation, which provides for the development of a threshold of twenty-one, and a maximum of thirty dwelling units per acre. Appropriate residential development under this designation includes multiple family apartments and similar permanent housing. The designation H-30 does not correlate with the existing neighborhood pattern. The allowable building height is very high and not consistent with this neighborhood. The density is very high and not consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern. Under the H-30 designation the density for 4022 Calle de Carlos would allow 6.9 units per acre and 3760 Calle de Carlos would allow 6.8 units per acre. According to a rough measurement on the 1974 General Plan updated map compared to the zoning map, both site locations appear to be in the medium density area. The General Plan designation was later changed in 1993 in response to the NR2 noise impact and nonsuit covenant-combining zone thus, while 4022 Calle de Carlos is located in the NR2 zone, 3760 Calle de Carlos is located in the R2 zone. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 22 General Plan Amendment ARCHITECTURAL APPLICATIONS The proposed single story, multi-family residences are Zoned R-2, limited multi-family residential zone. The R2 Zone is intended to provide for the development of medium-density multiple-family residential uses. The following table contrasts the R-2 development standards and the proposed project. Table 1.0 Development Standards Development Zone R2 Case Case Standards Requirements 3.2669 3.2670 4022 Calle 3760 de Carlos Calle de Carlos Lot area 20,000 Existing Existing 10,019 9,960 Lot Width 130 feet Lot Depth 150 feet Density 3000 ft/unit, any 3339 3320 footage over 3000 gives one more unit. Building Height 24 feet not to 14'6" to 14'6" to exceed two top of top of stories parapet parapet Yards-R3 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Standards Front Yard Side Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Rear Yard _15 feet 15 15 Parking 1.5 Spaces 7 Spaces 7 Spaces Requirements /Bedroom where 1 space is HC space, 1 guest. Lot Coverage 45% 51.69% 46.30% landscape/open space required Unit Sq. Averaged Averaged _Footage 871.50 871.50 Building square 3,486 sq. 3,486 sq. footage ft. ft. Unit Square 860, 860, 860, 860, Footage 883, 883 883, 883 City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 23 General Plan Amendment SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD DENSITIES Table 2.0, describes examples of density in the surrounding neighborhood, comparing the existing General Plan designation of L-4 to the proposed MI5 and proving the R2 standard of allowing the extra unit for over 3,000 sq. ft. Table 2.0 Density comparison of existing development in vicinity Address Type Sq. Density Density Sq. Footage allowed in allowed in Ft. in L-4 M-15 R2 3737 Calle de 5 Unit 9,960 .91 3.42 3320 sq. Carlos ft. 3777 Calle de 4 Unit 10,126 .92 3.48 3375 sq. Carlos _ ft. 3910 Calle de 5 Unit 9,960 .91 3.42 3320 sq. _Carlos ft. 3921 Calle de 4 Unit 8,300 .76 2.8 2766 sq. Carlos ft. 3972 Calle de 4 Unit 9,960 .91 3.42 3320 sq. Carlos ft. 3850 Calle de 4 Unit 10,126 .92 3.48 3375 sq. Ricardo ft. Table 3.0 Existing Surrounding Land Uses and Settings Orientation General Plan Designation Zoning Ordinance North P (Professional) P (Professional) South L-4 (Low Density Residential) R2 (Limited Multi-Family)_ _East M15 (Medium Density Residential) R2 (Limited Multi-Family) West L-4 (Low Density Residential) R2 (Limited Multi-Family) PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT The proposed General Plan Amendment will also facilitate the construction of up to 8 units on approximately one half acre. The site's zoning R-2 is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of L4. In 1993, the City embarked on a zoning consistency program. However the program was not completed with respect to these lots and therefore, the property has remained zoned for multi-family land uses but designated for single family uses in the General Plan. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 24 General Plan Amendment In analyzing the development of the surrounding community since 1993, staff concluded that the multi-family designation of M15 (Medium Density Residential 12-15 units/acre) would be appropriate for the project site, given the multi-family land uses immediately to the west of the project site. The M15 designation is compatible with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood, as the project is surrounded in all directions by multi family dwelling units of four or five single story units per dwelling. With the approval of the General Plan Amendment, the proposed project will result in a general consistency, where it is consistent in all manners and generally complies and reflects the neighborhood pattern. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION Pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA guidelines, a draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact was prepared for the proposed General Plan Amendment and is included as an attachment to this report. The Environmental Assessment was also distributed to local agencies and interested parties. Conditions of approval regarding monitoring of grading for the project have been included for this project. Recommend that the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the adoption of the proposed Negative Declaration. The City Staff has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that the project will not have significant adverse impacts, and has prepared a Notice of Exemption for the project. All property owners within a 400-foot radius of the project have been notified. As of the writing of this report, staff has not received any inquiries from the public on the nature of the project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Assessors Map Book 680 pg. 04 3. Environmental Assessment-Negative Declaration on file with the Planning Department except for Planning Commission packets. 4. Existing General Plan designation 5. Proposed General Plan designation 6. Resolution 7. Conditions City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 25 General Plan Amendment RESOLUTION NO. OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SO AS TO REDESIGNATE 12 ACRES FROM L4 (LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 4 UNITS/ACRE) TO M15 (MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL 12-15 UNITS/ACRE) FOR LAND BORDERED BY CALLE DE RICARDO (NORTH), CAMINO PAROCELA (SOUTH), EL PLACER (WEST) AND PASEO DOROTEA (EAST), ZONE R2, SECTION 19, WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs, and Judy and Virgil Havener (the "applicant') have filed an application for a General Plan Map Amendment to re-designate approximately 12 acres of land from L4 (Low Density Residential 4 units/acre) to M15 (Medium Density Residential 12-15 units/acre) for land bordered by Calle de Ricardo (North), Camino Parocela (South), El Placer (West)and Paseo Dorotea (East), and WHEREAS, notice of a public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider Case No. 5.1044 GPA, a request to amend the General Plan Map, was given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on June 8, 2005 a public hearing to consider Case No. 5.1044 GPA, a request to amend the General Plan Map, was held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act guidelines, an Initial Study was prepared which found that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on the project, including but not limited to the staff report, all written and oral testimony presented. THE PLANNING COMMISSION HEREBY FINDS AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Pursuant to CEQA, the Planning Commission finds that the current environmental assessment for Case No. 5.1044 GPA adequately addresses the general environmental setting of the proposed. The Planning Commission further finds that no significant environmental impacts will result from this project and therefore recommends adoption of a Negative Declaration for the project Section 2: Currently, all twelve acres are zoned R-2 (Limited Multiple Family), which is inconsistent with the General Plan designation of L4. The L4 designation is typically associated with single-family residential estate-type housing. The 12 acres are surrounded by multi-family development to the south, west, north, and east of the project. Given the existing and future development around the area, staff found that an M15 designation would be more appropriate for the 12 acres. The proposed M15 designation would allow multi-family residential development consistent with the surrounding neighborhood. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 26 General Plan Amendment The proposed General Plan Amendment will facilitate the construction of two (2) one story multi-family residences of four (4) units on approximately one half (%) of an acre. The project site is currently zoned R-2, inconsistent with the General Plan designation of L4. In 1993, the City embarked on a zoning consistency program. However the program was not completed with respect to the 4 lots and therefore, the property has remained zoned for multi-family land uses but designated for single family uses on the General Plan. In analyzing the development of the surrounding community since 1993, staff concluded that the multi-family designation of MI5 (Medium Density Residential 12-15 units/acre) would be appropriate for the project site, given the multi-family land uses immediately in the vicinity of the project site. A General Plan Amendment is proposed to change the designation of the property from L4 to M15. The M15 designation is consistent and compatible with the existing development pattern in the neighborhood; as multiple family residences of predominantly four (4) and five (5) units per lot surround the project. The current designation of L4 is associated primarily with single-family residential land uses, which may not be appropriate given the location of the site, surrounding land uses and zoning, and proximity of the site to a major thoroughfare. With the approval of the General Plan Amendment, the proposed project shows a general consistency, where it is consistent in all manners and generally complies and reflects the neighborhood pattern. Section 3: The subject property is suitable for the uses intended in the proposed General Plan designation and the uses permitted in the existing zone, in terms of access, size of parcel, relationship to similar or related uses, and other considerations deemed relevant by the Commission. Section 4: The proposed change of General Plan designation is necessary and proper at this time, and is not likely to be detrimental to the adjacent property or residents. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 27 General Plan Amendment NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that, based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve Case No. 5.1044 GPA, as shown in Exhibit A. ADOPTED this day of 2005. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA Chairman of the Planning Commission Secretary of the Planning Commission DATE: JUNE S, 2005 City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 28 General Plan Amendment Environmental Checklist Form 1. PROJECT TITLE: A General Plan Amendment 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Palm Springs 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 3. Contact person and phone number: Gary Wayne, Director of Planning Services (760) 323-8245 4. Project location: 3760 Calle de Carlos, Lot#18 (APN 680-043-008) and 4022 Calle de Carlos, Lot#19 (APN 680-044-007), Zone R2, Section 19 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Palm Springs 3200 E.Tahquilz Canyon Way Patin Springs, CA 92262 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: L-4 (Low density which allows up to 4 lots per acre) 7. ZONING: R-2 (Limited multiple family residential zone) 8. Description of project:(Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later phases of the project,and any secondary,Support,m off-site features necessary flat its implemenuition.Attach additional sheets if necessary.) A General Plan Amendment is proposed from L-4 which allows 4 lots per acre to M-15 which allows 15 units per acre. The majority of the area proposed for the general plan amendment consists of multiple (4)to (5)unit single story residences. The General Plan designation that exists for this area is inconsistent with the zoning ordinance and the history of development for the area. The proposed development will be to construct (4) four unit residential single story income units on the two lots according to the plans submitted to the Planning Department of the City of Palm Springs as Case 3.2669 and Case 3.2670. There will be bay parking and a pedestrian walkway leading to each of the units. There will be xeriscape desert landscaping with a small amount of turf abutting the private patio areas. Mechanical equipment will be on the ground level. This will be a single phase project which will be constructed in a normal time frame. 9. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: The proposed section of Calle de Carlos is two blocks long and is located two blocks south from Ramon Road and three blocks east of from El Cielo beginning at El Placer Road and continuing in an easterly direction for two blocks ending at Pasco Dorotea. There are (20) twenty lots on Calle de Carlos between El Placer and Pasco Dorotea. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 29 General Plan Amendment North - Multiple family residential in the first block to the North becoming the (P) Professional General Plan Designation and (P) Professional Zone area continuing further North. South - Multiple family residential in the first two blocks traveling South fi-om the street of the proposed development continuing the L4 General Plan Designation and the R2 Zoning designation. East- Multiple family residential beginning the MI General Plan Designation and the R2 Zoning designation. West- Multiple family residential beginning with L4 as the General Plan Designation and R2 Zoning becoming (P) Professional and (PR) Parks and Recreation General Plan Designation and (P) Professional and N-R1C, Noise R1C Zoning designation. All are zoned R-2. Three are vacant, (17) seventeen of the (20) lots are developed with a minimunn of(4) four residential income units per lot which is consistent with the R-2 Zone. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). a. Palm Springs Police Department b. Palm Springs Fire Department c. Palm Springs Unified School District d. Desert Water Agency e. Southern California Gas Company City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 30 General Plan Amendment Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The enviroinnental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water ❑ Land Use/Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/1-lousing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance July6, 1005 - Page 31 General Plan Amendment Determination. (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the enviromnent, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the enviromnent, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the enviromnent, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the enviromnent, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 32 General Plan Amendment Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has deternimed that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, arm EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures "Earlier Analyses," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where,pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 33 General Plan Amendment project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify; a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 34 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ El ❑ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ Eloutcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ® ❑ surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or nighttime views in the area? a-b) No Impact. The site and surrounding area are generally flat and do not contain any scenic vistas. The site is covered with weeds and grasses. The site does not contain any thick stands of trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources would occur. Further, construction of the project would not obstruct or disrupt views of a scenic vista. c-d) Less than sign fi'cant Impact The proposed project would serve as infill in an area that is predominantly residential. The area does not contain any unique features which would be lost or compromised as a result of the project. Additional light and glare would be created by the project in association with light fixtures and building materials (e.g. windows). However, the project would comply with City design standards and would continue the existing development pattern identified in the General Plan. Therefore, impacts to visual character, including light and glare, are considered to be less than significant. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 35 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? a) No Impact. No impact to farmland would occur. b) No Impact. No Williamson Act Contracts are located on the parcel comprising the project site. Furthermore, no Williamson Act Contracts are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site (Williarson Act Contracts) of the Palm Springs General Plan FIR(Palm Springs, 1992). Therefore, no impacts to Williamson Act Contracts would occur. c) No Impact. The proposed project site is located in an urban area. Parcels adjacent to the site are designated Single-Family Residential, Hotel, and Vacant. Implementation of the proposed project would therefore not result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural uses. There will be no impact to agricultural land. July 6, 2005 -- Page 36 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ❑ ❑ 1-1of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ❑ ❑ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal ❑ El ❑ or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial number of people? a-e) No Impact. The project is within the jurisdiction of the South County Air Quality Management District(SCAQMD). The SCQAMD Governing Board adopted the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on August 1, 2003. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for federal standards for ozone and PM10; replaces the 1997 attaimuent demonstration for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the South Coast Air Basin has met since 1992, The revision of the AQMP points to the urgent need of additional emissions reductions (beyond those incorporated in the 1997/99 Plan) from all sources, specifically those under the jurisdiction of the California Air Resources Board and the US EPA which account for approximately 80 percent of the ozone precursor emissions in the Basin (www.aqmd.gov/aqmp/). The proposed development will be to construct (4) four unit residential single story income units on the two lots The main air pollutants generated in association with the proposed project would be traffic-related. Operational emissions from the project would be within established thresholds and constriction emissions exceeding daily thresholds would be mitigated through implementation of measures from the South Coast Air Quality Management District CEQA Handbook (refer to discussion under item b, below). Therefore, the project is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of 2003 AQMP. There will be no impact. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 37 General Plan Amendment The Federal and California State Ambient Air Quality Standards for important pollutants are summarized in Table 1 and described in detail below. TABLE 1 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary Standard State Standard Ozone(Os) 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 PPM 8-Hour. 0.08 ppm — 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) ]-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm Annual 0.05 ppm — Nitrogen Oxide(NO„) 1-Hour — 0.25 ppm Annual 0.03 ppm — Sulfur Dioxide(S02) 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm 1-Hour — 0.5 ppm Annual 50 Ag/M 30/g/M PM1e 24-Hour 150Jg/M 50/g/M Annual 15Ag/m, — PM s s 24-Hour 65 Ag/m3 _ Lead 30-Day Avg. — 1.5 Win, Month Avg. 1.5 W)M Source: California Au Resources Board, "Ambient Air Quality Standards,'January 25, 1999 ppm —parts per indhon /g1m3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter Ozone(0)is the most prevalent of a class of photochemical oxidants formed in the tit ban atmosphere. The a'eation of ozone is a result of complex chemical reactions between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunshine. Unlike other pollutants,ozone is not released directly into the atmosphere from any sources. The major sources of oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons,known as ozone precursors,aie combustion sources such as factories and automobiles,and evaporation of solvents and fuels. The health effects of ozone are eye irritation and damage to lung tissues. Cebon Monoxide(CO)is a colorless,odorless,toxic gas formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO concentrations are generally higher in the winter,when meteorological conditions favor the build-up of directly emitted contaminants. CO health warning and emergency episodes occur almost entirely during the winter. The most significant source of carbon monoxide is gasoline powered automobiles,as a result of inefficient fuel usage in internal combustion engines. Various industrial processes also emit carbon monoxide. Nitrogen Oxides(NOx)the primary receptors of ultraviolet light initiating the photochemical reactions to produce smog.Nitric oxide combines with oxygen in the presence of reactive hydrocarbons and sunlight to form nitrogen dioxide and ozone. Oxides of nitrogen are contributors to other air pollution problems including:high levels of tine particulate matter,poor visibility and acid deposition. Sulfur Dioxide(SO2)results from the combustion of high sulfur content fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of S02,while chemical plants,sulfur recovery plants,and metal processing are minor contributors.Sulfates result from a relation of sulfur dioxide and oxygen in the presence of sunlight. S02 levels are generally higher in the winter(hall in the summer(when sunlight is plentiful and sulfate is more readily formed). Particulate Matter(PM10 and PM2.5)consists of particles in the atmosphere as a by-product of fuel combustion,through abrasion such as lire wear,and through soil erosion by wind. Particulates can also be formed through photochemical reactions in the atmosphere. PM10 refers to finely divided solids or liquids such as soot,dust,and aerosols which:we 10 microns or less in diameter and can enter the lungs. Fine particles are those less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter and are also referred to as PM2.5. Lead is found in old paints and coatings,plumbing and a variety of other materials. Once in the blood stream,lead can cause damage to the brain,nervous system,and other body systems.Children are most susceptible to the effects of lead. The South County Air Basin and riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin are in attainment for the federal and State standards for lead. The SCQAMD has established significance thresholds for operational and construction-related emissions. Daily and quarterly thresholds are established. Since a project's quarterly emissions are determined by averaging over a 3-month period (including only actual working days), it is possible to not exceed the quarterly thresholds while exceeding the daily thresholds shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 EMISSIONS SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA(POUNDS/DAY) City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 38 General Plan Amendment Pollutant CO ROG NO, SOx PM�� Operational Emissions Pounds/Day 550 55 55 150 150 Construction Emissions Pounds/Day 550 75 100 150 150 Source: SCQAMD, CEQA Ah Quality Handbook,November 1993 Projects in the Coachella Valley with peak (highest daily) operation-related emissions that exceed any of these emissions thresholds should be considered significant. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 39 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in ❑ ❑ ❑ local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional ❑ ❑ ❑ plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ❑ ❑ ❑ vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with El El Elestablished native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? a) No Impact. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 40 General Plan Amendment California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats. b) No Impact. The site is not identified as having any natural community that could be affected by the project. Therefore, the project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. c) No Impact. The site does not contain any wetland areas. Therefore, no impact to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 would occur. d) No Impact. The project area is primarily undeveloped but has been disturbed and does not contain any migration corridors or waterways. Therefore, no migratory patterns of fish or wildlife would be impacted by this project and no impact would occur. e) No Impact. The project site is undeveloped; clearing the site would not require removal or disturbance of sensitive biological resources or landmark trees. Therefore, no conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would occur. f) No Impact. The City of Palm Springs does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact on these types of plans. July 6, 2005 -- Page 41 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource ❑ ❑ ❑ as defined in " 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource pursuant to " 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or ❑ ❑ ❑ unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ❑ cemeteries? a-c) No Impact. For paleontological resources, files from the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California Berkeley were searched. The GeoRef database was also consulted for information relating to the Palm Springs region. If prehistoric or historic cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during any ground-disturbing activities, all work in the area shall stop innnediately and the City shall be notified of the discovery. No work shall be done in the area of the find and within 100 feet of the find until a professional archaeologist can detertirme whether the resource(s) is significant. If necessary, the archaeologist shall develop mitigation measures consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines in consultation with the appropriate state agency and, if applicable, a representative from the Native American Heritage List. A mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for approval. Mitigation in accordance with this plan shall be implemented before any work is done in the area of the resource find. d) No Impact. The proposed project would be subject to State law regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains. It is not anticipated that any human remains will be encountered during construction of the proposed project because the site and surrounding area have been previously disturbed to accommodate development. However, should any previously unidentified or unanticipated human remains be discovered during project construction, the City of Palm Springs requires mitigation consistent with the General Plan Archaeological and Paleontological Policy. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 42 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for ❑ El El area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ © ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss El ElElof topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially ❑ ❑ Elresult in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building ❑ El ElCode (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a) i) No Impact. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake hazard zone and there are no known faults crossing or in the vicinity of the Project site. However, the project site, as with virtually all sites within the state, would be vulnerable to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The Project site and surrounding vicinity are relatively flat eliminating the potential for landslides. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 43 General Plan Amendment The City of Palm Springs General Plan requires that the project be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Adherence to the provisions of the UBC would reduce potential for structural damage in the event of an earthquake. Therefore, no impact would occur. ii) Less than Significant bnpact. Any major earthquake damage in the City of Palm Springs is likely to occur from ground shaking and seismically related ground and structural failures. Local soil conditions, such as topography, soil strength, thickness, density, water content, and firmness of underlying bedrock affect seismic response. Seismically induced shaking and some damage should be expected to occur but damage should be no more severe in the project area than elsewhere in the region. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. iii) No impact. There are no known geological hazards caused by ground failure or liquefaction which would prevent use of the site. Therefore, no impact would occur. iv) No impact. The ground is level and approval of the project would not expose people or structures to potential landslides. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) Less than Significant Impact. Some soil erosion is expected during construction, but loss of topsoil is not a significant issue. Existing codes regulate land grading and erosion control if construction occurs during winter months (November-March). Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. c-d) No Impact. See items a and b, above. e) No Impact. The project would be required to connect to City water and sewer services and would not use septic systems. Therefore, no impact would occur. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 44 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ❑ ❑ ® ❑ transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ❑ ❑ ® ❑ conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within ❑ ❑ ❑ one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code El ❑ ❑ §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ E would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result ❑ ❑ ❑ in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ ❑ response plan or emergency evacuation plan? City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 45 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas El Ll III X or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a, b) Less than Significant Impact. Construction of the proposed project would involve the use of heavy equipment which uses small amounts of oils and fixels and other potentially flaimnable substances. During construction, equipment would require refiieling and minor maintenance on location which could lead to fuel and oil spills. The Contractor will be required to identify a staging area for storing materials and equipment. The proposed project would not result in a significant risk of explosion or accidental release of hazardous substances. The use and handling of hazardous materials during construction activities would occur in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (CalOSHA)requirements. No waterways are located on the site and the project would not be required to obtain a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Constriction Activity Stonn Water Permit. The project contractor would be required to file a Notice of Intent (NOI) under the State's NPDES General Construction Permit (CAS00002). This permit requires that a Stonu Water Pollutant Prevention Plan (SWPPP)be prepared specifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce construction related-impacts on the project site. Therefore, accidental release impacts are considered less than significant. c-d) No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur. e-f) No Impact. The nearest airport is the Palm Springs Regional Airport located at Gene Autry Trail. The Airport is approximately 1250ft. southwest of the project site. In addition, the proposed project site is not within the Noise Impact Combining Zone Palm Springs General Plan 1993. Normal operations of this facility would not result in safety related or other adverse impacts to people working at or near the project site. g) No Impact. The City of Palm Springs Emergency Plan was established to address planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. The Plan focuses on operational concepts relative to large- scale disasters, which can pose major threats to life and property requiring unusual emergency responses. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. h) No Impact. Based on the site's location in an urban area, it would not be subject to wildland fire. No impact would occur. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 46 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or El El ® ❑ waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a ❑ El ® ❑ stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of [he course of a stream or river, or substantially increase ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water ❑ ❑ ® Elquality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ 71 ❑ City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 47 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving ❑ ❑ flooding, including flooding as a result of a Ll failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ a,d,e) Less than Significant Impact The proposed project would add 8 units to the City of Palm Springs. This would increase the amount of impervious surface in the area by adding strictures, asphalt and concrete to a previously vacant lot. The additional drainage from this project would not have any significant impact on water quality or discharge pollutants into the water system nor result in violations of existing requirements. The project would be required to meet all applicable water quality standards or waste discharge requirements thereby avoiding violation of such standards or requirements. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would incrementally increase groundwater consTunption,but would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan land use designation assumed in preparation of the water demand as part of buildout of the General Plan. Therefore, a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table is not anticipated and this impact is considered less than significant. c-d) Less than Significantimpact The project would not alter the course of any stream or river as none are located on-site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. The project would involve construction of impervious surfaces (homes, driveways, streets) on a site that is currently vacant. This would change the drainage of the site decreasing absorption rates and increasing run-off incrementally in the area. Because not more than I acre would be disturbed, the RWQCB would not require a construction activity Storm Water General Pemlit. The project would comiect to the City of Palm Springs storm water system and comply with City standards requiring that all new project's not result in new or increased flooding impacts on adjoining parcels on upstream and downstrearn areas. Therefore, impacts to drainage and runoff are considered less than significant. e-f) Less than Significant Impact No additional impacts to water quality are anticipated other that the less than significant impacts discussed above in items a through d. g-h) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located in an area(determined by FEMA) determined to be located outside a 500-year floodplain. Therefore, flooding impacts associated with the proposed project are considered less than significant. i) No Impact. The Palm Springs Enviromnental Impact Report does not identify flooding as a result of levee or dam failure as having a potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death in City of Palm Springs. Therefore, no impact would occur. j) No Impact. The City of Palm Springs is not located in an area subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Therefore, no impact would occur. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 48 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ El ❑ community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific ❑ ❑ ® ❑ plan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? a) No impact. The project would not divide an established community and no impact would occur. b) Less than significant. A General Plan Amendment is proposed from L-4 which allows 4 lots per acre to M-15 which allows 15 units per acre. e) No Impact The project would not conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural cotmnunity conservation plan. No impact would occur. July 6, 2005 -- Page 40 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to ❑ ❑ ❑ the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ El ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a-b) No Impact. No significant mineral resources have been identified in the project area. The Palm Springs General Plan EIR(Palm Springs, 1992) identified any mineral resources in the planning area. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 50 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ X ❑ above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the El El ® ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the, project expose ❑ ❑ ❑ people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a,b,d) Less than significant. Construction of the project may subject surrounding residents to temporary noise elevations and ground vibration. Maximum noise level (dB at 50 feet) for typical construction equipment ranges from 85 dB for a backhoe and pneumatic tools to 87 dB for bulldozers, and 88 dB for heavy bucks. Construction noise would be temporary. In addition, the project would be required to comply with City construction noise standards which limit hours and days of construction. c) Less than Significant. Following construction, noise levels on the project site would increase in association with the proposed residential development. Noise generated would be typical of a residential development and include traffic noise and back yard noise. While overall ambient noise levels would increase as a result of the project, the proposed residential uses are not anticipated to exceed any applicable noise standards. The proposed project would not be exposed to excessive noise from neighboring uses. Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 51 General Plan Amendment c-f) No Impact. The project site is not located within any of the clear, approach/departure and overflight zones for the Palm Springs Airport facility City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 52 General Plan Amendment Less Than si,nificant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? a-c) No Impact. The proposed project would add 8 new housing units to the City's housing stock. The project site is in an area that is surrounded by residential uses with some conunercial uses interspersed and would represent an extension of existing residential development. While the project would generate a new resident population in the area, the extent of the new population would not be considered substantial and is consistent with growth assumed in the General Plan. The project site is vacant. No existing residents or housing would be displaced to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to population and housing are not considered significant. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 53 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Less than Significantlmpact The project site is located in the Palm Springs Fire Department service area. The project would be required to comply with the requirements of the Palm Springs Fire Department regarding access, water mains, fire flow, brush clearance and hydrants and would result in a less than significant impact on fire protection services. Increased demands for fire service are funded almost entirely through property taxes. The proposed project would increase property taxes and thereby the anount of funding available for fire services. Therefore, impacts to fire services are considered less than significant. b) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the service area of the City of Palm Springs Police Department. The project would add 8 apartment dwellings which would not increase demands for law enforcement services within the City. Therefore, impacts to police protection would be less than significant. c) Less than Significant Impact The project site is located within the Palm Springs School District. The addition of 8 dwellings would not increase demand for schools by generating additional students. Based on the generation factors contained in the General Plan EIR, the proposed project would not add enough students to be considered a significant impact with regards to elementary school (K-6) students, middle school (7-8 grade) students, and high school (9-12) students. The Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998, which governs a school district's authority to levy school impact fees would also assist in mitigating impacts to schools. Finally, California Government Code Sections 65995(h) and 65996(b) note that payments of fees provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. The project is required to pay statutory development fees (currently$3.63 per square foot of residential space)prior to the issuance of building permits for single-family residential construction. Therefore, with the payment of statutory fees, in keeping with the Planing and Zoning Laws, impacts to schools would be less than significant. d) Less than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Palm Springs Department of Parks and Recreation service area. State law requires each City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 54 General Plan Amendment new residential development to dedicate land for park facilities or pay an in-lieu fee to cover the cost of acquiring park land elsewhere. The City uses a dedication formula of 5- acres per 1,000 persons. The proposed project would add 8 apartment residential units and generate approximately 24.63 residents (based on a generation factor of 3.07 persons per household from the 2000 Census). The amount of population generated by the project does not reach the 1,000 person standard. The project does not include provision of any on-site parks. As a result, the project would satisfy park requirements through the payment of in-lieu fees. Therefore, impacts to parks and recreation are considered less than significant. e) Less than Significant Impact. The project would not create any significant impacts to the service levels of any other public service providers. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 55 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which ❑ ❑ ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) No Impact. The proposed project, as a residential development could increase use of existing recreational facilities. Based on the current population generation factor of 3.07 persons per household), the construction of up to 8 new apartment residential units would result in approximately 24.63 new residents (8 x 3.07=24.63). The City's Subdivision regulations require the dedication of land or in-lieu fees equivalent to 5.0 acres per 1,000 population ([8/1,0001 x 5) or .04cres of parkland. The project does not include any acreage that would go towards Quimby Act Requirements. Therefore, an in-lieu fee would be required per the Quimby Act. Although, the project would increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks, or other recreational facilities, it would also contribute its fair share in the form of in-lieu fees to the satisfaction of the Palm Springs Parks and Recreation Department. Therefore, impacts to recreation are not considered significant. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 56 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ number of vehicle trips, the volume-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ® ❑ management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic ❑ ❑ ❑ levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ❑ El © ❑ dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative El ❑ ❑ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? a-g) Less than Significant. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed either individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by the Riverside County. The project would result in slight increases in traffic volumes on area roadways, but would not individually result in an exceedance of a county established level of service Therefore; this impact is considered less than significant. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 57 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. WOULD THE PROJECT: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider [hat serves or may serve the project that it has El ❑ El capacity to serve the project's projected demand, in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ® ❑ waste? a-g) Less than Significant Impact. Project construction and grading activities on-site would involve the operation of heavy equipment. Although the project site is relatively flat and the potential for soil erosion is considered to be low, peak stoma water runoff could result in short-tern sheet erosion in areas of exposed soils. The compaction of soils by heavy equipment would reduce the infiltration capacity of soils and increase runoff and erosion potential. If uncontrolled, soil materials could result in engineering problems including the blockage of storm drainage channels and downstrearn sedimentation. Projects disturbing more than one acre are required to obtain a National Pollution Distribution Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Activity Storm Water Permit. The project construction contractor would be required to file a Notice of Intent under the City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 58 General Plan Amendment State's NPDES General Construction Permit (CAS00002). This permit requires that a Storn Water Pollutant Prevention Plan (SWPPP)be prepared specifying Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion to disturbed soils. The project would also be subject to the City's Land Grading and Erosion Control Ordinance. This ordinance establishes administrative procedures,minimum standards for review, and implementation and enforcement procedures for controlling erosion, sedimentation, disruption of existing drainage and related environmental darnage caused by land clearing activities, grading, filling, and land excavation. Therefore, the project would not exceed wastewater treatment requirements and this impact is considered less than significant. Wastewater infrastructure for the proposed project would be placed within roadway right- of-ways throughout the project site. Water would be conveyed to the Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (RWTP) for treatment. The project would increase the aunount of wastewater flows to the RWTP. Currently, there is sufficient capacity at the RWTP to accommodate flows from the proposed project. However, as described in the City of Palm Springs General Plan EIR, capacity requirements at the treatment plant are calculated on population based water-flow projects and are not related to specific land uses or designations. As the number of units proposed by the project would not substantially add to flows anticipated under the general plan and no expansions in treatment capacity would be necessary, impacts to wastewater treatment are considered less than significant. July 6, 2005 -- Page 59 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant With Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporate Significant Impact d Impact No Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ❑ ❑ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when ❑ ❑ ❑ viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse El El ❑ effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) No Impact. The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the enviromnent; result in an adverse impact on fish, wildlife, or plant species including special status species, or prehistoric or historic cultural resources because project components would be constructed on areas that are not identified as sensitive. Prehistoric or historic cultural resources would not be adversely affected because no archeological or historic resources are known to exist in the project areas. Further, project implementation includes compliance with appropriate procedures for avoiding or preserving artifacts or human remains if they are discovered during project excavation. b) No Impact. The project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and would not create any significant impacts. All project impacts would be reduced by adhering to basic regulatory requirements and/or conditions of approval incorporated into project design. c) No Impact. The proposed project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans because constriction effects would be temporary and have been reduced or eliminated by environmental control measures incorporated into the project design. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 60 General Plan Amendment Therefore, the proposed project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans. References 1) City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 1992. 2) City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs General Plan. 1992. 3) City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs Zoning Code. 2004. 4) South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993 City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 61 General Plan Amendment NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 1961 SOUTH PALM CANYON DRIVE LEAD AGENCY: The City Of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 CONTACT PERSON: Matt Feske; (760) 323-8245 PROJECT TITLE: Casas De La Venia (Case#5.1043) PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located at 1961 South Palm Canyon Drive, (APN 513-390-044), Zone R-1-C, Section 27, (Case #5.1043) PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A General Plan Amendment is proposed from L-2 which allows 2 lots per acre to L-4 which allows 4 units per acre. The proposed General Plan Amendment would provide consistency with existing parcels. The proposed two (2) lots would be 11, 225+/- square feet (approximately 1/4 acre) each. FINDINGS/DETERMINATION: The City has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that the project will not have significant adverse impacts. The City hereby prepares and proposes to adopt a Negative Declaration for this project. PUBLIC REVIEW PERIOD: A 20 day public review period for the Draft Negative Declaration will commence on May 14, 2005 through June 2, 2005 at 5:00 p.m. for interested individuals and public agencies to submit written comments on the document. Any written comments on the Negative Declaration must be received at the above address within the public review period. In addition, you may email comments to the following address. MathhewFCci.palm-springs.ca.us Copies of the Negative Declaration/Initial Study are available for review at the above address and at the City library. PUBLIC MEETING: This matter has been tentatively set for public hearing on June 8, 2005 Date: Signature: Gary Wayne,Planning Director City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 62 General Plan Amendment Environmental Checklist Form 1. PROJECT TITLE: A General Plan Amendment 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Palm Springs 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 3. Contact person and phone number: Gary Wayne, Director of Planning Services (760) 323-8245 4. Project location: 1961 South Palm Canyon Drive, (APN 513-390-044), Zone R-1-C, Section 27 5. PROJECT SPONSOR'S NAME AND ADDRESS: City of Palm Springs 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 6. GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: L-2 (Low density which allows up to 2 lots per acre) 7. ZONING: R-1-C (Single family residential zone, 10, 000 sq. ft.) 8. Description of project:(Describe the whole action involved,including but not limited to later phases of the project,and any secondary,support,or off site features necessary for its implementation.Attach additional sheets if necessary.) A General Plan Amendment is proposed from L-2 which allows 2 lots per acre to L-4 which allows 4 units per acre. The proposed General Plan Amendment would provide consistency with existing parcels. Of the forty-five parcels located between Palm Canyon Drive from the West through to Mesa Drive on the East, El Camino Way from the North, and Camino Cannelita to the South, three parcels meet the requirements and forty-two are non-compliant. The proposed two (2) lots would be 11, 225+/- square feet (approximately 1/4 acre) each. 11. Surrounding land uses and setting: Briefly describe the project's surroundings: North—R-1-C/ Single family residential zone, 10, 000 sq. ft South -R-1-B / Single family residential zone, 15, 000 sq. ft East—R-2/Limited Multiple Zone and PD 80/Planned Development. West- R-1-B / Single family residential zone, 15, 000 sq. ft 12. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement). f Palm Springs Police Department g. Palm Springs Fire Department h. Palm Springs Unified School District City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 64 General Plan Amendment Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The enviroinnental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one iinpact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water ❑ Land Use/Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 65 General Plan Amendment Determination. (TO BE COMPLETED BY THE LEAD AGENCY) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the ❑ environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment,but at least one ❑ effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2)has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 66 General Plan Amendment Evaluation Of Environmental Impacts: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact' answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No hnpact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact' entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact' to a"Less Than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures 'Earlier Analyses," as described in(5)below, maybe cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063(c)(3)(D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. 6) Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g., general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7) Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8) This is only a suggested fore, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should nornally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 67 General Plan Amendment project's enviromnental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and h) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 68 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact incorporated Impact No Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a ❑ ❑ ❑ scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock El ❑ ❑ outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑X surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare that would adversely affect day ❑ ❑ ❑ or nighttime views in the area? a-b) No Impact The site and surrounding area are generally flat and do not contain any scenic vistas. The site is covered with weeds and grasses. The site does not contain any thick stands of trees, rock outcroppings or historic buildings. Therefore, no impacts to scenic resources would occur. Further, construction of the project would not obstruct or disrupt views of a scenic vista. c-d) No Impact. The proposed project would serve as infill in an area that is predominantly residential. The area does not contain any unique features which would be lost or compromised as a result of the project. The project would comply with City design standards and would continue the existing development pattern identified in the General Plan. Therefore, impacts to visual character, including light and glare, are no considered to be significant. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 69 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact It. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997), prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the ❑ ❑ ❑ Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ conversion of Farmland to non- agricultural use? a) No Impact. No impact to farmland would occur. b) No Impact. No Williamson Act Contracts are located on the parcel comprising the project site. Furthermore, no Williamson Act Contracts are located in the immediate vicinity of the project site (Williamson Act Contracts) of the Palm Springs General Plan EIR(Palm Springs, 1992). Therefore, no impacts to Williamson Act Contracts would occur. c) No Impact. The proposed project site is located in an urban area. Parcels adjacent to the site are designated Single-Family Residential, Multi Family and Vacant. hnplementation of the proposed project would therefore not result in conversion of farmland to non- agricultural uses. There will be no impact to agricultural land. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 70 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact III. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation ❑ El ❑ of the applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or ❑ ❑ ❑ projected air quality violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is in non- attainment under an applicable federal ❑ El ❑ or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial El ❑ ❑ pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a El El Elsubstantial number of people? a-e) No Impact. The project is within the jurisdiction of the South County Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). The SCQAMD Governing Board adopted the 2003 Air Quality Management Plan(AQMP) on August 1, 2003. The 2003 AQMP updates the attainment demonstration for federal standards for ozone and PM10; replaces the 1997 attaimment demonstration for the federal carbon monoxide (CO) standard and provides a basis for a maintenance plan for CO for the future; and updates the maintenance plan for the federal nitrogen dioxide (NO2) standard that the South Coast Air Basin has met since 1992. The revision of the AQMP points to the urgent need of additional emissions reductions (beyond those incorporated in the 1997/99 Plan) from all sources, specifically those under the jurisdiction of the California Air Resources Board and the US EPA which account for approximately 80 percent of the ozone precursor emissions in the Basin (www.aqlud.gov/aqmp/). The project is not anticipated to conflict with or obstruct implementation of 2003 AQMP. There will be no impact. The Federal and California State Ambient Air Quality Standards for important pollutants are summarized in Table 1 and described in detail below. TABLE 1 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Averaging Time I Federal Primary Standard State Standard City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 71 General Plan Amendment Ozone(03) 1-I-lour 0.12 ppm 0.09 PPM 8-HOUR 0.08 ppm — 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm Carbon Monoxide (CO) 1-Hour 35.0 ppm 20.0 ppm Nitrogen Oxide(NOx) Annual 0.05 ppm — 1-Hour — 0.25 ppm Annual 0.03 ppm -- Sulfur Dioxide(SO2) 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm 1-Hour — 0.5 ppm Annual 50 Jg/m' 30{g/m' PM,, 24-1-lour 150 Jg/m' 50 Jg/m' Annual 15 Rg/m' — PM z.s 24-Hour 65 tWin' _ Lead 30-Day Avg. — 1.5 lWnl' Month Avg. 1.5 Fg/m3 - Source: California Air Resources Board, "Ambient At, Quality Standards,"January 25, 1999. ppm =parts per million lglm3 = Micrograms per Cubic Meter Ozone(O,)is the most prevalent of a class of photochemical oxidants formed in the la ban atmosphere. The creation of ozone is a result of complex chemical reactions between hydrocarbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunshine. Unlike other pollutants,ozone is not released directly into the atmosphere from any sources. The major sources of oxides of nitrogen and reactive hydrocarbons,known as ozone precursors,are combustion sources such as factories and automobiles,and evaporation of solvents and fuels The health effects of ozone are eye in italion and damage to lung tissues Carbon Monoxide(CO)is a colorless,odorless,toxic gas formed by incomplete combustion of fossil fuels. CO concentrations are generally higher in the winter,when meteorological conditions favor the build-up of directly emitted contaminants. CO health warning and emergency episodes occur almost entirely during the winter. The most significant source of carbon monoxide is gasoline powered automobiles,as a result of inefficient fuel usage in Internal combustion engines. Various industrial processes also emit carbon monoxide. Nitrogen Oxides(NOx)the primary receptors of ultraviolet light initiating the photochemical reactions to produce smog.Nitric oxide combines with oxygen fit the presence of reactive hydrocarbons and sunlight to form nitrogen dioxide and ozone. Oxides of nitrogen are contributors to other air pollution problems including:high levels of fine particulate matter,poor visibility and acid deposition. Sulfm Dioxide(S02)results from the combustion of high sulfur content fuels. Fuel combustion is the major source of S02,mobile chemical plants,sulfur recovery plants,and metal processing are minor contributors.Sulfates result from a relation of sulfur dioxide and oxygen in the presence of sadight. S02 levels are generally higher in the winter than in the summer(when sunlight is plentiful and sulfate is more readily formed). Particulate Matter(PM10 and PM2 5)consists of particles in the atmosphere as a by-product of fuel combustion,tbrough abrasion such as tire wear,and through soil erosion by wind. Particulates can also be formed through photochemical reactions in(lie atmosphere. PM10 refers to finely divided solids or liquids such as soot,dust,and aerosols which are 10 microns or less in diameter and can enter the hags. Fine particles are those less than 2.5 micrometers in diameter and are also referred to as PM2.5. Lead is found in old paints and coatings,plumbing and a variety of other materials. Once in the blood stream,lead can cause damage to the brain,nervous system,and other body systems.Children are most susceptible to the effects of lead. The South County Air Basin and riverside County portion of the Salton Sea Air Basin are in attainment for the federal and State standards for lead. The SCQAMD has established significance thresholds for operational and constriction-related emissions. Daily and quarterly thresholds are established. Since a project's quarterly emissions are determined by averaging over a 3-month period (including only actual working days), it is possible to not exceed the quarterly thresholds while exceeding the daily thresholds shown in Table 2. TABLE 2 EMISSIONS SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA(POUNDS/DAY) Pollutant CO ROG NOx SO, PM,,, Operational Emissions Pounds/Day 550 55 55 150 150 Construction Emissions City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 72 General Plan Amendment Pounds/Day 550 75 100 150 150 Sowce: SCQAMD, CEQA An Quality Handbook,November 1993 Projects in the Coachella Valley with peak (highest daily) operation-relatecl emissions that exceed any of these emissions thresholds should be considered significant. July 6, 2005 -- Page 73 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in El ❑ local or regional plans, policies or El 0 regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, ❑ ❑ ❑ vernal pool, coastal wetlands, etc.), through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ❑ ❑ ❑ established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as atree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ❑ or other approved local, regional or state habitat conservation plan? a) No Impact. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 74 General Plan Amendment California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, the project would not result in impacts to endangered, threatened, or rare species or their habitats. b) No Impact. The site is not identified as having any natural community that could be affected by the project. Therefore, the project would not have an adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural corra m ity. c) No Impact. The site does not contain any wetland areas. Therefore, no impact to federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 would occur. d) No Impact. The project area is primarily undeveloped but has been disturbed and does not contain any migration corridors or waterways. Therefore, no migratory patterns of fish or wildlife would be impacted by this project and no impact would occur. e) No Impact. The project site is undeveloped; clearing the site would not require removal or disturbance of sensitive biological resources or landmark trees. Therefore, no conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources would occur. f) No Impact. The City of Palm Springs does not have an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would have no impact on these types of plans. July 6, 2005 -- Page 75 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource ❑ ❑ ❑ as defined in " 15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in [he significance of an archaeological ❑ ❑ ❑ resource pursuant to " 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or ❑ ❑ ❑ unique geological feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ❑ ❑ cemeteries? a-c) No Impact. For paleontological resources, files from the Museum of Paleontology at the University of California Berkeley were searched. The GeoRef database was also consulted for information relating to the Palm Springs region. If prehistoric or historic cultural resources are inadvertently discovered during any ground-disturbing activities, all work in the area shall stop immediately and the City shall be notified of the discovery. No work shall be done in the area of the find and within 100 feet of the find until a professional archaeologist can determine whether the resource(s) is significant. If necessary, the archaeologist shall develop mitigation measures consistent with the State CEQA Guidelines in consultation with the appropriate state agency and, if applicable, a representative from the Native American Heritage List. A mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for approval. Mitigation in accordance with this plan shall be implemented before any work is done in the area of the resource find. d) No Impact. The proposed project would be subject to State law regarding the discovery and disturbance of human remains. Should any previously unidentified or unanticipated human remains be discovered during future project development, the City of Palm Springs requires mitigation consistent with the General Plan Archaeological and Paleontological Policy. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 76 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death, involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, ❑ ❑ ❑ including liquefaction? iv) Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss El ❑ of topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially ❑ El Elresult in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building 1-1 ❑ ❑ Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems ❑ ❑ ❑ where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? a) i) No Impact. The site is not located within an Alquist-Priolo earthquake hazard zone and there are no known faults crossing or in the vicinity of the project site. However, the project site, as with virtually all sites within the state, would be vulnerable to ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. The project site and surrounding vicinity are relatively flat eliminating the potential for landslides. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 77 General Plan Amendment The City of Palm Springs General Plan requires that the project be designed and constructed in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Adherence to the provisions of the UBC would reduce potential for structural damage in the event of an earthquake. Therefore, no impact would occur. ii) No impact. Any major earthquake damage in the City of Palm Springs is likely to occur from ground shaking and seismically related ground and structural failures. Local soil conditions, such as topography, soil strength, thickness, density, water content, and fineness of underlying bedrock affect seismic response. Seismically induced shaking and some damage should be expected to occur but damage should be no more severe in the project area than elsewhere in the region. Therefore, no impact would occur. iii) No impact. There are no known geological hazards caused by ground failure or liquefaction which would prevent use of the site. Therefore, no impact would occur. iv) No impact. The ground is level and approval of the project would not expose people or structures to potential landslides. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) No impact. Existing codes regulate land grading and erosion control if and when construction occurs during winter months (November-March). Therefore, no impact would occur. c-d) No Impact. See items a and b, above. e) No Impact. The project would not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater Therefore, no impact would occur. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 78 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine ❑ ❑ Eltransport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident ❑ El ❑ conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances or waste within ❑ ❑ ❑ one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code ❑ El El ❑ §65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result El El El a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency ❑ ❑ Elresponse plan or emergency evacuation plan? t f City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 79 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? a, b) No Impact. The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials Therefore, no impact would occur. c-d) No Impact. The project site is not included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. No impact would occur. e-f) No Impact. The nearest airport is the Palm Springs Regional Airport located at Gene Autry Trail. The proposed project site is not within the Noise Impact Combining Zone (Palm Springs General Plan 1993). g) No Impact. The City of Palm Springs Emergency Plan was established to address planned response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters and technological incidents. The Plan focuses on operational concepts relative to large- scale disasters, which can pose major threats to life and property requiring unusual emergency responses. Therefore, no impact is anticipated. h) No Impact. Based on the site's location in an urban area, it would not be subject to wildland fire. No impact would occur. July 6, 2005 -- Page 80 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or ❑ ❑ Elwaste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the ❑ ❑ ❑ production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would ❑ ❑ ❑ E result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase ❑ ❑ ❑ the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site? e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or ❑ ❑ ❑ provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water El ❑ ❑ quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate ❑ ❑ ❑ Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect flood flows? ❑ ❑ ❑ City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 81 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving ❑ ❑ Elflooding, including flooding as a result of a failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ a,d,e) No Impact. The project would be required to meet all applicable water quality standards or waste discharge requirements thereby avoiding violation of such standards or requirements. Therefore, no impact would occur. b) No Impact. A net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table is not anticipated and therefore, no impact would occur. c-d) No Impact. The project would not alter the course of any stream or river as none are located on-site or in the immediate vicinity of the site. Therefore, no impact would occur. e-f) No Impact. No additional impacts to water quality are anticipated. g-h) No Imzpaet. The project site is located in an area(determined by FEMA) determined to be located outside a 500-year floodplain. Therefore, flooding impacts associated with the proposed project are not considered significant. i) No Impact. The Palm Springs General Plan Enviromnental Impact Report does not identify flooding as a result of levee or dam failure as having a potential to expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss injury or death in City of Palm Springs. Therefore, no impact would occur. j) No Impact The City of Palm Springs is not located in an area subject to seiche, tsunami or mudflow. Therefore, no impact would occur. City Council Staff Report July 0, 2005 -- Page 82 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established ❑ ❑ 1-1community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to, the general plan, specific El ❑ ® Elplan, local coastal program or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ conservation plan? a) No impact. The project would not divide an established community and no impact would occur. b) Less than significant A General Plan Amendment is proposed from L-2 which allows 2 lots per acre to L-4 which allows 4 units per acre. c) No Impact. The project would not conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur. i i i i I City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 83 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to ❑ ❑ ❑ the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? a-b) No Impact. No significant mineral resources have been identified in the project area. The Palm Springs General Plan EIR (Palm Springs, 1992) has not identified any mineral resources in the planning area. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur. i City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 84 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially gWith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ noise ordinance or of applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or ❑ ❑ ❑ F] groundborne noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the ❑ ❑ ❑ project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan area or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or a public use airport, ❑ ❑ ❑ would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose ❑ ❑ ❑ people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? a,b,d) No Impact. The proposed project would not subject surrounding residents to noise elevations and/or ground vibration. Therefore, no impact would occur. c) No Impact. The proposed residential uses are not anticipated to exceed any applicable noise standards. The proposed project would not be exposed to excessive noise from neighboring uses. Therefore, this impact is not considered significant. e-f) No Impact. The project site is not located within any of the clear, approach/departure and overflight zones for the Palm Springs Airport facility July 6, 2005 -- Page 85 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly ❑ ❑ ❑ (e.g., through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? a-c) No Impact. The project site is in an area that is surrounded by residential uses and would represent an extension of existing residential development. The project site is vacant. No existing residents or housing would be displaced to accommodate the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to population and housing are not considered significant. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 86 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: a) Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ a) No impact. The project site is located in the Palm Springs Fire Department service area. The project would not increase demands for fire services within the City. Therefore, impacts to fire protection would not be significant. b) No impact. The project site is located within the service area of the City of Palm Springs Police Department. The project would not increase demands for law enforcement services within the City. Therefore, impacts to police protection would not be significant. c) No impact. The project site is located within the Palm Springs School District. The Leroy F. Green School Facilities Act of 1998, which governs a school district's authority to levy school impact fees, assists in mitigating impacts to schools. California Govermnent Code Sections 65995(h) and 65996(b) note that payments of fees provide full and complete school facilities mitigation. Therefore, no impact would occur. d) No impact. The project site is located within the boundaries of the Palm Springs Department of Parks and Recreation service area. State law requires each new residential development to dedicate land for park facilities or pay an in-lieu fee to cover the cost of acquiring park land elsewhere. The City uses a dedication formula of 5-acres per 1,000 persons. The amount of population generated by the project does not reach the 1,000 person standard. The project does not include provision of any on-site parks. Therefore, no impact would occur. e) No impact. The project would not create any significant impacts to the service levels. Therefore, no impact would occur. i City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 87 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. RECREATION. a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that ❑ ❑ ❑ substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities, or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which ❑ ❑ ❑ might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? a-b) No Impact. The proposed project, as a general plan amendment would not increase use of existing recreational facilities. Therefore, no impact would occur. i I I i i I I I I July 6, 2005 -- Page 88 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the ❑ ❑ ❑ number of vehicle trips, the voluble-to- capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or Cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic El ❑ ❑ levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or ❑ ❑ Eldangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e) Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans or programs supporting alternative ❑ ❑ ❑ transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? a-g) No impact. The proposed project is not anticipated to exceed either individually or cumulatively a level of service standard established by Riverside County. The project would not result in increases in traffic volumes on area roadways, nor would it result in an exceedance of a county established level of service Therefore, no impact would occur. i City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 89 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant Impact Incorporated Impact No Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. WOULD THE PROJECT: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality ❑ ❑ ❑ Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, ❑ ❑ ❑ the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements ❑ ❑ ❑ and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider that serves or may serve the project that it has ❑ ❑ adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand, in addition to the provider's existing commitments? f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the ❑ ❑ ❑ project's solid waste disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid ❑ ❑ ❑ waste? a-g) No impact. The project would not increase the amount of wastewater flows to the RWTP. As described in the City of Palm Springs General Plan EIR, capacity requirements at the treatment plant are calculated on population based water-flow projects and are not related to specific land uses or designations. As the proposed project would not substantially add to flows anticipated under the general plan and no expansions I in treatment capacity would he necessary, impacts to wastewater treatment are not t considered significant. I E I City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 90 General Plan Amendment Less Than Significant With Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporate Significant Impact d Impact No Impact XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild-life population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or ❑ ❑ ❑ animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of rare or endangered plants or animals, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? "Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when ❑ ❑ ❑ viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects. c) Does the project have environmental effects that will cause substantial adverse ❑ El El ❑ effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? a) No Impact The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the enviromnent; result in an adverse impact on fish, wildlife, or plant species including special status species, or prehistoric or historic cultural resources because project components would be constructed on areas that are not identified as sensitive. Prehistoric or historic cultural resources would not be adversely affected because no archeological or historic resources are known to exist in the project areas. Further, project implementation includes compliance with appropriate procedures for avoiding or preserving artifacts or human remains if they are discovered. b) No Impact The project would be consistent with the City's General Plan and would not create any significant impacts. All project impacts would be reduced by adhering to basic regulatory requirements and/or conditions of approval. c) No Impact The proposed project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans. City Council Staff Report July 6, 2005 -- Page 91 General Plan Amendment References 5) City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs Draft Environmental Impact Report, December 1992. 6) City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs General Plan. 1992. 7) City of Palm Springs. City of Palm Springs Zoning Code. 2004. 8) South Coast Air Quality Management District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. 1993 OF PALM sA City ®f Palm Springs * Office of the City Clerk M �CQ p3� M1 RPORptEO 3200 Tahquaz Canyon Way • Palm Springs,California 92262 FO R� TEL (760)323-8204 TDD (760)864-9527 AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing to consider amendment to the General Plan Land Use Element for (a) Case 5.1044 to change the designation from P and L4 to M15 located on approximately 12 acres south of Calle Ricardo, north of Camino Parocela, east of El Placer, and west of Paseo Dorotea, and (b) Case 5.1043 to change the designation from L2 to L4 located in a portion of the Mesa Tract, at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, July 6, 2005. A copy of said notice was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 241h day of June, 2005, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (370 notices) I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 29t' day of June, 2005. J ES THOMPSON ity Clerk I /kdh HAUSERS\C-CMAgenda Preparation\07-06.05\Affi davit of MailingNotices CPA.doc I i I i i Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CASE NO. 5.1043 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of July 6, 2005. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider: A) Case 5.1044 / 3.2669 / 3.2670 an application by Judy and Virgil Havener. The proposed project involves a General Plan Amendment and an Architectural Approval. The General Plan Amendment is to change the General Plan Map designation of L4 to M15 for the area bound by Calle de Ricardo to the North, Camino Parocela to the South, Paseo Dorotea to the East, and El Placer to the West. The Architectural Approval is to construct a 4 unit, single story apartment building, located at 4022 Calle De Carlos, Zone R-2, Section 19, APN'S 680-043- 008, and 680-044- 0�� B) Case 5.1043 an application by Bob and Rebecca La Venia. The proposed involves a General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Amendment is to change the General Plan Map designation of L2 to L4. located at 1901 South Palm Canyon Drive, Zone R-1-C, Section 27 Pursuant to Section 21000 et seq, of the Public Resources Code and Section 15063 of the California Environmental Quality Act, Negative Declarations have been prepared for Case No. 5.1044 GPA and 5.1043 GPA. 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 Planning Commission by letter (mail or hand delivery) to: James Thompson, City Clerk 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way i Palm Springs, CA 92262 If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400) feet of the subject property. An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding i this case may be directed to Department of Planning Services, (760) 323-8245. Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor Ilame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs y puede i hablar con Nadine Fieger (760) 323-8364. es Thompson, City Clerk