Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/12/2005 - STAFF REPORTS (8) DATE: January 5, 2005 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Strategic Planning DRAFT RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN. RECOMMENDATION That the City Council review and comment on the attached Draft Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and give direction to staff to prepare a written response to the plan. SUMMARY This Draft Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) has been prepared by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The ALUC is required by the California State Aeronautics Act (Public Utility Code Sections 21670 et. seq.) to periodically update the ALUCP for airports within its jurisdiction. The ALUCP for Palm Springs International Airport (PSP) has not been updated since 1974. The Airport Master Plan for PSP was updated in May 2003. Staff has been working with the ALUC staff and their consultant, Mead & Hunt, to review off airport property land use issues related to the plan and its consistency with the City's General • Plan. There are areas that were originally of concern to staff, however, in recent discussions with the ALUC staff, most of these concerns appear to be resolved to staff's satisfaction. Staff spoke at the ALUC's public hearing on December 9, 2004 where the adoption of the plan for PSP was continued until their February 2005 meeting. However, ALUC staff has requested that the City submit a written response to the most recent amendments to the plan by January 18, 2005. BACKGROUND The premise for the preparation of an ALUCP is to ensure compatibility between airports and the off-airport property land uses around them. The core of the plan is the compatibility zones and related compatibility map. The criteria used to determine the boundaries of the compatibility zones are derived from the Airport Land Use Planning Handbook published by the California Division of Aeronautics. The focus of the ALUCP is to provide guidance relative to Airport noise and safety. The plan does not have authority over federal lands (i.e. Indian Land), airport operations, and existing land uses, defined as proposals where the only remaining actions for the local agency are ministerial. Adoption of the plan by the City would allow the majority of land use actions to proceed without ALUC review, as long as a finding of consistency is made, except for legislative actions such as general plan amendments and changes of zone. If the City chooses to not adopt the plan, major land use actions in the vicinity of the airport would require review by the ALUC for consistency with the plan. The plan can be overruled by a two-thirds vote of the City Council, after making findings that the agency's plans are consistent with the intent of state airport land use planning statutes (Page 1-6 of the plan). The ALUCP uses noise, building height, flight tracks, and safety/risk factors to determine the restrictions that should be placed on land use in the vicinity of the airport. The compatibility — zones as shown in the Compatibility Map (Map PS-1) of the plan were determined by combining the criteria and creating 6 zones. The criteria for each compatibility zone are listed in Table 2A — Basic Compatibility Criteria of the plan, attached to this report. The criteria include such development standards as residential density, building heights, required open space, and site occupancy measured by people per acre. The plan is written without regard to special circumstances that exist in Palm Springs, such as the City is owner/operator of the airport, properties have developed very close to the airport, existence of a residential sound insulation program, requirements for avigation easements, and previous steps taken by the City to re-zone residential properties to professional land uses due to noise factors. However, there is the ability to enact special policies for each airport to take into account unique circumstances. Some of the standards introduced in Table 2A conflict with the City's General Plan and significantly impact properties around the airport, particularly the former municipal landfill site where a proposal is under review for a large commercial center (The Springs), M-1 zoned land southeast of the airport, and residential development north of the airport. ANALYSIS The following are the main issues that Planning staff has been working with ALUC staff to resolve. Staff has also been working with the City of Riverside staff (Planning and Airport) to discuss shared concerns regarding the plan. 1. ZONES C AND D RESIDENTIAL DENSITY (TABLE 2A). Suggested change to PSP Airport-Specific Policies for Zone D residential densities —that there be a maximum of 1 du/5 acres OR a minimum of 3 du/acre. The high density option was lowered to 3 du/acre in order to be compatible with existing residential densities. A new special policy has been suggested to address Zone D residential densities and is attached to this report. Staff recommends that the same policy be applied to Zone C, only for north of the airport due to existing residential densities. 2. 65 dB CNEL FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT (POLICY 4.1.4). The boundaries for Zones B1 and C were originally created using criteria that would normally be applied for rural land uses around airports. However, by applying the 65 dB CNEL for residential development, the boundaries for these zones north of the airport were reduced. This is consistent with the City's General Plan. Airport staff is in concurrence that residential development in 65 dB CNEL is consistent with the Master Plan and Part 150 study. Per Policy 3.3.4., note that nothing prohibits construction of a single-family home on a legal lot of record. 3. MINIMUM PARCEL SIZE FOR INFILL LOTS (POLICY 3.3.1). Planning staff has requested that the minimum parcel size for infill lots be increased to a maximum of 40 acres. Staff has also requested that Policy 3.3.1 regarding infill should also apply in Zone B1 where there is existing light industrial and commercial development around the Springs and Lowe's property. There are also some existing vacant properties that are • zoned to allow commercial and industrial uses. The restrictions in Zone 131 limiting people/acre would make it difficult to allow viable commercial development on the vacant parcels and would be a hindrance to future redevelopment of the area around the airport. Since the infill policy most directly affects the Springs property, it would be appropriate to create a site specific policy for the project. In completing the calculations for the Springs property, staff found that the portion of site where Home Depot is located will comply with the ALUCP because it is part of Zone C. However, the pad buildings that include some fast food establishments will not comply with the plan because they exceed the maximum allowable intensity for Zone B1 (i.e. people/acre). ALUC staff expressed a preference for a site specific policy instead of changing the infill policy and asked for suggestions on policies that could be applied to the Springs property as well as the land southeast of the airport that is on the Agua Caliente Reservation. Staff will be meeting with Tribal Planning staff to recommend site or area specific policies for the area southeast of the airport. 4. APPLYING URBAN CRITERIA TO PSP. The City, with the exception of a few remaining parcels is substantially built out. Land has been allowed to develop close to the airport in accordance with Part 150 and Part 77 studies, Airport Master Plan, and General Plan. Residential development exists all around the airport at densities of approximately 2-4 units/acre. The only available land left for viable commercial development is southeast of the airport south of Ramon Road. Lowe's is already existing, Walmart is approved, and The Springs is under review. New development should be allowed to match what already exists and any analysis used to formulate the compatibility map should use urban criteria. As discussed previously, ALUC staff has been cooperative in considering new criteria such as the 65 dB CNEL and matching the boundaries of Zone A to the runway protection zones as indicated in the PSP Master Plan. 5. SPECIAL POLICIES/OVERRIDING THE PLAN. Planning staff are working with ALUC staff to understand the consequences of overriding the plan for individual projects. Staff recommends that it would be preferable to have inconsistencies resolved through the addition of special policies PSP such that overriding the plan would not be necessary. Staff has drafted specific policies, attached, that would apply only to the Springs property and the square mile of the Agua Caliente Reservation bound by Gene Autry Trail, Ramon Road, Palm Canyon Wash, and the eastern Palm Springs city limits. These draft policies have not yet been approved by the ALUC or their staff. 4� �n Director of Strat is Planning City Manager ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (previously provided) 2. Proposed policies for PSP drafted by Planning staff 3. Letter from ALUC staff dated December 14, 2004 4. ALUC staff report December 9, 2004 5. Letter from Planning staff to ALUC requesting continuance dated October 13, 2004 6. Letter from Planning staff to ALUC requesting continuance dated September 13, 2004 7. Letter from Planning staff to ALUC requesting continuance dated August 2, 2004 8. Resolution p AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS TRIBAL PLANNING, BUILDING & ENGINEERING December 28, 2004 Doug Evans, Director of Strategic Planning City of Palm Springs Palm Springs, CA Re: Proposed Airport Land Use Compatibility (ALUC) Plan Dear Mr. Evans, Tribal Staff met with Jing Yeo, Principal Planner to discuss the proposed ALUC Plan. The Plan delineates Compatibility Zones that restrict density and height and are intended as an overlay to existing City zoning. The Tribe has reviewed the Plan and concurs with the policy stated on page 1-4: ' ...ALUCs have no jurisdiction over federal lands such as lands controlled by...Indian tribes. ALUCs can merely inform these agencies about the ALUC policies and seek their cooperation." The Tribe interprets this as applying to allotted trust and Tribal trust and fee lands. As you are aware, the Tribe would not support arbitrary down zoning of Trust lands without thorough analysis and review by the Indian Planning Commission and the Tribal Council. If you have any questions, please contact me at 760.883.1322. V trul yours, T mas J. Davis, AICP Chief Planning Officer AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS /mep C: Tribal Council Art Bunce, Tribal Attorney Margaret Park, Director of Planning FlLet,%s"mffW%v4-ur,I�r W i;vV?.gcnE CANYON WAY, PALM SPRINGS , CA 92262 T 760/325/3400 F 760/325/6952 AGUACALIENTE.ORG RECEIVED JAN - 3 2005 DRAFT Recommended ALUCP Specific Policies for PSP drafted by Planning staff The following policies shall only apply to the 32-acre property located at the northeast corner of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon Road and the square mile bounded by Gene Autry Trail, Ramon Road, Palm Canyon Wash, and the eastern Palm Springs city limits: 1. For every acre of open land provided above the percentage required, a project shall be allowed an increase of peoplefacre equivalent to the maximum single acre intensity for the underlying compatibility zone. Where a project incorporates building design features that are intended to reduce risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building, the bonus intensity shall be used. 2. Where practical, building designs shall include concrete construction and a fire-rated roof assembly or other similar materials that will reduce the risks to occupants in the event of an aircraft collision with the building. • DRAFT RIV DEC 16 104 09:52AM PA c o u x r r AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY ICONOMIO MV1.Ory,p,r " °`"01' December 14, 2004 C Fy CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Rk sow. P.O. Box 2743 <a- ��- 114,0 Palm Springs,-CA 92263 vimclu~ Attn: Mr.Doug Evans 46 7 jry e� C'Yri °fTWwvlf RE: Hearing Continuance bow cow corrsrlaRalR Dear Mr, Evans: AnIwrhft awwo At the latest(5m)hearing for the Updated Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) RwK the city again requested additional time In which to respond to the current proposal. The yen C� Commission granted such request and continued the item to February 10,2004.but the R►w" assumption made was that the two months was adequate time for the City to finalize their MV" response and that any additional cost would be bom by the requester. The oasts will vary ,t,,,,,,' m depending upon the activity requested (workshop, meetings and response). s"ras Arrangements are being made to amend the consultants contract to accommodate this CadTW"* eftrt, Additionally the Commission assumes that the final response will be in the office of the Commission by January 18, 2005, in order to have time to evaluate the proposal and n proper time for staff to prepare a response and the Commission to review the request. Iran a orwm Emw"� ",n°AS If you have any,questions please feel free to call me or Beverly Coleman at(951)343- $493. T*Mqmm Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION D. Downs,A1C.P.,A.A.A.E. Executive Director KDD:jg cc: ALUC Commissioners M x.., µ f COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: V. E. HEARING DATE: December 9, 2004 (Continued from November 18, October 14, September 16 and August 12, 2004) CASE NUMBER: RG-04-100 RI-02-127 and PS-100 Palm Springs and Riverside only APPROVING JURISDICTION: Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission PROJECT DESCRIPTION: An update to the 1984 Airport Land Use Plan(ALUP)and the subsequent Comprehensive Land Use Plans(CLUP) for public use airports in and affecting Riverside County. Jurisdictions affected are: the cities of; Rancho Mirage, Cathedral City,Pahn Springs,Riverside and the County of Riverside and any special district within those Influence Areas. PROJECT LOCATION: • All areas within the Draft Airport Influence Areas(see Map Attached). Affected Airports are:Palm Springs International and Riverside Municipal. BACKGROUND: The ALUC contracted with the consulting firm of Mead and IIunt to prepare the ALUCP in June of 2002. The ALUC held workshops for the plan in March at locations in Indio and Riverside. The consultants have met with the affected airports and land use jurisdictions and obtained each of their general plan and zoning ordinances. Our consultant has reviewed the proposal against each of those plans and the review is attached. Staff has called the affected city planning departments in the last week. MAJOR ISSUES: Noise Element, Community Plans and Land Use Element Area Plans RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that; 1)the ALUC continue to take testimony from the jurisdictions and the public, 2) close the hearing for those airports that the ALUC finds are completed in the commissions determination, , and 3) prepare resolutions for adoption for those closed. Response to Comments: September 16• COMMENT: City of Riverside letter August 27`h asking for continuance until after September 28, 2004. • RESPONSE: The Riverside and Flabob should be continued until October 14, 2004. RECEI _flf1FC _77nn� Sta{fReport Page 2 October 14, 2004,At the September 16th hearing there were three commenters and a request for a ` y further continuance from the City of Riverside. City of Riverside: The City had requested another continuance. We were scheduled for a City Council Workshop for the 28 h of September,but staff requested to meet with us in our office instead of the workshop with the City Council. City of Palm Springs: Staff met with representatives of the City on the 28`h of September. We had a productive meeting and expect further comments in the near future. On October 4, 2004 we received the attached letter from the County Planning Director requesting additional time. November 18,2004,At the October 14ei meeting requests for Rather continuances from the Cities of Riverside and Palm Springs and the County of Riverside and Mr.Borel. The Commission continued all of the plans and directed staff to notify the surrounding jurisdictions of the proposed expansion of the Influence Area by the Bermuda Dunes airport manager. Meetings with Mr. Borel, City of Riverside and the County of Riverside were held. The consultants have reviewed the letter from Palm Springs and the County of Riverside and the response is attached. An additional meeting to discuss specific concerns was scheduled with the City of Riverside staff on November 1. IMPORTANT TO NOTE: As of this date none of the comments from any of the local jurisdictions or the public have indicated any corrections to the components in the Compatibility Maps for any of J' the Airports. The comments we have relate to the land use maps and not the factors from which they are derived. October 29 from Riverside County TLMA-The consultant has addressed the policy concerns and the following addresses statements of information. The new ALUCP is guided by the 2002 Handbook; the previous CLUPs from 1984 to 1998 were guided by the 1983 Handbook, while the 1974 Palm Springs version was guided only by the basic version of the state law. The newer zones are consistent with the 2002 Handbook and the 1993 handbook included most of the zones, concerns and differences expressed in the new plan i.e. side line zone and density restrictions. Existing Uses: The new plan expands the defition of`existing use' to include tentative maps. No plan includes that presently besides the exemption clause in FV and RAL.Existing lots ofrecord can build homes on any lot so zoned. December 9, 2004, Three of the airports (FLABOB, Bermuda Dunes and French Valley) were approved at the last meeting and Riverside and Palm Springs were continued. A letter from the County dated November 17, was received the day of the hearing. Additional comments may be received from the cities prior to the hearing and the Riverside Council subcommittee is meeting the same morning(Dec. 9`h) as the ALUC. 'L FASharedUCOWAI RPORTMLI)MG-04-100.decsr.doc December 1,2004 Mead &Hunt Responses to Comments Concerning Draft Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, April 2004 No. Issue/Question/Request M&H Recommendation Raised by Discussion ALUC Decision* A diagonal line is shown through items previously discussed and acted upon by the ALUC;a summary of the ALUC action is indicated in the right-hand column # These items have been added since the previous version of this table COUNTYWIDE(REGIONAL)COMPATIBILITY CRITERIA AND PROCEDURES ISSUES RG1 The ALUCP redefines what prior CLUPs con-,-" Exemption of adopted specific plans is not a blanket ALUC policy. Under the-CLUPsstiff In Do not carry forward the sidered to be existing land uses; in CLUPs, effect,the exemption applies only to the influence areas of French Valley and Riverside Mu- blanket exemption of ,- adopted specific plans were exempt from com- nicipal airports. In considering the new draft ALUCP for adoption,the ALUMS-not not obligated to adopted specific plans. patibility requirements. Recognitioh of ap- continue this exemption. Indeed,the California Attorney Generalisof the opinion that such Consider site-spepifc or proved specific plans in ALUCP is strongly en- exemptions are contrary to purposes of the ALUC statutes'arid ALUCs cannot grant them. areawide exceptions at couraged. Riverside County.TLMA Planning Dept. Under the draft ALUCP,only those projects far which vested development rights have been individual airports where (letter dated October 29,2004) established would be exempt from provisions of the plan. The other principal mechanism in Justification -can be docu- the ALUCP for allowing exceptions to the compatibility criteria is to establish site-specific ex- mented;, captions. Any suchexceptions,though,must indicate why a deviation from the general poli- ALUC left draft plan on- cies is appropriate to the site and must narrowly define what additional uses are to be consid- changed(11118104). ereda'cceptable. _ RG2 The maximum density standards for residential" While the criteria set forth in Table 2A take into account both noise and safety compat'bHity Keep Table 2A as is. development as specified in Table 2A.are too factors,the criteria for residential development are weighed more heavily toward noise con- Consider site-specific-or restrictive relative to the usage intensity stan- terns and the criteria for most nonresidential development are morssfrongly based on safety. areawide exceptions at dards for nonresidential dcvelopment which Even with respect to safety,our society tends to set ahigher standard for residences (as well individual at where presumably reflect a maximum acceptable lev- as schools and certain other uses)than it-does�f6r most nonresidential uses. For both these justification can be docu- els of risk. reasons,equating the criteria_for-residential densities to those for nonresidential intensities is mented.,-,"- Riverside-County TLMA Planning Dept. inappropriate. 416/ er dated October 29, 2004) _ "" ALUC left draft plan un- changed(11118104). RG3 The required sound insulation of buildings" The comment ignores the fact that outdoor activities are an important component of most - Keep Table 2A as is. should be sufficient to provide acceptable inte- dential,especially single-family,land uses. Limiting the number of new dwellingsin noise- Consider site-specific-or rior noise levels in residences especially con- impacted locations is thus a key objective of the ALUCP. Altema9veiy,in areas where risks areawide exceptions at sidering the County Noise Element policy pro- are low—Zone D—the plan allows for high-density residertial development. The concept be- individual airports where hibits new residences-wifhin the current 60 dB hind that policy is that high-density,particularly—rn6lti-family,residential uses have less outdoor justification can be docu- CNEL airport cpntburs. living space and higher ambient noise levels and also can be more readily insulated from exte- mented., Riverside-County TLMA Planning Dept. rior noise. _ "- (letterdated October 29, 2004) - - See-follow-up comment #RG7. 1 No. Issue/Question/Request - M&H Recommendation Raised by Discussion ALUC Decision* RG4 With respect to overflight concerns,the required Avigation easements and deed notices do not reduce or otherwise mitigate noise_impacts-" Keep Table 2A as is. avigation easement dedication in Zones"61 and These measures are useful mostly in locations where noise impacts are at a-level where some Consider site-specific.ot B2 and deed notices in Zones C and D should people are bothered and others are not. Zones B1 and B2 are not-suitable for new residential areawide exceptions at be adequate to provide future fiomebuyers with development,not just because of noise, but also for safety"reasons. For Zones C and D at the individual airports where sufficient awareness thatthey are moving into most urbanized airports,some exceptions tnAbe-&--- y requirements can be entertained. justification can be docu- anarea that would"experience aircraft over- _ flight. - - - - mented. Riverside County TLMA Planning Dept. _ - - See"follow-up comment (letter dated October 29, 2004)Tden - -- #.RG7. RG5 The purpose of applying residentialarid" The restrictions on residential densities and nonresidential usage intensities are intended"to" Keep policies as drafted.nonresidential usage intensity restri - limit exposure of the public to airport-related noise impacts and risks. These limitatf6ns may pears to be strictly to maintain largf also aid in maintaining sites suitable for emergency aircraft landing purpose's,but the open See follow-up commerftopen space for emergency flight"uss land requirements are the primary method for accomplishing thetatter objective. Residential #RG7.particularly apparent in Zone Dwith 1 densities are not restricted only to 1 dwelling unit per 5.aeres. A second option requiring den- du/5ocres and 300 pegple/acre. (C sities of 5 dwelling units per acre or more is also made available to local land use jurisdictions was raised with respect to Flabob aside to select. -- Municipal, butis"denerally applicabl _ -Riverside-County TLMA Planning Dept. - " ,getter dated October 29, 2004) RG6 Criteria for infill should be modified to allow infill While raised specifically with respect to Palm Springs International Airport,thincon- o po- Keep ctstandard e policy as of parcels up to 40 acres, including within Zone tentially concerns some or all other airports in the county. Of the three requesa- is. Coeral or B1 in urbanized areas,and to reduce boundary tions to the infill criteria(Policy 3.3.1), increasing the eligible parcel size proba least site-speptions for percentage requirement for similar uses. adverse compatibility implications. This change alone,though,would most likble Palm Sternational City of Palm Springs Planning Dept. Staff the parcels over which the city is concerned to be deemed infill sites. (letter dated October 13, 2004) Airport RG7 Within the portions of Zone D outside the 55 dB In general,Zone D at each airport encompasses the standard traffic patterns. s Considn aver- # CNEL contour, consider reducing the lower end lateral to runways fall within the 55 dB CNEL contour, but most of Zone D is oucon- age lot andard of of the upper density range to 3.0 dwelling units tour. Beyond the runway ends,most of the 55 dB CNEL contour area is intended to fall within 10,000 square feet or less per acre. (Comment was raised with respect to Zone C as Table 3A indicates. Distinguishing between the portions of Zone D inside versus as the high-density option Bermuda Dunes,Flabob,and French Valley outside of the 55 dB CNEL contour thus is not significant and would add to the complexity of within Zone D at selected airports, but is potentially applicable at other the project review process. airports.) airports. Riverside County TLMA Planning Dept. As described in the draft plan,the objective to the split criteria for Zone D is to either keep (letter dated November 17, 2004) residential densities very low or,where doing so is impractical,to have higher, less noise- sensitive,densities. Multi-family residential would be ideal, but relatively dense single-family would also be acceptable. One-third-acre lots do not accomplish the purpose of the high- density option very well. If the currently proposed 5.0 d.u./acre minimum density standard is to be reduced,then it should be considered on an airport-by-airport basis taking into account the characteristics of the airport activity and the surrounding community. Also,holding the line at 4.0 d.u./acre would be better than 3.0. Another possibility would be to define the criteria in terms of net acres rather than the gross acreage now used. Developments with large amounts / of open land thus would not be penalized. The criterion could then be stated as requiring the Oaverage lot size to be,for example, 10,000 square feet or less. 2 No. Issue/Question/Request Raised by Discussion M&H Recommendation RG8 The ALUC should require affected airports to The ALUC has no authority over the operation of airports and therefore cannot re uire that an Kee ALUC Decision* # purchase properties within Zone A which,due airport acquire the land within Zone A. However,airport owners should recognize that almost P Policies as drafted. to safety considerations,are rendered un- any development in this area would be in conflict with not only ALUC criteria, but also FAA buildable. - standards,and that the most certain means of preventing development is to own the property Riverside County TLMA Planning Dept. or at least the development rights on it. ALUC policies and local zoning ordinances probably (letter dated November 17, 2004) cannot prevent development from occurring in Zone A Unless only a small part of a large par- cel is affected. ISSUES SPECIFIC To BERMUDA DUNES AIRPORT BD1 Zone E should be expanded both north and To the extent that the actual downwind legs of the traffic patterns are flown wider than' ' Non south of the airport so as to encompas a cated in the Bermuda Dunes Airport Compatibility Factors Map(Exhibit BD n the re- age cytand publicPevdin actual traffic patterns used by turb' -powered quested change has logic. The effect would be to expand the area which real estate dis- aircraft(see attached Map closure is applicable and to discourage certain very-high- BD ALUC a roved i or o- Mike Smith,Airport M a er g 'y uses such as stadiums. A pP P P 9 key question to be considered is whether the wid is patterns are flown by all types of rating bounda change Bermuda Dun Airport turbine-powered aircraft or only by lar raft which the airport is technically not designed into draft pl (IV16104).- (letters d d October 11 and October 25, to accommodate. The airport ger indicates that it is not just the large aircraft that use the 200 wide patterns. The r "ng location of the outer edge of Zone E would be similar to the pro- posals for P prings International Airport and Jacqueline Cochran Regional Airport, but wi an for Riverside Municipal Airport. BD2 Given the largely developed nature of the Ber- With respect to Zone B1,allowing new residential development at the density requested we Keep policies as drafted muda Dunes area, an airport-specific compa'- be contrary to both the noise and safety factors affecting that area regardless of wheth xist- with respect to Zone B1 bility policy containing the following provisi ns ing development is not in conformance with the maximum density standard of 1 d Ing unit and the requirement for should be added: per 20 acres proposed in the draft plan. It is because of the high noise and its evels in Zone acoustical analyses. n- = Maximum allowable residential de files B1 that infill would not be permitted under the proposed policies. 3.5 dulac in Zone B1 sidersite-specific ex p- 10.5 du/ac in Zone C Zones 62 and C are comparatively less critical, but still not genera suitable for residential tions for Zones B2, ,and 14.2 du/ac in Zones B2 d D development primarily because of noise impacts. Infill is per ' ed in these zones, but the infill D if specific sites n be = Open land requirements remain as in Ta- Policy as drafted would still not allow densities of the love equested. identified. ble 2A. The requested density of 14.2 dulac for Zone D is nsistent with the criteria for that zone ALUC left polices un- = Residential develop ant(other than indicated in Table 2A. changed(11/ 8/04). individual single-f ily residences on legal lots of record a second units)located Requiring an acoustical analysis for pr osed residential development at noise exposures as within future dB CNEL noise contour for low as 55 dB CNEL would not be t-effective as nearly any structure can provide 10 dB of average p k season day(Exhibit BB , noise level reduction if the wi ws are closed. The currently proposed ALUC policy would shall de onstrate through an acoustical require such analyses o at exposures of 60 dB CNEL or above. Moreover,any acoustical analy ' that interior noise levels resulting treatment does not ress the noise impacts to outdoor residential activities. fro aircraft operations at a rate of 400 o orations per day will not exceed 45 dB ide County TLMA Planning Dept. (letter dated October 29, 2004) J�> 3 No. Issue I Question 1 Request M8H Recommendation Raised by Discussion ISSUES SPECIFIC TO CORONA MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ALUC Decision* C01 The general plan consistency review secti These comments were submitted prior to the ALUC adoption of the compatibili o- Make technical correc- notes several potential conflicts be n the rona Municipal Airport in September. As none of the city's comment i considering tions as indicated w n ALUCP criteria and current ' olicies. Actual changes to the proposed policies,a formal response ww reviously provided. The letter is printing Backgr d Data circumstances preve ass conflicts from listed here for the record. The corrections y the the city willbe made in the Corona Mu- volume. arising. nicipal Airport section of the B un and Data volume when the final version is printed, City orona Planning Department No A C action required. (letter dated April 23, 2004) ISSUES SPECIFIC TO FRENCH VALLEY AIRPORT FV 1 Representatives of Sorel Airpark Center,the Some of the land uses allowed by the specific plan for Sorel Airpark Center(SAC)represen Adjust the Zone B2/0 business park surrounding the airport,com- significant conflicts with criteria set forth in the draft Compatibility Plan(auditoriums,de - boundary line as dis- mented that elimination of the exemption f ment stores,and day care centers,for example). Other typical office park uses wo not be a cussed and depicted on adopted specific plans in the French Vail conflict, however,particularly lateral to the runway. In the discussion with SAC resents- the attached Map FV-1 Airport vicinity would adversely affect t eir tives,several options were explored that would allow increased developme exibility for SAC property and requested continued e mption or property while still maintaining a high degree of compatibility with the at rt. As noted above Provide a site-specifi specific exception. (RG-1), continuation of the present blanket exemption is not accep e. Two other modifica- exception allowing ild- Sorel Airpark Center tion to the French Valley Airport compatibility plan were thereto considered. Inge up to three h !table (Public Hearing Testimo y, September floors above groyyyy d on 16, 2004;supporting cumentation pro- One is to shift the edges of Zone D inward to 1,500 feet st of the existing runway and 1,000 lands within the,BAC por- vided at subsequen private meeting with feet east of the planned parallel runway. The revise oundary would fall approximately along tion of Zone B (see ALUC staff and H) the 60 dB CNEL contour and would be consiste ith the ALUCP policy to prevent new resi- map). No re Vest for a dential development within that contour. In case,no new residential development is similar exce tion has planned within the area to be removed f Zone S. The area would become part of Zone D been rece! ed from other and variety of higher intensity uses ch as restaurants, meeting rooms, motels,and many property ners. retail facilities would then be all ad. ALUC proved exception The second change wou a to allow buildings with up to three aboveground habitable floors allow! three-story build- 'rather than two floor s indicated in Table 2A. The two-floor limitation is based upon risk ings i all of Zone B2 at considerations— e ability to evacuate a building if it were to be struck by an aircraft—and not Fre ch Valley Airport FAR Part 77 rspace protection factors. Permitting a taller building in Zone B2 relative to (1 /18104). Zone 81 ' consistent with the lower risks in the former zone. All development would continue to b ubject to the FAR Part 77 criteria. Current intensity limitations with Zone B2 would also ntinue to apply. FV2 The Zone A boundary as drawn reflects a The comment is correct with respect to the Zone A boundaries and criteria. However,the Keep Compatibility Map # proposed parallel runway on property not ALUC is obligated under state law to base its compatibility plan upon the airport master plan for French Valley Airport currently owned by the airport. The affected and the latter includes the parallel runway. Zone A therefore must encompass the future run- as drafted with respect to land is private property that is part of Sorel way and the clear areas around it. If,at some future date, Riverside County as proprietor of the parallel runway. Airpark Center. The compatibility criteria pre- the airport acts to remove the additional runway from the airport master plan,then the ALUC vent development of this property. would need to modify its compatibility plan for the airport accordingly. Sorel Airpark Center (Public Hearing Testimony, November 18, 2004) 4 No. Issue/Question/Request Raised by Discussion M&H Recommendation ISSUES CONCERNING PALM SPRINGS MUNICIPAL AIRPORT ALUC Decision* PSI Criteria for Zone D would either restrict Zone D encompasses the general limits of the traffic pattern at each airport. The inte7rural Add policy specific to residential densities to unreasonably low levels residential development compatibility criteria is as indicated in the comment—to main Palm Springs Internationalor cause the city to consider increasing the densities or,if urbanization is inevitable,to encourage high, preferably multi-family deAirport allowing upper-endpresently allowable land use density. The intent is to avoid the"1-acre ranchettes"that typically represent the most noise-sZone D residentialCity of Palm Springs Planning Dept. Staff residential uses. Given that various portions of Zone D around Palm Springs Internatidensities similar to nearby(letter dated October 13, 2004) Airport are already developed at residential densities somewhat lower than the minimdevelopment,but no lower density criterion of 5.0 dulac, an argument can be made to allow similar densities elsethan 3.0 dulac. In effect,these areas would be treated as infill even if they do not fully meet the Policy . infill criteria. PS2 The area[presumably referring to Zones B1, C, See the above discussion with respect to Zone D. and D north of the airport]is a logical infill area F2Aor licy specific to and criteria should allow for clustering with As for Zone C,this area is impacted by single-event noise at the primary departure end of theprings International residential densities of 4 to 6 du/ac. The large runway and is mostly within the 55 dB CNEL contour. While not ideal for residential land allowing residential expanses of open space to north and east usage, it is recognized that extensive residential development exists between this area and thes in Zone C to be should be considered with respect to open land airport. However, most of the parcels would not qualify as infill under the currently establishedo more than 0.2 requirements. criteria(parcels larger than 20 acres and not 65%surrounded by similar uses). If new residen- provided in Table City of Palm Springs Planning Dept. Staff tial development similar to that existing to the south is to be allowed,two options are apparent: be in the range of(letter dated October 13, 2004) (1)modify the Zone C boundary;or(2)apply an airport-specific policy exception. Of these 5.0 du/ac. The choices,the latter is preferable in that it would maintain the nonresidential and other develop- upper limit is set based on ment criteria of Zone C. However,a decision to treat the Palm Springs area as a"dense ur- safety concerns. ban"area(see discussion below with respect to Riverside Municipal),would mean applying a Maintain current policies 60 d6 criterion to Zone C and allow the size of the zone to be reduced. regarding residential de- The Zone 61 area is almost fully developed in residential uses and some of the remaining area velopment in Zone BI. would qualify for infill except that the infill policy as written does not apply to this zone. The Although not rec- affected area is within the 60 dB CNEL contour. The Compatibility Plan regards residential ommended here,the development as unacceptable at this noise exposure level. Changing the noise level criteria option of using higher- for Zone BI to 65 dB CNEL would allow a small reduction in the zone size. Safety is also a level noise contours as consideration,although only moderately so at the outer edge of the zone where most of the the basis for Zones B1 vacant land lies. If residential development is to occur,sound insulation of the buildings and and C is worthy of further dedication of avigation easements would be essential. consideration. The affects on the zone boundaries are reflected in Map PS-1 rF ea east of airport—designated P6Tt though not explicit in the letter,city staff has indicated that city would like the width of Zone ove Leohe 62/D bound- hibit PS-10 and indicated as poten reduced in this area. As indicated in Table 3A,Zone 62 encompasses areas of moderate ary on west to 1,500 feet istent—is currently being develophigh noise impacts and low to moderate risks. The width of this zone at Palm Springs Inter- from Runway 1 '50'f use hotel,residential,and golf cotional Airport was set to include the 55 dB CNEL contour. Consistent with the above dis- centerline and on east to ntial densities will be as high as 43ssion regarding Zone C,an offset of 1,500 feet from the primary runway and 1,000 feet from airport property line ash open space provided by golf co secondary runway would place the Zone B2/D boundary roughly along the 60 d6 CNEL shown on accompanyinghitewater River, ntour lines and would be consistent with safety factors. Since the affected area on the east Map PS-1. City of Palm Springs Planning Dept. S [ ]is not planned for residential development in any case,this change would not have signifi- (letter dated October 13,2004) cant adverse compatibility consequences. Also,note that if vested rights for development of this area have been established as the comment suggests,then the ALUC has no authority over the site's use and the development can proceed regardless of whether any changes are made to the draft Compatibility Plan. As for the area in Zone D [P8],the recommendation regarding comment PSI would appear to resolve the issue. 5 No. Issue/Question_/Request M&H Recommendation Raised by Discussion ALUC Decision' PS4 Southeast of airport,the 40-acre property at Concerns regarding this site include that it is as little as 3,000 feet from the approach end of Modify the Zone 61/C northeast corner of Gene Autry Trail and East Runway 31 R and is commonly overflown by arrivals and departures for both runways. As boundary as described in Ramon Road—P7 and a portion of P5 on Ex- proposed in the draft plan, roughly 60%of the site would be in Zone B 1 and 40%in Zone C. the discussion and shown hibit PS-10—is a former landfill site. For reme- The site does not qualify as infill under the draft countywide infill policy(too large). The cur- on Map PS-1, dilation to be financially feasible,the site must rently anticipated development appears to be potentially consistent with the Zone C criteria. A be developed as a retail shopping center. The slight adjustment to the Zone B1/C boundary line to match the alignment southeast of the par- For the remaining Zone city requests that proposed development be cel would shift the site percentages to about 40%Zone B1 and 60%Zone C. Beyond this 61 portion, establish a allowed as infill. change, if higher density commercial development is to be permitted on this site,a site-specific site-specific exception City of Palm Springs Planning Dept. Staff exception would be the appropriate policy mechanism. Conditions for the Zone B1 portion with conditions as noted in (letter dated October 13, 2004) should include making maximum use of that corner portion for parking, prohibiting restaurants the discussion. and other uses having more than 75 people per acre, restricting buildings to a single story,and Leave unchanged the requiring risk-reduction building design features as outlined in Policy 4.2.6. Zone C criteria as appli- cable to the site. PS5 The boundaries of Zone A should be reconsid- As drafted,the Zone A boundary south of the airport was based on a standard runway protec- Modify the Zone A bound- ered in the area at approach end of Runway tion zone(RPZ). It did not take into account the displaced landing threshold or separate arrival ary to match the arrival 31 L. and departure RPZs shown on the airport layout plan(ALP)drawing (Exhibit PS-2). The in- and departure RPZs de- City of Palm Springs Planning Dept. Staff tent in delineation of Zone A boundaries is to adhere to FAA criteria as reflected in the ALP, picted on the ALP and (letter dated October 13,2004) reflected on attached Map PS-1. ISSUES SPECIFIC TO RIVERSIDE MUNICIPAL AND FLABOB AIRPORTS RI1 Adjustment factors should be included in estab- The countywide policies establish 60 dB CNEL as the maximum acceptable n7draft osure for Leave possibility of apply- fishing noise criteria taking into account such new residential development near all airports in the county except the small dports for ing 65 dB CNEL criterion factors as established land use patterns sur- which the standard is set at 55 dB CNEL. Discussion in the California Airportse Plan- at Riverside Municipal rounding these airports, proximity to Hwy 60, ning Handbook suggests that these are appropriate criteria for most airports, ly gen- at open for further "existing CNEL,'seasonal variations in aircraft eral aviation airports,not situated in dense urban areas. For major airline andtivity consideration. The effects operations,and limited operational hours(8:30 general aviation airports in dense urban areas,a standard of 65 dB CNEL may re a.m.to 4:30 P.M.weekdays for Flabob and 7:00 appropriate. Based upon airport usage, urban density,and ambient noise lev on the zone sizes are ions, illustrated in accompany- a.m.to 6:00 p.m.daily for Riverside Municipal). none of the public-use airports in the county were considered during preparati draft accompany- it Map RI-1. Additional noise level reduction would be ap- Compatibility P/an to meet the conditions warranting use of the less stringent 65 dB CNEL propriate, standard. If a 65 dB CNEL criterion were to be applied at any of the airports addressed by the Make no changes with Riverside County TLMA Planning Dept, current draft plan,then Riverside Municipal might be a candidate, but not Flabob. The effect respect to Flabob. (letter dated October 20, 2004) would be to reduce the size of Zone C. Note that aircraft operations at Flabob and Riverside Municipal airports are not restricted to the hours indicated. Both are open 24 hours per day,seven days per week. Also,neither airport has strong seasonal activity variations equivalent to what occurs at the airports in the Coa- chella Valley. - 6 " i � • • 0 No. Issue/Question f Request Raised by Discussion M&H Recommendation ALUC Decision*RI2 Plans for a residential subdivision along the Noise was the primary determinant in setting the Zone B2/D boundary at 750 feet from the Prepare site-specifc ex- # south side of Flabob Airport are proceeding _ runway. This offset closely matches the 60 d6 CNEL contour and the policyindicated in through the county approval process The pro;= Chapter 2 is to prevent new residential development where noise expsure exceeds this crite- noted ntion 1the d sith ous ion as lectwas reviewed_py the ALUC(case#FG'-04_ rion. It is correct that,from a safety standpoint,a 500-foot setback would be adequate given 100)and found tg be inconsistent with thecom= the types of aircraft operating at Flabob Airport. The proposed development would create a ALUC authorized drafting pattbiljty pion currently m effect for the aitpoft, single-family residential subdivision with 5,000-squ2re-foot lots as close as 500 feet from the language for site-specific The tlraft co n is:hty plan would make addi„ runway and 2.5-acre lots with airfield access in the strip between 250 and 500 from the runway exception(11/18104). twna7gomppnents„-of thepcoposed_dQvefgp; centerline. pYepY�ir�cortsiSte_n_t; Specifically, it is requested that the one 62/D boundary south of the air- From an ideal airport land use compatibility planning perspective,the preferable response port be located 500 feet from the runway can- would be to keep the 62 boundary and criteria as proposed in the draft plan. However,the terline—consistent with the similar boundary in existence nearby of other similar uses just beyond the 500-foot setback line,the advanced the present plan—and safety zone guidelines in status of planning for the new development,and the project's support by the airport staff all are the state Handbook—rather than at 750 feet as important considerations. If the development is to be deemed acceptable, a site-specific ex- in the draft new plan. Flabob Airport ception rather than a zone boundary change would be better in that greater control over the management supports the change. conditions can be established. Specific conditions should include: keeping dwellings as far HarryTancredi, developer from the runway as possible; prohibiting buildings in Zone A; providing added sound insulation; John Lyon,Flabob Airport and dedicating an avigation easement to the airport. Also,the access taxiway should be de- (Public Hearing Testimony, November 18, signed in a manner consistent with FAA and California Division of Aeronautics requirements. 2004) 15*0 V OFpALMSO City of Palm Springs :_i `4 ro * Department of Strategic Planning * O >WATO 9,P* 3200 East Tahgmn Canyon Way Q41FORN� Tel: (760)323-8270 • Fax: (760)322-8 60.Springs, California 92262 3 Web: w W.ci.palln-springs.ca.us October 13, 2004 Mr. Keith Downs AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) FAXED: 951-688-6873 5555 Arlington Avenue Riverside, CA 92504 RE: RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN CONTINUANCE REQUEST Dear Mr. Downs: want to thank you and your staff for taking time to meet with us on September 28, 2004. The meeting was very informative and gave us a better understanding about the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUC). As you know the current ALUC Plan is very old and contains limited information. The City of Palm Springs has a long history of dealing with the Palm Springs International Airport as an owner/operator and as a jurisdiction with land use authority. Our community has developed around the airport for many years and the City has worked very carefully over the years to require non-suit avigation easements, acquire residential properties within close proximity to the airport, and most recently has undertaken a very successful residential noise insulation program. Most of the land within the City is developed and most new development is infilling areas which have development on adjacent properties. Geographically,the City is surrounded by natural features, mountains, and flood-ways thatwill limit urban development to the current urbanizing areas. In reviewing the ALUC, staff has identified a number of areas of concern. On an overview basis it appears that the ALUC does not recognize our current land use patterns and seems to apply standards that may have merit for a rural airport surrounded by abundant vacant lands. A prime example are the areas northwest and northeast of the airport. These areas are designated Zone B1, Zone C, and Zone D and are identified as P1, P2, and P3 on Exhibit PS-10. The City's General Plan designation for these areas is Controlled Density Residential(six units per acre) and Low Density Residential (four units per acre). Post Office Box 2743 9 Palm Snrinaq Mr. Keith Downs Airport Land Use Commission October 13, 2004 Page 2 of 3 The land between these areas and the airport is fully urbanized. Exhibit PS-10 and other land use maps need to be updated since some of the properties have been developed and the maps in the ALUC appear to be outdated. The recommendation in the ALUC compatibility map of policy 4.2.4(d) would severely restrict the allowable land uses,encourage unreasonably low residential densities, or in other areas cause the City to consider increasing the allowable land use density. City staff believes that this area is a logical infill area and that the ALUC should include provisions to allow flexible standards for clustering, or include residential criteria to allow four to six unit per acre residential densities. The City's use of non-suit avigation easements and if necessary, sound insulation, should be sufficient to mitigate airport noise and over flights. I will forward a current aerial photograph that shows approved and proposed projects. City staff recommends that the ALUC consider alternatives to the current recommendations for areas such as these. In addition to the information discussed above, the ALUC should also consider the large expanses of open space just north and east of the developed portions of the City which are designated for open space, conservation, and recreational land use. The Whitewater River flood plain provides Pilots the opportunity to make critical decisions prior to final approach to the airport. The areas located immediately east of the airport,Areas P6 and P8 on Exhibit PS-1 o are currently being developed with a mixed-use hotel, residential, and golf course development. Residential densities range from 4 to 43 units per acre. Large open space areas are provided by the golf course and Whitewater River located immediately to the east. City staff has evaluated the area south and southeast of the airport(P5 and P7 on Exhibit PS-10). This area is designated for industrial and commercial land use. The property on the northeast corner of Gene Autry Trail and East Ramon Road is the former Municipal Landfill. A comprehensive remediation program is underway to remove any hazardous material and create a buildable site. The financing of this important remediation program is based upon the ability to develop a retail shopping center. This site is approximately 40 acres in size and has existing commercial and industrial land uses located to the east and south. This is a significant environmental clean-up and economic development project for the City. The property owners are paying for the site remediation and are committed to working with the City. City staff requests that the ALUC re-evaluate this area on the basis that it is an infill area, that it is located east of the runway, that there are existing comparable land uses on adjacent properties, and any other criteria that could be considered. City staff is currently preparing a Draft Environment Impact Report for the proposed development project and will continue to evaluate the ALUC Plan. In addition, boundaries of Zone A should be reconsidered south of East Ramon, Williams, and Vella Roads where the Plan is a significant barrier to redevelopment of these areas. • In reviewing the ALUC, it appears that the ALUC should consider existing conditions and land use patterns in Conditions dS Section urbanizedng Special Conditions for (3 3) shou d be a aluated nde cr ri a a developed to reflect c nditio sswithin I �' Mr. Keith Downs - Airport Land Use Commission October 13, 2004 ; Page 3 of 3 specific communities. The infill criteria such as parcel size should be substantially increased to a maximum of 40 acres, and the provision for sites bounded by existing uses similar to, or more intensive, should have the percentage requirement reduced if existing development exists and adjacent lands are subdivided for similar uses. The infill provisions should also include Zone 81 for urbanized areas. Needless to say, City staff is continuing to evaluate the effects upon lands within the City, and our review of the ALUC is continuing. On behalf of the City, I would respectfully ask that any action on the ALUC be continued for 60 days. As currently written, the ALUC may create conflict which should be carefully evaluated prior to ALUC approval. I will be contacting you to schedule a'meeting as follow-up to discuss items we did not address at our lat meeting. Thank you and your staff for all your efforts. Sinc/errely, Douglas Evans Director of Strategic Planning DRE:Idm ALUC Land Use Conlinuanoe.Llovms.PSAirpotl,10.13.04 cc: David Ready, City Manager Troy Butzlaff, Assistant City Manager John Raymond, Director of Community Development Kathryn Lottes, Director of Planning Services O�P A`M Sp? N City of Palm Springs * * Department of Planning and Zoning *C�C�'EOR�iEO\9�• * 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 q<JFORNNP Tel: (760)323-8245 • Pax:(760)322-8360 • Web: www.ci.palm-spiings.ca.us September 13, 2004 Keith Downs Executive Director via facsimile: (909) 688-6873 Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 5555 Arlington Ave. Riverside, CA 92504 RE: Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Dear Mr. Downs, Thank for the opportunity to comment on the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. We have not received a response to our letter, August 2, 2004, requesting an extension of the comment period and a continuance of the public hearing. • The Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, as proposed, will have a significant impact on properties in Palm Springs. As our City Council did not meet in August, we are again requesting that the comment period be extended to the end of September or early October. We are also requesting that the public hearing on the plan be continued until October in order to allow us additional time to review the plan and present it to the City Council. We look forward to working with the Airport Land Use Commission and providing comments on the plan. if you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 323-8245. Sincerely, Douglas R. Evans Director of Strategic Planning n Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 O�QALM SAS City of Palm Springs * * Department of Planning and Zoning *C, #ORATEO •3EP* 3200 E.Tahquitz Canyon Way • Palm Springs, California 92262 g41FORN� Tel: (760)323-8245 • Fax:(760)322-8360 • Web:w w-ci.pahn-springs.ca.us August 2, 2004 Keith Downs Executive Director Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission 5555 Arlington Ave. Riverside, CA 92504 RE: Riverside,County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Dear Mr. Downs, Thank for the opportunity to comment on the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. As our City council does not meet in August, we are requesting that the comment period be extended to the end of September or early October. We are also requesting that the public hearing on the plan be continued until October in order to allow us additional time to review the plan and present it to,the City Council when they return from their August recess. We look forward to working with the Airport Land Use Commission and providing comments on the plan. If you have any questions, please contact me at (760) 323-8245. Si erely, Jin Ye Princip I Planner Post Office Box 2743 0 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743 `� RESOLUTION NO. 21180 OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DIRECTING THE CITY MANAGER TO PREPARE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN. WHEREAS, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission has prepared the draft Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP); and WHEREAS, the plan has the potential to significantly impact properties in Palm Springs; and WHEREAS, the City is the owner and operator of Palm Springs International Airport and is actively involved in reducing the safety and noise issues associated with the airport; and WHEREAS, specific areas regarding the ALUCP need to be addressed in order to better reflect the Palm Springs situation; and WHEREAS, a special policy should be adopted for residential densities in Zone D so that the high density option is reduced to a minimum of 3 units/acre in order to be consistent with existing residential development; and WHEREAS, the same policy regarding residential densities in Zone D should apply to Zone C, north of the airport, because the similar circumstances exist with respect to residential development patterns; and WHEREAS, Policy 4.1.4. should be modified to allow residential development in the 65 dB CNEL area because such a policy would be consistent with the General Plan, Airport Master Plan, and Part 150 study; and WHEREAS, special policies should be created for the approximately 30 acre property at the northeast corner of Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail that allow for the development to continue as planned while reducing risk to occupants of the buildings; and WHEREAS, any analysis used to formulate the compatibility map for Palm Springs should use urban criteria and take into account the fact that properties have developed close to the airport, that the City is owner/operator of the airport and is proactive in resolving noise complaints, and that the City has taken steps to reduce the impacts of airport noise on residential development by rezoning properties to professional uses; and WHEREAS, while the City endeavours to resolve any inconsistencies between the plan and existing conditions, overriding the plan for specific projects may be necessary where exceptional circumstances prevent compliance with the plan. Resolution 21180 Page 2 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby directs the City Manager to prepare a written response to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan incorporating the issues discussed above and analyzed in the staff report. ADOPTED this 121h day of January, 2005. AYES: Members Foat, McCulloch, Mills, Pougnet and Mayor Oden NOES: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By: City Clerk City Manager