Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/29/2005 - STAFF REPORTS (2) U N °` eo c aoan.A`'F°"N�P City Council Staff Report DATE: June 29, 2005 Public Hearing SUBJECT: CASE NO. 5.1048, AN APPLICATION BY SOUTHWESTERN INVESTMENTS, LLC., OWNER, ON BEHALF OF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LESSEE FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A SECONDHAND STORE OPERATED BY A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION LOCATED AT 150 SOUTH SUNRISE WAY, ZONE CDN, SECTION 13, APN 502-161-004. FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Interim Director of Planning Services SUMMARY The Goodwill Industries has requested a Conditional Use Permit (Type 2), to operate a secondhand retail store. The company has expanded in the region with the opening of five new stores. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: 1. Adopt Resolution No. "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SOUTHWESTERN INVESTMENTS, LLC., OWNER, ON BEHALF OF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LESSEE, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (TYPE 2) FOR A SECONDHAND RETAIL STORE OPERATED BY A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION LOCATED AT 150 SOUTH SUNRISE WAY, ZONE CDN, SECTION 13, APN 502-161-004." 2. Order the filing of the Notice of Determination regarding the Environmental Assessment and the Negative Declaration prepared for the project. STAFF ANALYSIS: The proposed store is a second hand goods retail store operated by a charitable organization. There will be no modifications to the exterior of the building other than the installation of an exterior sign. A separate sign application will be submitted at the appropriate time. Interior tenant improvements will occur. Item No. 1 . B. City Council Staff Report June 29, 2005 -- Page 2 Case 5.1048—Goodwill Industries General Plan Policy 3.26.1 states: the Neighborhood Convenience Center will accommodate a diversity of local-serving commercial uses, including retail, general merchandise, apparel and accessories, dry goods, home improvement, and gardening. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance Section 94.02.00 paragraph 1, allows a type of land use, which requires special consideration due to problems incidental to its use, through the conditional use permit process in the C-D-N zone. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 94.01.02(A) (2) (j), an institution of philanthropic or charitable nature requires a Conditional Use Permit. This is referred to as a Type 2 CUP and requires approval by both the PC and CC. The site in question is part of an existing Planned Development (PD 76). Zoning Ordinance Section 94.02.00(6) (b), Commission Findings and Conditions; states that PD's may be allowed where the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The use is necessary and desirable and the location is proper and the use will not be detrimental to existing or future uses. Zoning Ordinance Section 94.02(6) (e), Commission Findings and Conditions, concludes that the conditions may be imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public health safety and general welfare. Zoning Ordinance Section 94.02.00(6)(d), Commission Findings and Conditions, states that the site for proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. The project will not cause undue traffic problems. There are no requirements to provide additional parking spaces because the proposed business would be a continuation of use of previously approved planned development (PD 76). Under Zoning Ordinance 92.10.01(A)(11), "CDN" Uses permitted; states, drug or variety stores must be limited to the sale of merchandise that can be carried out by the customer. Sale of major furniture items or appliances is prohibited. Conditions have been drafted for the project stating that before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed in the CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Fire Chief or their designee, the City Building Department and The City Police Department, depending on which department recommended the condition. City Council Staff Report June 29, 2005 -- Page 3 Case 5.1048—Goodwill Industries FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. zL Interim Director of Planning City Manager Attachments: 1. Site Plan 2. Interior Improvement Plan 3. Planning Commission Staff Report 4. Interior and Exterior Site Photos 5. Photographic examples of other stores in California 6. Newspaper article on The Goodwill Industries 7. Negative Declaration RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CALIFORNIA APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SOUTHWESTERN INVESTMENTS, LLC., OWNER, ON BEHALF OF GOODWILL INDUSTRIES OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, LESSEE, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT (TYPE 2) FOR A SECONDHAND RETAIL STORE OPERATED BY A CHARITABLE ORGANIZATION LOCATED AT 150 SOUTH SUNRISE WAY, ZONE CDN, SECTION 13, APN 502-161-004. WHEREAS, the City Council has received a request by Southwest Investments LLC, for a Conditional Use Permit to allow a secondhand retail store and, WHEREAS, Goodwill Industries is a recognized charitable organization and, WHEREAS, the Section 94.02.00 of the Zoning Ordinance requires that certain types of land use which require special consideration due to problems incidental to its operation, obtain a Conditional Use Permit; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs to consider the application for a Conditional Use Permit No. 5.1048 was circulated and published in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on June 29, 2005, a public hearing on the application for a conditional use permit was held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; 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, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION1: Pursuant to CEQA guidelines Section 15063, the City Council finds as follows; a draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact was prepared for the proposed Conditional Use Permit. The Environmental Assessment was also distributed to local agencies and interested parties. Conditions of Approval regarding monitoring of deliveries of merchandise from satellite locations, drop-off of Resolution No. Page 2 donations, and possible vagrant loitering have been included for this project SECTION 2: Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 94.02,00, the City Council finds that: a. The use applied for at the location set forth in the application is properly one for which a Conditional Use Permit is authorized by the City's zoning ordinance. Institutions of a charitable or philanthropic nature are uses that are conditionally permitted in the CDN zone, b. The said use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, and is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to the existing or future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The proposed use is desirable in that the proposed re-sale store will sell general merchandise, apparel and accessories, house wares, and books. The proposed re-sale store is consistent with the objectives of the General Plan, provides for specialized retail services, and will not be detrimental to the existing or future permitted uses within the CDN zone in which the proposed use is to be located. c. The site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate said use, including yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features required in order to adjust said use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the neighborhood. The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the proposed business. d. The site for the proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. The project site is accessed by public streets, which are adequate to serve the retail and other uses within which the site is located. There is adequate parking for the proposed business. e. The conditions to be imposed are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare, of the existing neighborhood in which this project is situated. Resolution No. Page 3 All proposed conditions of approval are necessary to ensure compliance with Zoning Ordinance requirements and to ensure the public health, safety and welfare. ADOPTED THIS 29th day of June, 2005. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) 1, 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 CASE 5.1048— CUP CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Goodwill Industries Southwest Investments LLC. 150 SOUTH SUNRISE WAY APN 502-161-004 Approved: June 29, 2005 Expires: June 29, 2007 Before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,the Director of Planning Services,the Chief of Police,the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements, easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PLANNING DEPARTMENT: 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 1a. 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 6.1048 - CUP. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter or 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 further indemnification hereunder,except,the City's decision to settle or abandon a matterfollowing an adverse judgment or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 2. Non-compliance with any of the conditions of this approval, or with City codes and ordinances, State laws; any valid citizen complaints or policing and safety problems(not limited to excessive alcohol consumption, noise, disturbances, signs, etc) regarding the operation of the establishment; as determined by the Chief of Police or the Director of Planning and Zoning, may result in commencement of proceedings to revoke the Conditional Use Permit pursuant to Section 94.02.00.1 of the Zoning Ordinance. In addition, violations of City Codes and t Ordinances will result in enforcement actions that may include citations, arrest, temporary business closure, or revocation of this permit in accordance with law. 3. Conditional Use Permit approval shall be valid for a period of two (2) years. The Planning Commission, upon demonstration of good cause, may grant extensions of time to open the proposed business. Once the business is open, this CUP shall not have a time limit and shall be valid provided all Conditions of Approval are complied with. 4. Separate architectural approval and permits shall be required for all signs. A detailed sign program shall be submitted for review and approval by the Planning Commission prior to issuance of building permits. 5. No outdoor sales, storage or collection containers of any kind shall be permitted at any time. 6. The City reserves the right to modify or restrict the business hours based upon documented operational circumstances. 7. The owner shall monitor outdoor parking areas, walkways, and adjoining properties and shall take all necessary measures to ensure that customers do not loiter, create noise, litter, or cause any disturbances while on-site. The owner and operator shall ensure that at closing time all customers leave the property promptly and that the property is clean and secure before the owner/operator leaves the premises. The Police Chief will require on-site security officers to ensure compliance with all City, State, and Federal laws and conditions of approval. Failure to complywith these conditions may result in revocation of this permit,temporary business closure or criminal prosecution. 8. All large donations and deliveries must occur during business hours and be received at the rear of the store. Small donations may be carried into the store from the front provided the donator only park in parking lot spaces and not in the driveway thoroughfare. 9. The sale of major furniture items or appliances is prohibited and the sale of merchandise is limited to items that can be carried out by the customer. 2 I EXHIBIT NA r Site Plan Eli e, IT lE Iti � 4 APR - 8 2005 .L'-Y'My IJ I L I IT, 55"Av rj nr�T4< AV,9 romNl I Ims" WTPM5) A-N4 lsly 013 AFT June 8, 2005 Case 5.1048 Bullock DATE: JUNE 8, 2005 TO: PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: INTERIM DIRECTOR OF PLANNING SERVICES CASE 5.1048 - CUP - AN APPLICATION BY SOUTHWESTERN INVESTMENTS LLC, FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE OPERATION OF A GOODWILL RE-SALE STORE, LOCATED AT 150 SOUTH SUNRISE WAY, C-D-N ZONE, SECTION 13, APN 502-161-004. RECOMMENDATION: That the Planning Commission approve: 1. Recommend that the City Council approve Conditional Use Permit 5.1028 fora Goodwill re- sale store, located at 150 South Sunrise Way, subject to the conditions outlined in the attached Resolution and Conditions of Approval. 2. Recommend that the City Council approve the adoption of proposed Negative Declaration (Section 15072) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). BACKGROUND: Southwestern Investments LLC, has submitted an application for a Conditional Use Permit to allow the operation of a Goodwill Re-Sale Store. This is a Type II Conditional Use Permit requiring the approval of City Council. This store is located in the Sunrise Shopping Center at the corner of Tahquitz Canyon Way and Sunrise Way. The site is zoned C-D-N, Designed Neighborhood Shopping Center. The General Plan Designation is NCC, Neighborhood Convenience Center. The proposed business will be an 11,123 square foot Goodwill re-sale store, with 8,768 sq. ft. commercial sales and display area and a 2,355 sq. ft. storage area. The proposed operating days and times are: Monday through Saturday from 9:00 a.m. to 8:00 P.M. and Sunday from 10:00 A.M. to 6:00 p.m. The Sunrise Center has hired and received a signed contract from a 24-hour Security Service providing random surveillance. ADJACENT LAND USES, GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING Table 1.0 Adjacent Land Uses, General Plan and Zoning General Plan Zoning Land Uses North P C1AA Commercial South M15 R2 Apartments 1 June 8, 2005 Case 5.1048 Bullock East M15 R2 and R1C Vacant and Offices West RC and C1AA and R4VP Vacant H43/30 ANALYSIS: The proposed store is a Goodwill Re-sale store. There will be no modifications to the exterior of the building other than the installation of an exterior sign. A separate sign application will be submitted at the appropriate time. Interior tenant improvements will occur. Under Neighborhood Convenience Center, General Plan Policy 3.26.1 states: the NCC will accommodate a diversity of local-serving commercial uses, including retail, general merchandise, apparel and accessories, dry goods, home improvement, and gardening. The Goodwill resale store is consistent with the General Plan. The Zoning Ordinance Section 94.02.00 allows a type of land use, which requires special consideration due to problems incidental to its use,through the conditional use permit process in the C-D-N zone. Pursuant to Zoning Ordinance Section 94.01.02(A) (2) (j), an institution of philanthropic or charitable nature requires a Conditional Use Permit. The site is part of an existing Planned Development (PD 76). Zoning Ordinance 94.02.00(6)(b) states that the use is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to future uses specifically permitted in the zone in which the proposed use is to be located. The use is necessary and desirable and the location is proper for the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Zoning Ordinance Section 94.02(5)(e)concludes that the conditions to be imposed and shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health safety and general welfare. Zoning Ordinance 94.02.00(6)(d) states that the site for proposed use relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed use. The project will not cause undue traffic problems. There are no requirements to provide additional parking spaces because the proposed business would be a continuation of use of previously approved planned development(PD 76). Under Zoning Ordinance 92.10.01(A)(11), drug or variety stores limited to the sale of merchandise that can be carried out by the customer. Sale of major furniture items or appliances is prohibited. A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL has been drafted for 150 South Sunrise Way stating that before final acceptance of the project, all conditions listed in the CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning Services, the Fire Chief or their designee, the City Building Department and The City Police Department, depending on which department recommended the condition. 2 June 8, 2005 Case 5.1048 Bullock ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS AND NOTIFICATION: Pursuant to Section 15063 of the CEQA guidelines, a draft Negative Declaration of environmental impact was prepared for the proposed Conditional Use Permit. Recommend that the Planning Commission recommend City Council adopt a Negative Declaration. The Environmental Assessment was also distributed to local agencies and interested parties. Conditions of Approval regarding monitoring of receiving deliveries of merchandise from satellite locations, drop-off of donations, and possible vagrant loitering have been included for this project. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Resolution 3. Conditions of Approval 4. Environmental Assessment-Negative Declaration on file in the Planning Department except for the Planning Commission packets. 3 9 mom ,- ,l- ➢ ';; ;� m r. r z ME=Wftsol "411 .> w ""•' . —ems-' -��► - z�-;'""�'�" S •_ ...,_:. �..- ram'- � —. - &aSLtbxiY.Y ": :.IS F UI•ut �1. +v v .. Y " ➢ w �±4 n .; ^4a SS q I h,l i u-.aa y (rp�. tww ` a ti _ WARM If -v z ixf. +4 'rrq"°*vG. QMq ISO x4 -.:�dA*W.,•7mu.rusr.0 � .--_ yrxr.....* ,,... w � m r � I i ' 1 I I i I _ i a I � � I ,I � I r: { , I I , m,,, - v r4 d If y, L , i i M� at ��"� �.,. •a' _...r.� ny '..f. �_^ l �����' {j2 ����� 1 I fiyrxw+. w,. f L r .I I 'I I i' - r I I I, i I I IA 41 I I , '171 4� L {* .. !I s j k mob . Q ✓ S - I - i • 14 „ I LI , i • - ate' �J a «A v q ; AX 02 _ it l ' BuslNtss SAMRDAY,MAY 7,2005 BU9gE5$Eortaa Nevin Suns•(626)962-8811,Err.2701•keVln.Wu@sgon.com :rl=£ $11'_ . zfil A 5re' N'..fY. I.T'�d, N:+ 7. "� M1II/IfY41e'Yksd:�3y T ;t )rt r ;. i •, t rt riI t ws+ tr�y r 2A',fiy, r r fi-t Ip r r e) gllym���yyfFf , I hpp� VYk ) ( t ,'.; r ' l �h k. b8 �F Y' 4t�S},Ark -s t 1 , lr pry., rwrgIT a "t' t Vka gt I h, I C . r ' x V r d £ r f tra + iu l t q r I s Staff photos by KEITH DaRHNGER BILL CASWELL of Whittier looks through racks at the Goodwill store that recently opened in Whittier.The new site is part of the nonprofit's plan to make its shops more like department stores, Goodwill steps up ima.ge , Better items, bigger stores t� Dusr vOnwa aj r , f+""tf 3 t6i ADDRES5152�14wNMer among plans Dlvd,n Pfiltlle OPENED. pRI30 By Andrew Blarler r'I a ' ; r PHONE(562)789 069�' •' HTAFF wrerrra e tt 4 t'I '++ £ 1,X,; ' xITfIER—"It's not w r eventually employ 16 workers, 2 ' ' - - same ofthera with severe what you think." , Wlh'om plans for Is RF 'o' " r I learning disabilides and oth- newstoreexPaR var t "'S 'r em i¢need of]ob skill training sion to a chain THE GOODWILL STORE that o elled'iri Whittler will or a fresh start Store manager wide store redesign, P .Mayte Ocampo of Whittier GoodwillSouthera eventually employ 15 workers, some of them with saidsheioined the chain after California is undergoing a severe learnhlg disabilities. six years in retail manage substantial makeover. meat at Office Depotand Butrfthesloganofthenon. in the regon tIyear,and an youth centers,among others. Party Citybecause of Good profit chain of discount con- addrNorlal five stores az'e The company spends 92 p"n will's commitmentto helping srgunent shops is any indica. expected this year, cembfits budget on comma. - others. tion,Goodwill's linage will The fast ofthose,which m programs. It's actually a cause that receive the greatest attention.- opened April 30 in Whittier;is Tltatretailsuccesscould rm helping lit;'she said. "hfyou create a more pleas designed to feet more like a depend on Goodwill improving Goodwill also encourages ant experience,people are deparhnent store—Ross its repulatton among shoppers. manage��pursueeprmmo- more likely to Shop atyour stores and T.J.Maxxcome Thechain gas raised its Stan- store; said Craig Smith,vice tomind—with Lngroved dards for.donations,sending to ophonofwhich Orampo president of retail sales,opera. clouting quality and organ m. the retail ffwrjust one quarter hapes to take advantage., lions for Goodwill Southern tion,updated wall graphics of the goods it receives.As The company's growing , California,which encompass- and wider aisles. remainder are distributed to so fast,l'msurtherewillhe es Las Angeles;Riverside and 11m goal is to attract many, clearance centers. an opportunity to move up," San Betnaz'duio comities. more shoppers,increasing "Om'growth is really she said. to an effort to generate sales revenues,which will dependent on the support of more revenue for its service then be poured back into pro. the community,"Chief Open Andrew Blazkr on be programs,Goodwill has grams such as career advance- aMg Officer Muk Shmagin readied at(626)962-M, embarked on a new expan- ment training,vocational said. Bat.2477,or by anaml at sion.Five new stores opened training,welfare-tawork and .'rhe Whittier store will andrew.blazio@sgo7i.ram. I NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION 3760&4022 CALLE DE CARLOS LEAD AGENCY: The City Of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 CONTACT PERSON: Diane Bullock; (760) 323-8245 PROJECT TITLE: 3760 & 4022 Calle De Carlos PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located at 3760 & 4022 Calle De Carlos, Palm Springs, California 3760 Calle de Carlos, Lot #18 (APN 680-043-008)and 4022 Calle de Carlos, Lot #19 (APN 680-044-007),Zone R2, Seclion 19 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 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 fhe two lofts 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. 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 April 23, 2005 through May 12, 2005 of 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: DianeB@ci.palm-springs.ca.us Copies, of the Negative Declaration and 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 May 25, 2005 Date: `'�u�ps Siguatrrre: � Ge,Planning Director CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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.Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm 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, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. 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 Ca/le de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005^ 1.0-1 ( Y ` CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 Paseo Dorotea. There are (20) twenty lots on Calle de Carlos between El Placer and Parsee Dorotea. North - Multiple family residential in the firs] 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 from the street of the proposed development continuing the L4 General Plan Designation and the R2 Zoning designation. East - Multiple family residential beginning the M15 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 fl Professional and N-R 1 C, Noise R 1 C Zoning designation. All are zoned R-2. Three are vacant, (17) seventeen of the (20) lots are developed with a minimum 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 Ca/le de Carlos,Initial Study April2005 1.0-2 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental 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 ❑ Materials ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Land Use/Planning ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 200$ 1.0-3 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ® I find chat 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 ]hat 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. ql z Signature Date Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-4 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1) A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2) All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on- site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3) Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated' applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less Than Significant Impact:' The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures "Earlier Analyses;'as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5) Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section I 5063(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. Cal/e de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-5 CALLE DE CARLOSIINITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 8) This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9) The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-6 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 El El ❑ Vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ outcroppings, 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 significant 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. t Ca/le de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-7 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less Tl Ian . Significant _ With Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporate Significant Impact d 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 (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, 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. ( „ )el, ., IJ Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-8 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDYINEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 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 or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ N 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 attainment 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 (1102) 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.agmd.gov/cigmp/). 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 construction 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. The Federal and California State Ambient Air Quality Standards for important pollutants are summarized in Table 1 and described in detail below. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-9 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION TABLE 1 FEDERAL AND STATE AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARDS Pollutant Averaging Time Federal Primary State Standard Standard 1-Hour 0.12 ppm 0.09 PPM Ozone(03) 8-Houtz 0.08 ppm -- Carbon Monoxide (CO) 8-Hour 9.0 ppm 9.0 ppm I-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(S02) 24-Hour 0.14 ppm 0.05 ppm 1-Hour -- 0.5 ppm PM10 Annual 50 pg/m3 30 pg/m3 24-Hour 150 ug/M3 50 pg/m3 Annual 15 pg/m3 -- PM 25 24-Hour 65 Hg/m3 -- Lead 30-Day Avg. -- 1.5 pg/m3 Month Avg. 1.5 pg/m3 -- Source: California Air Resources Board, 'Ambient Air Quality Standards, January 25, 1999. ppm=parts per million pg/m3=Micrograms per Cubic Meter Ozone(O,)is the most prevalent of a class of photochemical oxidants formed in the urban 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 irritation 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 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 fine 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 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, through abrasion such as tire 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 are 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. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 L- 1.0-10 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION TABLE 2 EMISSIONS SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD CRITERIA POUNDS/DAY) ;Pollutant ;CO ROG -NOx SO, PM10 Operational Emissions Pounds/Day 550 55 55 150 150 Construction Emissions Pounds/Day 550 75 100 150 150 Source: SCQAMD, CEQA Air 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. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-11 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION .Less Than Significant with potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporate Significant Impact d 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ El b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ElEltopsoil? 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 result 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 Code (1994), ❑ ❑ ❑ creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ ❑ Eldisposal 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. 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. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study Apr#2005 1.0-15 CALLE DE CARLOSIINITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... .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 ❑ ❑ Elsignificance of an archaeological resource pursuant to " 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ Elpaleontological resource or site or unique 21 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. 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. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-14 CALLE DE CARLOSIINITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION ... .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 ❑ ❑ Elsignificance of an archaeological resource pursuant to " 15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique ❑ ❑ Elpaleontological resource or site or unique 21 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. 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. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-14 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION .Less Than Significant with potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporate Significant Impact d 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ El b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ElEltopsoil? 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 result 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 Code (1994), ❑ ❑ ❑ creating substantial risks to life or property? e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater ❑ ❑ Eldisposal 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. 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. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study Apr#2005 1.0-15 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION ii) Less than Significant Impact. Any major earthquake damage in the City of Palm Springs is likely to occur from ground shaking and seismically retailed 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. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-16 CALLS DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION ' Less,`Than .. Significant With, Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporate Significant Impact d 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 11 proposed school? d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code §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 in a safety El El Elhazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ ❑ 0 emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ EJ urbanized areas 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 fuels and other potentially flammable substances. During construction, equipment would require refueling 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 Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-17 CALLE DE CARLOSIINITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION activities would occur in accordance with applicable Federal, State, and local laws including California Occupational Health and Safety Administration (ColOSHA) 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 Constructon Activity Storm 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 Storm 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.1 250ft. 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. E O77 Calle de Carlos, Initial Study April 2005 I1.0-18 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION .Less Than Significant ` '-Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No - - Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Vill. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ El ® ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ © El 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 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 ❑ El ® ❑ 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 ❑ ❑ ® El drainage systems or, provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary El El ® ❑ 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? ❑ ❑ ❑ M i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including ❑ ❑ ❑ flooding as a result of a 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 structures, asphalt and concrete to a previously vacant lot. The additional drainage Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-19 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 consumption, but would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge. The proposed use is consistent with the General Plan land use designalion 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 or the local groundwater table is not anticipated and this impact is considered less than significant. c-d) Less than Significant 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. 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 1 acre would be disturbed, the RWQCB would not require a construction activity Storm Water General Permit. The project would connect 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 downstream 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 than 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 Environmental 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. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-20 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION .. ., Less Than, Significant Less Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significa Impact Incorporated nt Impact ,No Impact IX. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established 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? El 0 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. c) No Impact. The project would not conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact would occur. r_ Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-21 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less Than .. gnificant , With Less Potentially, Mitigation Than Significant Incorporate Significan Impact d t 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) identified any mineral resources in the planning area. Therefore, no impact to mineral resources would occur. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-22 CALLE DE CARLOSIINITIAL STUDYINEGATIVE DECLARATION . . Less Than. . ` Significant vyith .. Pptentially ,Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporate Significant Impact d 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 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 ❑ ❑ Elor 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 trucks. 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. cj 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. 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 ..I Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-23 CALLE DE CARLOSIINITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Less Than Significant With Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporate Significan Impact d t Impact No Impact MI. 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-cj No Impact. The proposed project would add 8 new housing units to the City's housing Block. The project site is in an area that is surrounded by residential uses with some commercial 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. - A_CM1 Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-24 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDYMEGATIVE DECLARATION .. Less Than Significant Less Potentially With I than Significant Mitigation Significa, Impact Incorporated nt 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? ❑ ❑ z ❑ c) Schools? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ d) Parks? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ a) Less than Significant Impact. 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 amount 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 Planning 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 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 t ,l 0 1-7) Ca/le de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-25 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION per 1,000 persons. The proposed projecl 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 Ihan significant. e) Less than Significant Impact. The project would not create any significant impacts to the service levels of any other public service providers. Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-26 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION Potentially With Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incprporated 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 ❑ El ❑ 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. 1 Calle de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-27 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION .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 dangerous El ❑ © ❑ 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) 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. i Calle do Carlos, Initial Study April 2005 1.0-28 CALLE DE CARLOSIINITIAL STUDYINEGATIVE DECLARATION 'Significant Leas Potentially With Than Significant Mitigation Significa Impact Incorporated nt Impact No Impact XVL UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS, Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the El ® ❑ 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 El ® ❑ facilities, the construction of which could cause 11 significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and El El ® Elresources, 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 El ❑ regulations related to solid waste? z El 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 storm water runoff could result in short-term 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 downstream 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 State's NPDES General Construction Permit (CAS00002). This permit requires that a Storm 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 damage caused by land clearing activities, t � Calle de Carlos, Initial Study April 2005 1.0-29 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 amount of wastewater flows to the RWTP. Currently, there is sufficient capacity of 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. Calle de Carlos,initial Study April 2005 1.0-30 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION -- .LessThan Significant;, With Potentially Mitigation Less Than Significant Incorporate Significant Impact d Impact No Impact XVIL 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 ❑ Elare considerable when viewed in connection with 11 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 effects on human ❑ ❑ ❑ beings, either directly or indirectly? a) No Impact, The proposed project would not degrade the quality of the environment; 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 construction effects would be temporary and have been reduced or eliminated by environmental control measures incorporated into the project design. Therefore, the proposed project would not have any direct or indirect adverse impacts on humans. Calie de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-31 CALLE DE CARLOS/INITIAL STUDY/NEGATIVE DECLARATION 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 Cal/e de Carlos,Initial Study April 2005 1.0-32 O� PALA4 Sa N City ®f Palm Springs * * Office of the City Clerk 9 C�RPORPTE�`9 * 3200 Tdll()tll[2 CIlIIyO[I WIlY Pi11IIl SF1110gS,C611F0[IlIY 92262 �.q0 FO styAP 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 an application by Southwestern Investments, LLC., Owner, on behalf of Goodwill Industries of Southern California, Lessee, for a Conditional Use Permit (Type 2) for a secondhand retail store operated by a charitable organization located at 150 South Sunrise Way, Zone CDN, Section 13, APN 502-161-004, at 6:00 p.m., on Wednesday, June 29, 2005. A copy of said notice was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 18th day of June, 2005, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. (42 notices mailed) 1 declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 22th day of June, 2005. AMES-THOMPSON City Clerk Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO. 5.1048 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT-TYPE 2 SOUTHWEST INVESTMENTS, LLC /GOODWILL INDUSTRIES 150 SOUTH SUNRISE WAY (SUNRISE SHOPPING CENTER) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of June 29, 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 Case 5.1048 an application by Southwest Investments LLC. The proposed project involves a Conditional Use Permit, Type 2. The Conditional Use Permit is for a Goodwill Industries retail store located in a vacant store in the Sunrise Shopping Center located at 150 South Sunrise Way, Zone CDN, Section 13, APN 502-161-004. An Initial Study and Negative Declaration have been prepared for the proposed Conditional Use Permit in accordance with the regulations of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Response to this notice may be made verbally at the public hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by letter (mail or hand delivery) to: i James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs 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 Diane Bullock, 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. J ames Thompson City Clerk Department of Planning Services W N E Vicinity Map ' S I AN�REAS RD fn I I rn � m z o � n v � E 7AHQUI7Z CANYON WY o I ur F4 GOLETA ST Ej— J \ CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO.: 5.1048 DESCRIPTION: An application by Southwest Investments, LLC, Conditional Use Permit Type 2 Goodwill Industries, Inc. for a retail store located at 150 South Sunrise Way, Zone CDN, Section 13. APPLICANT: Goodwill Industries, Inc. t yd ' MR BILL DAVIS AND NEIGHBORHOOD)COALITION - MR PETER DIXON MS TRISHA DAVIS G JUNE 2005 NEARING (TENNIS CLUB AREA) (TENNIS CLUB AREA) 51048,;,SOUTHN%E8T INVESTMENTS . 431 SOUTH MONTE VISTA DRIVE 3375 FOOTHILL ROAD#821 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 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 MRTIM HOHMEIER (MS ROXANN PLOSS) MR PHILTEDESCO (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 MARSHALLROATH MS SHERYL HAMLIN MR JOHN HURTER (HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB AREA) (RACQUET CLUB AREA) 565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE PO BOX 2824 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2824 MS MARGARET PARK AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIA'NS sh-0-J 4�J=�l INDIANS 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CASE 5.1048 VERIFICATION.NOTICE-J-J=J MS LORETTA D MOFFETT - - PO BOX 2494 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2494 CASE 5.1048 MR PETE MORU771 HISTORIC SITE REP�J--0 PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE PO BOX 4738 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-4738 MR DOUGLAS BARR MR MARK A SHMAGIN GOODWILL INDUSTRIES SO CAL GOODWILL INDUSTRIES SO CAL SPONSORS'_&OWNERS-J-4)-0 342 NORTH SAN FERNANDO ROAD 342 NORTH SAN FERNANDO ROAD LOS ANGELES CA 90031 LOS ANGELES CA 90031 CASE 5.1048 CASE 5.1048 SOUTHWESTERN INDUSTRIES LLC MS DENISE TAYLOR-FRASER MR BOBBY YOUNESSI 5700 SERENDIPITY 4037 SAN REMO WAY TARZANA CA 91356 CASE 5.1048 SOUTHWESTERN INVESTMENTS LLC 5567 RESEDA BLVD TARZANA CA 91356 r . 502-163-004 508-100-007 502-163-021 Stanley W Lange Ams Prop Inc Cnl Retirement Ma3 California 14008 Parkvale Rd 2 Ravinia Dr 500 450 S Orange Ave Rockville, MD 20853 Atlanta, GA 30346 Orlando, FL 32801 508-100-032 502-065-005 502-171-016 201 Sunrise Way Palm Springs Oil Cc Inc Aida M Radovich 9200 W Sunset Blvd 1100 3410 E Foothill Blvd 3633 Sierra Vista Ave West Hollywood, CA 90069 Pasadena, CA 91107 Glendale, CA 91208 502-163-005 502-174-003 502-064-008 Gilbert Schneider Joan E Heeter Luring Prop 1848 Kirsten Lee Dr 777 N Palm Canyon Dr 102 140 N Luring Dr Westlake Village, CA 91361 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 502-171-005 508-070-042 502-171-013 Richard J & Schelly Gill Redevelopment ycy Palm Spi Joy Obrien 140 N Luring Dr B 3200 E Tahoii`tz Canyon Way 165 S Avenida Elenora Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm SpY'ngs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 502-174-004 502-161-005 502-163-003 Jim E Hemstreet Kaly Llc Donald E & Emily Williams 160 S Saturmino Dr 5 1111 E Tahquitz Canyon Way 1( 4511 E Sunny Dunes Rd B Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 502-076-008 502-161-002 502-065-008 1986 L L C Victor G & Ibolya Laslo John Wessman 64893 Saragossa Dr 3674 E Bogert Trl 1555 S Palm Canyon Dr G106 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 Palm Springs, CA 92264 502-161-003 502-065-018 502-171-004 1750 Arenas Llc John Wessman Theda Rerucha 70420 Mottle Cir PO Box 4349 807 N Woods Ave Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Anaheim, CA 92803 Fullerton, CA 92832 502-171-003 502-064-012 502-163-019 Tracy A Guild James A & Shirley Drucker John V Stroud 100 W Valencia Mesa Dr 100 2708 Waltham Cross St 365 Mountain View Dr Fullerton, CA 92B35 Belmont, CA 94002 Folsom, CA 95630 502-162-001 *** 25 Printed *** Donald J Licker 2901 Latham Dr Sacramento, CA 9SB64