Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/15/2008 - STAFF REPORTS - 5.A. Jay Thompson From: Craig Ewing Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2008 9:54 AM To: Chris Mills; David Ready; Ginny Foat; Jay Thompson; Lee Weigel; Martha Edgmon; Rick Hutcheson; Steve Pougnet Subject: Oct. 15- City Council Agenda Item 5A-Overrule of Airport Land Use Commission To All, Attached is a letter from the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC) we received late Thursday which provides comment on the staff report in your packet for tomorrow night. We believe that the staff report remains a sufficient basis to conclude that an overrule of the RCALUC determination is appropriate. Feel free to contact me if you have any further questions. Craig A. Ewing,AICP Director of Planning Services City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Drive PElm Springs, CA 92252 760-323-8245 When I am working on a problem I never think about beauty. I only think about how to solve the problem. But when I have finished, if the solution is not beautiful, I know it is wrong - Buckminster Fuller(1895-1982) ��/fS/SOUS 10/14/2008 CO OF RIVERSIDE TRANS Fax:909-955-3157 Oct 9 2008 17:45 P. 02 AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY CUR October 9,2008 SYnOn HpWm�7n . d 0I' Craig A Ewing,Diuredor of Planning Services godrn ,i�, 3200 L,Tahquita'Cattyon W"ay Palm.Spriugs CA 92262 COMMIlus ,w p Mi.dc RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COZ1;4 USSION(ALUC)DEVELOPMENT REVIEW "FileNo.: ZAPY003PS07 Vli ' asallo;:" C[]P5,1.161;3,3036MAT Hamm _ .. donnryan APN: 680-170-044. aHomao GknHohaas pL�11�Ii.Ewulg� _ Hemet wm%FumIeIre Thank you far providing the riverside County Airport Laud Use Commission(t1LUC)staff - - with additional information supplemeAltog the Notice of Intent to Overrule provided earlier. sTAFF The City's willingness to study the land use intensity issue in great&depth is appreciated . Essentially,the additional information that you ace proposing to include in the stallxcport ' Ee Caopor presents as 6lletnative met'lrodology fur the"calculation of average intensity=a inethoddlogy that starts with_a trip,attraction-number from a traffic study. Iu pon"t,the;aoethodoioges identified in the Compatibility plan are geuerallybased on 50%of time iut=satythat could s tee` potentially exist ai the time of peak usage,"as determined through the)3uo ing Code. t auw�awtear In this regard,per.'your request,our additional comments on methodology would be as Kverale,U �0B0Fin ftC° follows: ' 92S01 . W1zs�',V (1) In mast cities,there is a substaptial difference bcfweeo•the average number of trips per hour:during a store's hours of operation and the number of hips during the peak hour. 1 y � Use of a peak hour number of trips would be a more appropriate means of gauging maxi imi intensity. (Admittedly,the difference is not as pivlaortneed with retail stores as it would be for a church,an elementary school,or a restaurant.) ..(2) VVbile the introduction of"average time on property per hip"is logical and the estimate bythe Director of Public Works that a customer will staX au average of one- , half hour at a shoppitng/dming destination appears imtuitively rea=able,ibis factor has such'a bearing on the ultimate number that empirical documauteion should be sougbi Or'sources rcfarcnccd w . . (3).They "above two factgFs�csnit in a number(145.19`vehicle taps at auytune'�t7aat . ; . suggests that the number ofpaxl i g spaces being supplied at this location(292) considerably outstrips the parking demand- (4)Division of the total number of persons on-site by the acreage ofbuilding area is duly CO OF RIVERSIDE TRANS Fax:909-955-3157 Oct 9 2008 17:45 P, 03 'AlrpoFt`Lantt Use Ctimmis'sion Supplemental Latter to City of Palm Springs re:Overrule Notice,ZAP1003PS07 Page 2 of 3 valid in a determination o£single-acre intensity if there is only boa type'of land use oar the*jte. A restaurant will have abigher intensity per square foot than an offiec ,supplies store. ALUC views the singe-acre calculation as the`mum"single-acre _area,not the average of each single-acre area ofbuildings. In other words,each individual single-acre area most meet the standard. The report vrocgrds to indicate that the single-acre,intensity,, t ll exceeds the standard of so.,-[but that]...tho two:major tenants expect a lower number of customers than a typical retailer." As noted in your staffreport,the project was found inconsistent based on the intensity of the two largest retail atom structrres,which exceeds the maximum peniaissible average and single-acre intinsity for properties in Airport Zone Al.-" As the two adjacent stores cover most of a square acre of land,the inw7sity of that acre,using the standard Building Code methodology,was calculated.as 626 persons. However,this doss not . necessarily imply that the occupancies of the other two buildings were)a compliance. Based on the 13irilding Code formula,the highest i pteosity single-acre area ertabeded the standard and there was no need to conduct further analysis. Comidering the other two buildings,if we ass=c the square footages indicated in Note 2,the total square'foo"e of these buildings(six tenancies)is 16,600 square'fect_ 'Using the = stand 'Building Code methadology,including the 50%reduction,ifthese tenancies are entirely for•rera;i Use ,the single acre intensity for the acre%noluding•these bu7J&gs would be." 277 pgsorts. This number-v*ould be higher if any of these tenants are bating or drb lr�n as establishments. (rise of an alternative assumption of one person'per 115 square feet would indicate a single-acre intensity of 144 persons for retail use.) Therefore,even if iufvrmation ' is presented that the two larger stores have very low levels o£custorner trade,fhe single-acre intensity for the acre including the smaller buildings would still be exceeded. ' ALUC has,on occasion,been willing to accept an agreement from a landowner to limit hutil ding occupancy,W a number less.tban the limit imposed by Building and Fite Codes. 1n . that regard,if capacities were limited to 38 persons in Building A,42 persoris in Building B. 37 persons in Major A.sad 54 persons in Major)a with agreement from the brudowncr and developer,and if the City were Willi ag to crtforca such limits,the City could state that the project•bas been modified to comply with the intensity limits of the Compatibility Plan j however,ope would then have to question the need for 291 pafirizrg spaces if only I7l'people could be indoors. We appreciate the added statement that any change in tenancy of the majox+se structures would be subject to review for rowistencywith the Compatibility Plan.,and that outdoor sates and special events would not be peamitted on the site. ALUQ=Whopes you will find the discussion above useful in generating a final document that willrrreet•the State'ssu£Eiciencyneeds,whilerccognizingdiftences ofopimianremain ondensity. methodology. - ' Thaultyou f'ortakmg aswoad look atthe impacts o£this development. Ifyouhave anyquesdons, plcasc contact John Guerin,Principal planner,at(951)955-0982. 2 5 CO OF RIVERSIDE TRANS Fax:909-955-3157 Oct 9 2008 17:45 P.94 AiirportL'arad Me Condmissibn ' Supplemental Letter to City of Palm Springs re:Overrule Notice,ZAP1003PS07 Page 3 of 3 Sincerely; RIVERSrf)B COUNTY AMPOILT LAND USE COMMISSION �I Edward C.C er, hector I 77GG:b1m Attachments:Notice of Aixport in Vicinity - — :StaffRto&f,ZAP1003PS07 ' CC: ALUC Staff' CALTRANS Division of Aeranantics D.R.West,TLC/Th6 Niohofas Group--Aita.: Greg Pettis ,A.grura Cahente Band of Cahuilla Iudiaus Thomas Nolan,Eaect'*v-e Director,City of Palm Springs Department of Aviation r)aviri Nowell,City ofPalm Springs Planning Department Y:\4Luclpalmsprfngs\OverruleZAPI oo3PS073upplemenialResponseLTRdac . 3 Zr ALM Spy .y L/ N k S fvhnAev` x c4`11:0% "P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 15, 2008 NEW BUSINESS SUBJECT: DECISION TO OVERRULE THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND GENE AUTRY TRAIL (CASE NO. 5.1161). FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager BY: Department of Planning Services SUMMARY The City Council is required to respond to a finding by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) that a recently approved retail commercial center to be located at the southeast corner of Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail is inconsistent with the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP). The Council may overrule ALUC's determination with a two-thirds vote in accordance with Section 21676.5 of the Public Utilities Code. RECOMMENDATION 1. Adopt Resolution No. _, "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, OVERRULING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND GENE AUTRY TRAIL, ZONE M-1, SECTION 20. STAFF ANALYSIS Background The retail commercial center proposed at the southeast corner of Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail has received several land use approvals from the City: 1. On June 13, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the two anchor tenant buildings' architecture and landscaping, and recommended Item No. 5 0 k • City Council Staff Report October 15, 2008 Case 5,1161 -Request to Overrule Riv. Cnty. Airport Land Use Commission Page 2 of 6 approval of Tentative Parcel Map 35507 and the filing of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. On July 25, 2007, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approved TPM 35507 for the subdivision of the subject site. 3. On October 8, 2007, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through use on the site. 4. On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the CUP for several changes to the site plan, including the drive-through. On October 7, 2007, ALUC reviewed the project at its regular hearing and found the project to be inconsistent with the ALUCP based on the fact that the "intensity of the two largest retail store structures exceeds the maximum permissible average and single acre intensity for properties in the Airport ,Zone B1..." In accordance with Section 21676.5 of the California Public Utilities Code, the City Council may overrule the ALUC by a two-thirds vote, subject to specific findings. ALUC forwarded recommended Conditions of Approval should the City Council overrule their determination. Staff has reviewed these Conditions and incorporated them as necessary into the draft resolution. Airport Land Use Compatibility The ALUCP is adopted to protect land uses from impacts due to airport operations that consist of the following: 1. Exposure to aircraft noise 2. Land use safety with respect to both people on the ground and the occupants of aircraft 3. Protection of airport airspace 4. General concerns related to aircraft over-flights Noise According to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission (RCALUC) staff report, the project site is located entirely within the area subject to aircraft noise levels greater than 60 CNEL. However, retail and restaurant uses are not considered noise- sensitive and no special noise mitigation is required. Safety and Land Use Intensity The project is located within the B-1 (Inner Approach/Departure) Zone of the ALUCP. This zone establishes two standards for land use intensity which apply to this project.- - Non-residential average intensity (maximum 40 persons per acre) and - Non-residential single-acre intensity (maximum 80 persons in any given acre) According to the RCALUC, proposed project calculates an average intensity of 135 persons per acre (compared to the standard of 40) and single-acre intensities ranging from 120 to 626 persons (compared to the standard of 80). 302 City Council Staff Report October 15, 2008 Case 6,1161 —Request to Overrule Riv Cnty. Airport Land Use Commission Page 3 of 6 Staff has reviewed the project's proposed traffic and land use activities to determine if the actual project will yield the projected intensity. In reviewing the Traffic Study prepared on the project, as well as the projected hours of operation, staff believes that the actual land use intensity will be as follows: Daily Trips, per Project Traffic Study 5,075 Hours that Stores are Open 13 Trips per Hour(Trips/Store Hours) 390.38 Average Time on Property per Trip3 0.5 Number of Vehicle Trips at Any Time (Trips/Avg. Time) 195.19 Number of persons per vehicle4 1.38 Persons on Site (No, of vehicles x persons per vehicle) 269 Site Area 8.49 No. of Persons per Acre (Persons on Site/Site Area) 32 Building Area 1.43 No, of Persons per Single Acre (Persons/Single Acre) 188.37 ' Traffic Impact Analysis, RBF Consulting, Inc., May 10, 2007, 2 Hours projected as follows, Major 1 (20,400 sf)—average 11 hours/day Ma/or 2 (30,300 sf)—average 15 hours/day Tenant A-1 12 (6,000 sf)—average 10 hours/day Tenant A-3 (1,800 sf)—average 10 hours/day Tenant B-1 (2,000 sf)—average 16 hours/day Tenant B-2 /3 (6,800 sf)—average 15 hours/day 3 Per Director of Public Works 4 U.S. Personal Travel per Household, Drive and Mode, 1995, U.S. Department of Transportation, modified for Palm Springs' household size. As noted above, the actual projected number of persons per acre based on projected traffic volumes for the site is 32, which is less than the standard of 40, The number of persons per single acre still exceeds the standard of 80. However, staff notes that the two major tenants expect a lower number of customers than a typical retailer. They are largely warehouse-type merchants whose primary trade is conducted via catalogue, telephone and the internet, with goods and services delivered by the merchant's own vehicles. (One of the major tenants projects approximately 120 customers over the course of a 12-hour day — a single-acre average of about 20 customers at any given hour.) With the added feature that the larger tenant buildings are located toward the rear of the site (furthest from the runway), staff believes that the low-volume use will not create a safety hazard above that allowed by the standards of the RCALUCP. Staff also recommends that any change in tenancy of the major users be subject to review under the RCALUCP, and that no outdoor special events or sales be permitted at the project site. City Council Staff Report October 15, 2008 Case 5.1161 -Request to Overrule Riv. Cnty. Airport Land Use Commission Page 4 of 6 Height The maximum allowed height of these structures is governed by the distance from the runway and other factors. The RCALUC staff report has determined that the maximum allowed height of the buildings should not exceed 36 feet without review by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). One building is proposed at 38 feet and the RCALUC is recommending that the City require FAA review of this building as a condition of any Council action to overrule the RCALUC determination. The applicant has supplied letters from the FAA to indicate that this review has been completed and that the project's building heights have been determined to be of no hazard to air navigation. Conditions of Overrule The Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission has recommended a set of conditions to the City should the Council choose to overrule the RCALUC determination: 1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the landowner shall record an avigation easement to Palm Springs International Airport. Copies of the recorded avigation easement shall be forwarded to the Airport Land Use Commission and to the City of Palm Springs Planning Department. 2. Any outdoor lighting that is installed shall be hooded or shielded so as to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. All outdoor lighting plans shall be subject to review by Palm Springs International Airport management. 3. The following uses shall be prohibited: a. Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport other than an FAA-approved navigational signal light, visual approach slope indicator, or such red light obstruction marking as may be permitted by the Federal Aviation Administration- b. Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. c. Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds, or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area. d. Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. e. Children's schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, places of worship, highly noise-sensitive outdoor uses, and aboveground bulk storage of 6,000 gallons or more of hazardous or flammable materials. - ._ 90 City Council Staff Report October 15, 2008 Case 5.1151 —Request to Overrule Riv, Cnty, Airport Land Use Gommission Page 5 of 6 4. Prior to issuance of building permits for any structure with a height exceeding thirty-five (35) feet or an elevation at top of roof or top point exceeding 411,5 feet above sea level, the applicant shall submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or Alteration (Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration for such structure, and shall have received a determination of "Not a Hazard to Air Navigation"from the FAA. Copies of the FAA determination shall be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission and the City of Palm Springs Palm Springs Planning Department. 5. The City of Palm Springs shall require additional review by the Airport Land Use Commission prior to the establishment of any of the following uses in the structures proposed as "Best Buy"and "Staples"retail outlets: Food service establishments (any establishment requiring such inspection by City or County Health Departments), auction rooms, auditoriums, dance floors, lodge rooms, reviewing stands, conference rooms with capacities exceeding 100 persons, exhibit rooms, gymnasiums, lounges, stages, gaming, bowling alleys, classrooms, swimming pools, skating rinks, and other uses that would be considered to have an occupancy level greater than one person per 30 square feet (minimum square feet per occupant less than 30) pursuant to California Building Code (1998) Table 10-A. 6. The City of Palm Springs shall require additional review by the Airport Land Use Commission prior to the establishment of any of the following uses in the structures labeled as Buildings "A"and M": Auction rooms, auditoriums, dance floors, lodge rooms, reviewing stands, bowling alleys, skating rinks, swimming pools, and other uses that would be considered to have an occupancy level greater than one person per 15 square feet (minimum square feet per occupant less than 15) pursuant to California Building Code (1998) Table 10-A. 7. The attached notice shall be provided to all potential purchasers and tenants. Staff has reviewed the proposed conditions has finds no objection to their inclusion in the conditions of project approval. Staff also recommends the following additional conditions, as noted above: 8. Any change in tenancy of the major users shall be subject to review under the RCALUCP, 9. No outdoor special events or sales shall be permitted at the project site. NOTIFICATION The overruling of an ALUC determination is not subject to a public hearing. However, pursuant to Section 2.3.5 of the ALUCP and Section 21676 of the Public Utilities Code, City Council Staff Report October 15, 2008 Case 5.1161 -Request to Overrule Riv. Cnty. Airport Land Use Commission Page 6 of 6 the City submitted a draft of this report to the RCALUC and the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics for comment. Notice was sent to these agencies on August 21, 2008. Staff will report on any comments received at the Council meeting. CONCLUSION The project includes the construction of a new retail commercial center. The project is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Code. Therefore, based on the evidence presented above, Staff recommends the City Council overrule the ALUC finding of inconsistency, subject to inclusion of the proposed conditions. A two-thirds vote of the Council (minimum four votes) to overrule is required, FISCAL IMPACT: No fiscal impact. r g . Ewing P Thomas J. Wils Assist. City Manager Director of PI n ' g Services David H. Ready, Cit Attachments: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Draft Resolution & Conditions of Approval 3, ALUC Letter, September 19, 2008 A. ALUC Determination Staff Report, October 11, 2007 5. California Public Utilities Code Section 21676.5 I• --{ Yh •.•'.'#m -- -- °: � Boundar -=iL.II'� 'f : I. :If',:_Ir.. •iF l'fFii L i�m': � �;•�. ' \ __-�' -- _I=..0 ' i`.. « 'U,;:��.'1° `� `:`��\ _ _. y Ul0 t...Il:g!:;.., . 1 --I 'Ir-' _ ,.,rx•.; •. 'rl re,..,,I�i-' ';��'`l;'S'N'1^L"li tr L; • 'Od` c l , 1 • r;;aia •.:n y `:`` a U, =Ffi'4 .,y I 6k='-+`;' "'' <`- \n`.— �•�_' `, Iq Notes 'b` 7,i= i,a r•cl r,?7 T-�m \ 1 ! 1..'_li ' _ a• ,,•r, . f, 3 �11 _ G'"`�—_` — '� _�• L g., All dlmen: Tll�l _a- ,-.,:,I-!•r,,::%;!�6'3'i{If-I:,,+;F. .ra, w„�y,.{'f I�^wlw �. \ � centedine: -r-�-�IEfi{,;yVal; i�q,', • I;i:'x ., " !::sirs"}•:}, . ;-slrr'Liiiuj,l ,I \` �� '�• �¢ u7 -- •d:i x�^ , J. � �r;gl_I (`.,__ ... .r __ f��d��iry��,+! �i.a -,g:�'ii �\ -"'ii,'' tryE'I° �� I{ r li'a.%,i. ulrr-� ,. i• i i 1 •:�i«I�i li'i;i�ly r;9 r:`;rr.�a�f=r,,..,.,—p-�� ti. � `�• `ti. DT= Disp .Lnb:Vlll4�i."�'�I ^F,,,-481ir I1�.,,:,ifilFl, •1�ti�. \,. \\ l 7r iiluil�::+-, NL Lill I w:,.,,:.i r Grr. 5f'dcl),l9co'�Ine.1Y 11, f'Lib•.,. ' Iar.V', ,vicar :"!S.I.;i I' 1�• l rhh'n'i'.":':e ,...1�_I• :4-,::r if`G. IarJ... ._..1, r n9•-n PmW,:r;ryp_u p,,, ,ry yll,,f":.. �. \,,_ .�. . -q- See(hap l I ;�'(-I. - 1 d � `` •` 17+I assvciatec 'I J�,^. J,r_ - �� � i "fi '�-� rL� •,la �� w, P ""'�+.i� r r - I rI'{P-'- `III`,I�;dFV'gi���fl•i��li'r�,lt',Ili!�I',. li' ` � � �I� dk See ,) Ii r.;iJ{ t:i,ii., ruga.,,l:,:}'I�!,i� �ro,ii�.,:,,::1. repa ., ,--- ...-- - I�,, :{-' 1 .h 1._� =y.v•\.; 1.4,.a Cil'{il:ssrl :cl'�Ili.. 1 "1 %. •� " 'eti III II:�r,r'1H,'."jyili JIIL'!:i,��!3„^'�':,.F,� 'I^ r.. ��`�•�._ - '�-- '�j:�i " . ;, qrl„4ytl I!- .F'rLH'�IA� _Iu uKu; 1f•I J.1 = f.L i.� :_ S,.r}[ :. -. - _ -w'.1._. �.i,4£ell;ill�,'fdy�': r.'e:,-_. '''�; I�:"'(Lil-' J..- i. ��Gj�yL']h�l. �rE. li[ti,i-Ili 'Pllr,"IqulPili'iil l;Ygl`i ;ill!;lo mnid mrv ;:r._n,.r.y;y.,,�c ' I ,Ii'rt�:,il, ,hI �1J_. - 3 ,. .......... `�, . I, }rre l:: I,r ul., ,1 ! ail fPdll;;SfF',tii1FY \� slt _ y r a r , ';, r;f.e�F,,�- ha lfl l nl�ryLl„' :'..0 1, [ ''' r, r4.. Ihu �-- _Ll:jrf;,..-,I' ,`� -- Ir �,C / Rau f11�';6- �!jt q;?I6jr,:rij r i;i,...i.., � ,,��Ap,I, _ -I rl- 1' �- � ',{-'1. ir..;;, I - _ —�-: •,gC,�1:?7lf�(. drj.Iu.'i'•, i, a',II_ _ � I;w�1,�i,I111� f:rl,l;pp .u':i; I' L-1^il,- !.;�a• i \ IFi! Irl-1IG7� �I,)"iTii 1,7Il..lil 'a.�, - g,n L ' - i. ,,.yd1%�•, )V.er,I'„lyi ,]17 . !r<, Li`,(,•,,� L� Ip �R!��.IiT'li-! '���� lirl �..r�. ..�"r+'t'E(:cr:,.�• 'II ?ii.,�',I'll {fi�q t}i,.,;_, ..L�.,��I r. ,I:.F -;;1�9i-i: �aal ,J,•� :- LI,u.,P_I._'III!L,,T� /-h1 -;r' -,y \ .IY�_ ; 'I�� I i I - -`v .;✓m� -f�,I';-�i-.� ___ __ _ C'...nw �r -_iL il, an1 .I. ..,,9 ..;l,n.e _ _.-_—_ _- rhJ;,II��, -} 7T7�'F,aI' I-r1"� �T ,v; [r rli::'ra•�5 -': III II 'IIni III, 'I I1 I�i!..:n.5 L l.1LI��L dYi4 �_=*'-- .,.y,.;rx •,1,_-� .M,'! 'i'r';> ''\ '} l , rl''I',itli,,'ll "i�Cll -�=,f'I„I''i'I`II!71-- �L... .._ . - I;1, - _ �� l— I : �" .' •iIL � l`leLrl ,-,,, 'l �'I 11 p �Irtl•'..,, ,lil- - I 'd I . hkrF l l �I JJ la Hi77 I -L� ELL +;ra"('I'i'dr I:''.''` -i�M1 ba�o,n i•'�L,,.I :I i1111dill �5'i-� "A kER hr, --, ER `�' -1.-' I,,,.I ����,�,.,.I„`l I � I II Itdrih^`i•�„i� Ia _ t,";�,•,_,., ��ol�_-.fd�����E i� �.�.• '"�P•I' �7!', +',,l?j.,,�;'^1 Mry�,f !. 4 _ 4 .y, II1I�,Ri�I�:,rr .lYl„=f?ilirl�p'� 1 '` � I.m":.^,}...,,,,rhiri l' I ;� �.i'"":'�,(�,yldn us'�ria�.F,'� � II I,.ia:�!+'{ ; i Iap�A,�NSY. , vv: rFF'' h vl I^Illli ';;1J]!rinli'I r - .J.,:�,•- \F.. —G .r.};z- rlrl' !Iul+. - . -'-- ;, �; :; .\il', EI�'�II " ,'a : ll l G _7r 'lll 1, ,; ,:,;.. . - .o • ��'. ri ,'::1. '„�,t M'i_ ;r;rri €Jft°,, )I�;,I �}I.,.,� „I; E �r,�, I. ;l� ICI ,,'k��, - ----- ---`� • ' � �� �I `�i. ._i-' ��p,, �•I'rliL,.Y41^:J^1�1�1.,•4idi l,,� I - .,! ifs' - '�I r,WJ�,--..,r'_E�y. i•7,` lylk. f`�l ''�" „ 2 y 'F.,I,.,,I, I .-; ��.• r<, � r I�.r� r 7 r C° 11- �w r � I I LI'I I���I I•II:�IJ.'lJirlbdlil--_ :titI E,M 4—.' 1_sf® � � y -.jI w_d.q=-'J Ci}r,' _� 4�4m _-r--�-_�,_� =-1 r5,=i_�•''".'i-..r 1 4 �IIIr"{Ial:d;�l�l�l'�rlI i,G'f, I I'I c.,_I�;,1.,I:II��I,',=Yr��,c:;1,:,ll�y l ,I•...___._._. ' E:r `IL �1 IIfJ,K.-�ryI,,-YlF_1p.7.r1.:.,-, 4- .r yr - -- 1 ry r/' tv c,.`i:'f s`=%=c'r.r`-._�}1 _�,� '-m._t"r'.J„(rr'r°-i,,.,11'pLr.+F,:'i1 Nl�Li�-I��"-,H''-y IitiII-_`j�",.:,fI Y��r.(c>r `^".„l��G1-.FL;7'[,-_I;fI_.1'_ni.l'i;:-,�L'l:;lrE-'.R\l}i���Jt�`E,':}p�l�•�,_.�p.,A rr,__Ir-Ln_lk.'+.•I=. ,J5.i,eI f:J�,:.L�u..1.rI=''r�-_l'iiI••,l rIfIr:l''.'�..�I Iy-;r 1i1 ryII..,.,,!,r,ir�P_,a.'c,,el�I-.. -Iti�JJ},�VIr r.1•S'..yNy',_1r:r_M-F'_.rI�C'l,yqu_�9 fC.,}n".�NV•y,u,'R.("fl+.wF ,I Er QIYl- . 2? l Y 4jifCl eJ = : -" . b F �t , [ ;`j' V k-,,,, l'. 2��. ^-' .•:I �'. kl vh= II . ,,.(}, r V Airport! ',1 .I."� , •_'' 7�• �.- � � GGG"""gggq ��� �}ry\ .��4. ' i ' •I..�u�j ���:" � ��IJ� ,rd,1FY���.�°p� �^-1�,n_o,,,rL:y+;,� �-, ,.,y �.il:,ti-:c } '�..,n '!, .._.... ^':ryY,.^,.N,a ---- "���� h ]'L•L 1 `h"'Gl X •'� 0• --._..- - r-�:n+li} 4�,..1,.':,lTb.�,l �i fim'iT°riur, RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, OVERRULING THE RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION FINDING OF INCONSISTENCY FOR THE RETAIL COMMERCIAL CENTER LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF RAMON ROAD AND GENE AUTRY TRAIL, ZONE M-1, SECTION 20. WHEREAS, the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission ("ALUC") has been designated as the Airport Land Use Commission for all public airports in the County of Riverside; and WHEREAS, on February 10, 2005, ALUC adopted the Riverside County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan for the Palm Springs International Airport ("ALUCP"); and WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs is the owner and operator of Palm Springs International Airport; and WHEREAS, D.R. West, LLC filed an application with the City pursuant to Sections 92.17.01.D.11 and 94.04.00.E.2.c of the Palm Springs Zoning Code for a Conditional Use Permit and Architectural Approval for a 67,232 square foot retail commercial center and drive-through facility located on a 6.54 acre vacant property at the southeast corner of Gene Autry Trail and Ramon Road (APN 680-170-044), Section 20; and WHEREAS, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was prepared and adopted for this project pursuant to requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines; and WHEREAS, the City has taken several actions with regard to land use approvals for the project, as follows: • On June 13, 2007, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved the two anchor tenant buildings' architecture and landscaping, and recommended approval of Tentative Parcel Map 35507 and the filing of the Mitigated Negative Declaration. • On July 25, 2007, the City Council adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and approved TPM 35507 for the subdivision of the subject site. • On October 8, 2007, the Planning Commission approved a Conditional Use Permit to allow a drive-through use on the site, and • On January 9, 2008, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to the CUP for several changes to the site plan, including the drive-through and WHEREAS, on October 17, 2007, ALUC found Case 5.1161 CUP and 3.3036 MAJ to be inconsistent with the ALUCP with respect to land use intensity; and BOB City Council Resolution October 15, 2008 Case 5.1161 /3.3036—City Council Overrule of RCALUC Page 2 of 5 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 21676.5(a) of the Public Utilities Code, the City of Palm Springs may overrule the ALUC finding of inconsistency with a two-thirds vote of the City Council; and WHEREAS, ALUC and the California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics were notified on August 21, 2008 of the overruling hearing ; and WHEREAS, on October 15, 2008, the City Council held a public hearing to consider overruling the ALUC finding of inconsistency; and WHEREAS, the City Council has carefully reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the hearing on this matter, including, but not limited to, the staff report, and all written and oral testimony presented. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 1. The action to overrule the ALUC finding of inconsistency is consistent with the purposes of California Public Utilities Code Section 21670 in that the Council's action for the project accounts for the orderly expansion of the airport. The Palm Springs International Airport Master Plan, adopted in January 2003, does not indicate plans to further expand into the area where the project is located. Special circumstances exist that allow for control of the orderly expansion of the airport because the City of Palm Springs is owner/operator of the airport. As owner/operator of the airport, the City is able to fully analyze the impacts of the airport, without external interference, on surrounding areas in the course of making land use decisions In addition, the City, with the exception of a few remaining parcels is substantially built out. Properties have traditionally developed close to the airport and there are many urban land uses surrounding the airport. However, the City has taken steps to mitigate the affects of close proximity to the airport including the completion of a residential sound insulation program for the majority of the homes within the 65 CNEL contour, requirements for avigation easements, and the re-zoning of residential properties to professional land uses in order to minimize future land use conflicts due to the operation and future expansion of the airport. SECTION 2. The action of the Council to overrule the ALUC finding of inconsistency is consistent with the purpose of California Public Utilities Code Section 21670 to prevent the creation of new noise and safety problems. The project is a retail commercial center, including drive-through facility and on-site parking. - 0 � City Council Resolution October 15, 2008 Case 5,1161 /3.3036—City Council Overrule of RCALUC Page 3 of 5 The project does not propose any noise-sensitive land uses and conditions have been included to avoid the introduction of noise-sensitive land uses. Additional conditions have been included to require: • An avigation easement in favor of the Palm Springs International Airport; • Limitations on outdoor lighting; • Review of buildings by the Federal Aviation Administration for height; • Review of any new assembly uses by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission; and • Limitations on uses that would cause sunlight reflection, generate smoke or vapor, or generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and / or aircraft instrumentation. The project does not create a new safety problem because it can be shown to generally comply with the land use intensity standards of the B-1 (Inner Approach/Departure) Zone of the ALUCP. This zone establishes two standards for land use intensity which apply to this project: • Non-residential average intensity (maximum 40 persons per acre) and • Non-residential single-acre intensity (maximum 80 persons in any given acre) In reviewing the Traffic Study prepared on the project, as well as the projected hours of operation, that the actual land use intensity will be 32 persons per acre, which is less than the standard of 40. While the number of persons per single acre exceeds the standard of 80, the two major tenants expect a lower number of customers than a typical retailer. They are largely warehouse-type merchants whose primary trade is conducted via catalogue, telephone and the internet, with goods and services delivered by the merchant's own vehicles. (One of the major tenants projects approximately 120 customers over the course of a 12-hour day -- a single-acre average of about 20 customers at any given hour.) With the added feature that the larger tenant buildings are located toward the rear of the site (furthest from the runway), the low-volume use will not create a safety hazard above that allowed by the standards of the RCALUCP. SECTION 3. The action of the Council to overrule the ALUC finding of inconsistency is consistent with the purpose of Public Utilities Code Section 21670 to promote the overall goals and objectives of the California airport noise standards. No noise sensitive land uses are proposed and conditions have been included to require review of any new assembly uses by the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission. City Council Resolution October 15, 2008 Case 5 1161 13.3036—City Council Overrule of RCALUC Page 4 of 5 SECTION 4. Based on the above findings, the City Council hereby overrules the ALUC finding of inconsistency of October 17, 2007 for Case 5.1161 CUP and Maj 3.3036, subject to Conditions of Approval contained in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and made a part of this resolution. ADOPTED THIS day of , 2008. David H. Ready, City Manager ATTEST: James Thompson, City Clerk City Council Resolution October 15, 2008 Case 5.1161 13.3036—City Council Overrule of RCALUC Page 5 of 5 CERTIFICATION STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. CITY OF PALM SPRINGS ) I, JAMES THOMPSON, City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby certify that Resolution No. is a full, true and correct copy, and was duly adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs on by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: James Thompson, City Clerk City of Palm Springs, California U� AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION RIVERSIDE COUNTY ; ZOOS I�l..l'e���5��.�3�6V•S �S CHAIR September 19, 2008 Simon Housman Rancho Mirage Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services VICE CHAIRMAN City of Palm Springs Rod Rananoe Riverside 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs CA 92262 COMMISSIONERS Arthur Butler Riverside RE: AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION (ALUC) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW Robin Lowe Pile No.: ZAP1003PS07 Hemet City Case No.: CUP 5.1161; 3.3036 MAJ John Lyon APN: 680-170-044, Riverside Glen Holmes Dear Mr. Ewing: Hemet Melanie Fesmine Thank you for providing the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission(ALUC) with a Indio copy of the Notice of Intent to Overrule its determination that the above-referenced project STAFF (reviewed by ALUC as Case No_ ZAP1003PS07 in October 2007) is inconsistent with the 2005 Palm Springs International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan, in accordance with the o rector requirements of Public Utilities Code Section 21676 b Ed Cooper q ( )' We would note that the associated parcel map was found consistent and may be acted on by the City Council without any John Guenn overrule action. With regard to the Conditional Use Permit, it is our understanding that a Brenda Ramirez final action to overrule cannot be taken until the close of the 45-day notice period that began Sophia Nola5co Barbara SanloS anta$ not earlier than August st 21, 2008. County Adminishalrve Cantu As correctly noted in your staff report to the City Council, the project was found inconsistent 401E Lemon 51,9b R°or based on the "intensity of the two largest retail store structures, which exceeds the maximum Riverside,CA 92501 (951)955-5132 permissible average and single-acre intensity for properties in Airport Zone 81..." It maybe noted that the maximum permissible intensities are higher(more generous) for Palm Springs International Airport than for any of the other airport influence areas subject to Compatibility mrmlucof° Plans adopted in the 2004-2005 cycle. Pursuant to Section 21676(b) as cited above, the City Council,prior to overruling the ALUC by not less than a two-thirds vote, must make "specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of Article 3.5 of Chapter 4 of Part I of Division 9 of the Public Utilities Code as stated in Section 21670—namely, "to protect public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring the orderly expansion of airports and the adoption of land use measures that minimize the public's exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards within areas around public airports to the extent that these areas are not already devoted to incompatible uses." Sections 2 and 3 of the draft resolution assert that the Council action to overrule is consistent with the above proposes, but there are no specific findings relating to safety issues in the draft resolution to support an action to overrule. We agree that noise levels are not a concern for this project, which proposes only nonresidential uses that are not noise-sensitive. 3113 Airport Land Use Commission Letter to City of Palm Springs re: Overrule Notice, ZAP1003PS07 Page 2 of 3 The primary concern is whether allowing retail use at this intensity at this location would result in additional risks to building occupants in the event of an aircraft accident involving approacbiag or departing Palm Springs hitemational Airport traffic. The conditions referenced in Section 2 and in the staff report assist in mitigating the potential impacts of site activity on airport and aircraft operations, and provide some assurance of additional review opportunities if the proposed land use changes in the future;however, they do not serve to provide additional protection for the persons who would be,occupying the proposed structures in the event of an accident. The density and intensity standards within an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan prepared in accordance with the recommended criteria in the State of California Airport Land Use Planning handbook (California Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics, 2002) serve as the principle tool through which issues of public safety relating to the impact of aircraft operations on new development may be addressed. Ultimately, an Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan can only remain effective if the jurisdictions responsible for its implementation administer its criteria. The draft resolution does not indicate any special circumstances justifying a deviation from the standard that has been adopted for this area. While the incorporation of ALUC's recommended conditions in the event of overrule is appreciated, compliance with these conditions does not render the proposed project consistent with the 2005 Palm Springs International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. We would appreciate being notified as to the scheduling of this matter for City Council action. We would also appreciate receiving a copy of the final action regarding this project, including a record of the vote tally. Please send such correspondence to the Riverside County Airport Land Use Commission at 4080 Lemon Street,Ninth Floor, Riverside CA 92501. Thank you For taking these concerns into consideration. If you have any questions,please contact John Guerin, Principal Planner, at (951) 955-0982. Sincerely, RIVERSIDE COUNTY AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION war Coop irector JJGG:bks Attachments: Notice of Airport in Vicinity Staff Report, ZAP1003PS07 2 'wFn Airport Land Use Commission Letter to City of Palm Springs re: Overrule Notice, ZAP1003PS07 Page 3 of 3 cc: ALUC Staff CALTRANS Division of Aeronautics D. R. West, LLC/The Nicholas Group —Attn.: Greg Pettis Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Thomas Nolan, Executive Director, City of Palm Springs Department of Aviation David Newell, City of Palm Springs Planning Department Y:\ALUC\PairnSprings\OverruieZAP1003PS07NoticeResponseLTR.doe 3 -F NOTICE OF AIRPORT IN VICINITY This property is presently located in the vicinity of an airport, within what is known as an airport influence area. For that reason , the property may be subject to some. of the annoyances or inconveniences associated with proximity to airport operations (for example : noise , vibration , or odors) . Individual sensitivities to those annoyances can vary from person to person . You may i wish to consider what airport annoyances , if any, are associated with the property before you complete your purchase and determine whether they are acceptable to you . Business & Profession Code 11010 12 (A) 0 t� COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: 6.2 HEARING DATE: October 11, 2007 CASE SUMMARY: CASE NUMBER: ZAP1003PS07—D. R. West LLC/The Nicholas Group APPROVING JURISDICTION: City of Palm Springs JURISDICTION CASE NO: Conditional Use Permit: CUP 5.1161 Parcel Map No. 33507 MAJOR ISSUES:The intensity of the two largest retail store structures exceeds the maximum permissible average and single-acre intensity for properties in Airport Zone BI,as amended by the Additional Compatibility Policies for Palm Springs International Airport. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends a finding of INCONSISTENCY for the proposed Conditional Use Permit and a finding of CONSISTENCY for the parcel map(division of land only). PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Conditional Use Permit No. 5.1161 proposes to establish a four- building retail commercial center with a total gross floor area of 62,358 square feet on 6.47-6.54 acres. Parcel Map No.33507 proposes to divide the property into four lots for conunercial purposes. PROJECT LOCATION: The site is located at the southeast corner of Ramon Road and Gene Autry Trail,northerly of Camino Parocela,in the City of Palm Springs and the Agua Caliente Indian Reservation, approximately 1600 feet southeasterly of Runway 13R-31L at Palm Springs International Airport. LAND USE PLAN: 2005 Palm Springs Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Adjacent Airport: a. Airport Influence Area: Palm Springs Intemational Airport b. Land Use Policy: Airport Zone B1 c. Noise Levels: 60-65 CNL^L BACKGROUND; Nonresidential Average lntensity: The site is located in Airport Zone 131. Palm Springs Intemational Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan includes Additional Compatibility Policies that allow for an average nonresidential intensity of 40 persons per acre and a maximum of 80 persons in I Staff Report Page 2 of 5 any given acre. The property lies just outside the 1,700 foot long Runway Protection Zone. The project proposes a commercial center of 62,358 square feet,including two large retail stores (a 30,242 square foot Best Buy and a 20,387 square foot Staples) and two smaller multi-tenant buildings that would house retail, restaurant, food service, and financial service establishments. Based on the uses indicated in the plans submitted,it would appear that the project would consist of 55,807 square feet of retail area and 6,425 square feet of restaurant area. Using the standard Building Code method pursuant to Appendix C of the 2004 Riverside County Airport band Use Compatibility Plan,the total occupancy would be estimated at(55807 divided by 30,divided by 2) + (6425 divided by 15, divided by 2) = 930+214 = 1,144 persons. Based on information from the parcel map, staff estimates that the area within the half-width of adjoining streets is approximately 2.11 acres,bringing the site's gross acreage up to 8.49 acres. The average intensity of the site, then, would be calculated as 135 persons per acre, which exceeds allowable average intensities in Airport Zone B 1. In this case,the Parking Space Method would appear to indicate a lower intensity on the site. The applicant proposes to provide 292 parking spaces. Application of the standard 1.5 persons per vehicle factor results in a total occupancy of 438 persons and an average intensity of 52 persons per acre. While this is not less than 40 persons per acre, it is close to an allowable intensity if the applicant can demonstrate that 40% of project area would meet the"qualifying open area"test. The Airport Land Use Commission has recently received information from its consultant Mead & Hunt that actual intensities in retail structures would be closer to one person per 110 square feet for facilities including restaurants and one person per 170 square feet for facilities not including restaurants. If the retail areas of the small buildings are treated as retail areas within facilities that include restaurants and the retail areas of the large buildings are treated as retail areas within facilities that do not include restaurants, and if the restaurants are further assumed to consist of 60% serving area and 40%commercial kitchen,the total occupancy would be estimated as(50629 divided by 170)+(5178 divided by 110)+(3 855 divided by'0)+(2570 divided by 200)=298+47+ 129+ 13 =487 persons_ The average intensity would then be 57 persons per acre. Nonresidential Single-Acre hhtensilX The site is located in Airport Zone B1. Pursuant to the Additional Compatibility Policies for Palm Springs International Airport,nonresidential single-acre intensity is restricted to 80 persons per acre in Zone B 1. Using the Building Code method, and discounting the proximity of the Best Buy and Staples structures,each ofthese would be considered to be included in a single acre of area. Use of standard methodology would indicate single-acre intensities of 504 for the Best Buy store and 340 for the Staples store. These intensities are clearly inconsistent,even if the stores were located on entirely separate acres. As adjacent stores,the single- acre intensity is 626 persons. Use of the alternative approach of one person per 170 square feet yields intensities of 178 for the Best Buy store and 120 for the Staples store. Even with bonuses for provision of additional open land,these intensities exceed allowable intensities in Airport Zone B 1_ © ,28 Staff Report Page 3 of 5 Noise: The site is located entirely within the area subject to aircraft noise levels greater than 60 CNEL. However,retail and restaurant uses are not considered noise-sensitive. Therefore,no special noise mitigation is required. PART 77: The two northerly buildings have a proposed pad elevation of 374.2 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). These structures will have a height not exceeding twenty-four (24) feet, for an elevation of 398.2 feet at top of structure. The elevation at the southerly end of the runway is 395.5 feet AMSL. At a distance of 1600 feet from the runway, any structure with an elevation at top of roof exceeding 411.5 feet would require FAA review. Therefore,provided that these two structures do not exceed a height of 35 feet, FAA review of these structures will not be required. Airport Zone B 1 requires FAA review of structures with height exceeding thirty-five(35) feet. The proposed Best Buy structure would have a height of thirty-eight (38) feet and would be subject to FAA review. If the proposed Staples structure is attached to the Best Buy structure,or if they are in the same building,the entire structure should be reviewed by FAA_ If the.Staples structure(30 feet in height, with a pad elevation of 371.7 feet ) is a separate, detached structure, less than 35 feet in height,FAA review will not be required at this location. In the event that the City of Palm Springs chooses to overrule an ALUC determination of inconsistency, the City should require the following as conditions of its approval. Implementation of these conditions does NOT render the project consistent with the Palm Springs International Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and may not be sufficient to mitigate potential safety hazards to below a level of significance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. CONDITIONS (Conditional Use Permit case): I. Prior to issuance of building permits, the landowner shall record an avigation easement to Palm Springs International Airport. Copies of the recorded avigation easement shall be forwarded to the Airport Land Use Conurrission and to the City of Palm Springs Planning Department. 2. Any outdoor lighting that is installed shall be hooded or shielded so as to prevent either the spillage of lumens or reflection into the sky. All outdoor lightirg plans shall be subject to review by Palm Springs International Airport management. 3. The following uses shall be prohibited: (a) Any use which would direct a steady light or flashing light of red, white, green, or amber colors associated with airport operations toward an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb Following takeoff or toward an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach toward a landing at an airport, other than an FAA-approved navigational signal light, visual approach slope indicator, or such red light Staff Report Page 4 of 5 obstruction marking as may be permitted by the Federal Aviation Administration. (b) Any use which would cause sunlight to be reflected towards an aircraft engaged in an initial straight climb following takeoff or towards an aircraft engaged in a straight final approach towards a landing at an airport. (c) Any use which would generate smoke or water vapor or which would attract large concentrations of birds,or which may otherwise affect safe air navigation within the area_ (d) Any use which would generate electrical interference that may be detrimental to the operation of aircraft and/or aircraft instrumentation. (e) Children's schools, day care centers, libraries, hospitals, nursing homes, places of worship,highly noise-sensitive outdoor uses,and aboveground bulk storage of 6,000 gallons or more of hazardous or flammable materials. 4. Prior to issuance of building permits for any structure with a height exceeding thirty-five (35) feet or an elevation at top of roof or top point exceeding 411.5 feet above sea level, the applicant shall submit a Notice of Proposed Construction or,Alteration(Form 7460-1) to the Federal Aviation Administration for such structure, and shall have received a determination of"Not a Hazard to Air Navigation" from the FAA. Copies of the FAA determination shall be submitted to the Airport Land Use Commission and the City of Palm Springs Planning Department. 5. The City of Palm Springs shall require additional review by the Airport Land Use Commission prior to the establishment of any of the following uses in the structures proposed as `Best Buy" and "Staples"retail outlets: Food service establishments (any establislunent requiring such inspection by City or County Health Departments), auction rooms, auditoriums, dance floors, lodge rooms, reviewing stands, conference rooms with capacities exceeding 100 persons, exhibit rooms, gymnasiums, lounges, stages, gaming, bowling alleys, classrooms, swimming pools, skating rinks, and other uses that would be considered to have an occupancy level greater than one person per 30 square feet (minimum square feet per occupant less than 30)pursuant to California Building Code (1998)Table 10-A. 6. The City of Palm Springs shall require additional review by the Airport Land Use Commission prior to the establishment of any of the following uses in the structures labeled as Buildings "A" and "B": Auction rooms, auditoriums, dance floors, lodge rooms,reviewing stands, bowling alleys, skating rinks, swimming pools, and other uses that would be considered to bave an 620 Staff Report Page 5 of 5 occupancy level greater than one person per 15 square feet(mininnim square feet per occupant less than 15)pursuant to California Building Code (1998)Table 10-A. 7. The attached notice shall be provided to all potential purchasers and tenants. Y:ULUC\Pahn Springs\ZAP1003PS07octsr WAIS Document Retrieval Page 1 of 1 21676.5, (a) If the commission finds that a local agency has not revised its general plan or specific plan cm overruled the commission by a two-thirds vote of its governing body after making specific findings that the proposed action is consistent- with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670, the commission may r.equiire that the local agency submit all subsequent actions, regulations, and permits to the commission for review until its general plan or specific plan is revised or the specific findings are made. If, in the determination of the commission, an action, regulation, or permit of the local agency is inconsistent with the airport land use compatibility plan, the local agency shall be notified and that :Local agency shall hold a hearing to reconsider its plan. The local agency may propose to overrule Lhe commission after the hearing by a two-thirds vote of its governing body if it makes specific findings that the proposed action is consistent with the purposes of this article as stated in Section 21670. At least 45 days prior to the decision to overrule the commission, the local agency governing body shall provide the commission and the div3.sj.on a copy of the proposed decision and findings. The commission and the division may provide comments to the local agency governing body within 30 days of receiving the proposed decision and findings. If the commission or the division's comments are not available within this time limit, the local agency governing body may act without them. The comments by the division or the commission are advisory to the local agency governing body. The local agency governing body shall include comments from the commission and the division in the final decision to overrule the commission, which may only be adopted by a two-thirds vote of the governing body. (b) Whenever the local agency has revised its general plan or specific plan or has overruled the commission pursuant to subdivision (a) , the proposed action of the local agency shall not bo sub]ect to further commission review, unless the commission and the local agency agree that individual projects shall be reviewed by the commission. �22 littp://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdoclD=40342216707.1-0.1-0+O&WAISaction=retrieve 10/7/2008