The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2/4/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (10) DATE: February 4, 2004 TO: City Council FROM: Director of Planning & Zoning CASE NO.5.0421-PD-185,AN APPLICATION BYTHE DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 185, IN LIEU OF A CHANGE OF ZONE, FOR A MASTER PLAN EXPANSION OF THE DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS, AND FOR PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GATED, SECURED,AND NIGHT LIGHTED 305 SPACE PARKING LOT, IN PLACE OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 156 SPACE LOT AT THE DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, LOCATED AT 388 MEL AVENUE, ZONE PD-185 AND R-3, SECTION 11. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the proposed minor amendment to Planned Development District # 185, the Desert Regional Medical Center Master Plan, for an expansion of PD #185 in lieu of a change of zone, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD-185 and R- 3, Section 11, at the Desert Regional Medical Center. SUMMARY On January 14,2004,the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve said project.The Planning Commission discussed,gating,fencing, lighting,landscaping,crosswalk and lighting, security and the proximity of the site to the neighboring single family residences to the north and east of the site. The Planning Commission allowed the applicant to study the parking lot lighting program and proposed crosswalk and lighting, for review as part of the Final Planned Development District and required an 8' wall adjacent to the single family parcels residential. Planned Development District No. 185 consists of the Desert Regional Medical Center. Pursuant to Section 94.03.00 of the Zoning Ordinance, the applicant, the Desert Regional Medical Center, has submitted a minor amendment to the Planned Development District for an expansion of the Master Plan and campus, to allow the construction of the parking facility. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application by Desert Regional Medical Center for an Amendment to Planned Development District #185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, on an approximately 2.8 acre site at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste. Section 94,03.00 (Planned Development District) of the Zoning Ordinance, is intended to provide various types of land uses which can be combined in compatible relationship with each other as part of an overall planned development. It is the intent of this district to insure compliance with the General Plan and good Zoning practices while allowing certain desirable departures from the strict provisions of specific zone classifications. The advantages which are intended to result from the application of the Planned Development District are to be insured by the adoption of a Final /1)#4 Development Plan with a specific time limit for commencement of construction BACKGROUND: Planned Development District-185 was approved by the City Council in 1987. Since its original approval, the PD has been amended on several occasions. The proposed parking lot expansion site is 2.8 acres (120,302 square feet) in area. The site is relatively flat, and slopes gently from the northwest to the southeast. The site is presently utilized as an unpaved parking lot. The project site formerly contained multi-family apartments, which have since been demolished. The site is vacant, with the exception of several trees and utility poles on the site. The project includes a minor Amendment to Planned Development District#185 in lieu of a change of zone to Professional ("P") zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot #G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot, in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility. The application would allow a minor expansion of the Planned Development District(PD-185) in lieu of a change of zone from R-3 to P. Section 92.04.01 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance currently allows public parking as a permitted use in the R-3 Zone. Properties to the south have a General Plan designation of "P" and are zoned PD. The existing hospital property is adjacent to commercially zoned property, The DRMC campus includes approximately 700,000 square feet of hospital and related medical offices on 29 acres. The campus also includes approximately 1,470 parking spaces. PD-185 is generally bound by Mel Avenue to the north, Via Miraleste to the east, Tachevah Road to the south and Indian Avenue to the west. The condominium at the south east corner of the intersection Indian Avenue and Mel Avenue is not part of the PD. The following table includes relevant General Plan, Zoning and land use information. Use General Plan Zone Site Unimproved vacant lot, Desert "P" - Professional PD-185, R-3 Regional Medical Center H43/21 North Multi-family, Single Family H43/21, L4 PD-222, R-3, R-1-C East Single family, multi-family L-4, M-15 R-1-13, R-2 South DRMC, Multi-family "P" - Professional PD-185, R-3 West Multi-family H43/21 R-3 Expansion of the PD is also consistent with the zone, in that hospitals may be expanded through the use of a Conditional Use Permit in the R-3 zone. In this instance, the amendment to the PD serves a similar function as a Conditional Use Permit, and also requires a higher level of review and approval, which occurs through the Preliminary and Final PD process. The R-3 zone allows parking facilities as a permitted use if the proposed parking facilities are adjacentto commercially zoned properties. 1046 X The lot would be utilized by DRMC employees, and serve as employee overflow parking, during the peak periods. Peak parking demand for the DRMC is during the day and it is expected that this parking area will be lightly used at night. The lot would replace parking that was previously planned for the Hanson House site. The parking lot is designed with circulation running north/south within the parking lot. The project would include some covered parking spaces which would be in compliance with all setback requirements. The parking is designed with one entry and one exit driveway, both of which are accessible from Mel Avenue. The entry would be gated, with key card access for security purposes. A pedestrian link will connect the project to the rest of the DRMC campus,through a sidewalk located to the east of the Hanson House, across Mel Avenue. The approved crossing point will be the most easterly crosswalk as shown on the approved site plan. The pedestrian crossing may be constructed as a raised, decorative concrete crosswalk, with pedestrian-activated in-pavement LED indicators, or another approved lighting system and design options, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. The project is proposed to be fenced and secured, with a wrought iron view fence located on Mel Avenue and adjacent to Camino Monte Vista, and a new six foot concrete masonry wall along the east property line adjacent to the single family residences. The project will rely upon existing walls and fences along the west and north property lines. The parking lot will be night lighted with low level light fixtures located adjacent to neighboring residential uses. An existing encroachment by one of the single family residences to the north of the site, in the north east corner of the project, may result in final development plans which eliminate a 20' by 112' area and eight (8) parking spaces from the project. Covered parking, in the form of carports, may be included as part of the Final Development Plans. The surrounding uses include, multifamily and single family uses to the north, multi family and single family uses to the east, the DRMC campus to the south and multi-family uses to the west. DISABLED ACCESSIBLE PARKING The proposed parking lot is located on the periphery of the campus, a distance from the existing hospital buildings which would make it difficult to justify requiring disabled parking spaces as part of this project. Given that there are an appropriate number of disabled parking spaces serving the campus, there is nojustification to require additional disabled parking in this remote lot, due to it's distance from the hospital and terrain. Disabled accessible parking is provided in parking lots immediately adjacent to buildings throughout the campus. COMMUNITY MEETING The applicant conducted a community meeting on October 28, 2003. Over 100 invitations were mailed to neighboring property owners. One area resident attended. At the meeting the following issues were discussed, the history of the DRMC, the PD-185 master plan, parking demand, traffic congestion, landscaping, lighting, fencing and security. 3 10 CORRESPONDENCE Two letters were received from one neighbor. The neighbor requests that a wall be constructed on the property line between the parking lot and his residence, and any parking lot lighting not be obtrusive. The Planning Commission concurred with this request and has recommended that a 6' block wall be constructed adjacent to the single family residences, and that a parking lot photometric study be prepared as part of final development plan with low level lighting adjacent to the single family residences. The adjacent property owner is also concerned about headlights. The parking spaces are located at the farthest distance from the hospital buildings and should not be used at night except in unusual circumstances. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT AND NOTIFICATION The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration, prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the criteria to determine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration have occurred. The City finds that consideration of the revised Planned Development District and related DRMC Master Plan does not call for the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: 1) Substantial changes to the project analyzed in the negative declaration which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. The project site was previously utilized as a location multi-family housing. Parking was previously approved on a portion of the project site, as part of the DRMC Master Plan. In addition, no additional buildings are proposed on the project site or on the DRMC campus as part of this project; 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the negative declaration, substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. Again, no additional building square footage is proposed as part of the amendment to the Desert Regional Medical Center Master Plan, and therefore the project would not be expected to attract additional patients to the medical center or vehicle trips to the campus; or 3) New information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the negative declaration, substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. Environmental conditions at the project site have not changed since the approval of the DRMC Master Plan and PD-185. Under CEQA, an addendum need not be circulated for public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration. All property owners within 400 of the project site have been notified of the public hearing. The public hearing notice was also published in the Desert Sun. As of the writing of this report, two phone calls and two letters have been received regarding this project. The letters are attached to this report. i✓V 68,�D� � "��d2fGs" Director of l?,, nning and Zoning City Manager ATTACHMENTS: 1. Vicinity Map 2. Correspondence 3. EA/Addendum to Mitigated Negative Declaration 4. Planning Commission minutes January 14, 2004 5. Resolution 6. Conditions NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0421-PD-1 58 An application by Desert Regional Medical Center for an Amendment to Planned Development District#185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD-185and R-3, Section 11 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California,will hold a public hearing at its meeting of February 4, 2004. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application by Desert Regional Medical Center for an Amendment to Planned Development District #185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G,to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, on an approximately 1-acre site at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD- 185 and R-3, Section 11 The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the criteria to determine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate.The lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. Section 92.04.01 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance currently allows public parking as a permitted use in the R-3 Zone. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration. The proposed application, site plan, and related documents are available for public review daily, between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Zoning Department, located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. At this meeting the City Council is expected to take action on the addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration.The Addendum and the Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file and available to the public. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the Council meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400)feet of the subject property. An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Zoning, (760) 323-8245. PATRICIAA. SANDERS Clerk JD j� City Clerk �i►�i�ilti�+►� ►t♦#####♦r####!!#♦###♦ ►�i,►#####,�#,�#�#♦ice###,�1,�#� 'viali#.►#alw�►a#a#a#�#ai�#i.#a#1#�#�#aialala# 1 I • 1 , , • I PALO aqLals • ► I • I ' I I . I • � • . I "UG�Zt%P.GLt L�GG�ti:C�P�P �E'e� �i 12 Ruberta Avenue • Glendale,'California 91201 o 5030 Schuster Street • Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Los ANGELES - Phone: 818-956.1444 • Fax: 818-241-4519 • LAS VEGAS - 702.895-9777 January 02- 2004 COLORADO CENTRE Mr Douglas R. Evans By Certified Mail Glendale,CA Director of Planning Return Receipt 0 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 CRESCENTA PEA RE: My residence at 455 The Palms, Palm Springs,California La Crescenta,CA in regard to Case No 5.0421-PD-158. Dear Mr Evans: RAMSDELL PLAZA _Although I have made a phone call to the Planning La Cre5centa,CA Commission planner in charge of the above project my phone call was never replied to. I was advised the proper way to review the proposed plan was to make an FLINTRIDGE appointment wihb the planner in charge of the project. RENTAL I attempted this on Monday December 29, 2003 when I EQUIPMENT CO, was in Palm Springs, As of this date the phonecall has Southern California never :been replied to. CA However, on Wednesday, December 31 , 2oO3 I did receive the proposed plan for the project in mail. Although I will RESTAURANT be out of state at my Nevada office the coming week I plan MANAGEMENT, INC. to be at the January 14, 2004 meeting. La Canada-Flintridge, CA Thus far, my only knowledge of the project was a note I received from the Desert Hospital. Since I was unable to attend that meeting I did write them a letter and reviewed the limited objections I and my family have to the project. I followed this with a phonecaLL To ,the Desert Hospital ER representative who I was advised was handling the project, I was rather disappointed with his response and thus taking this time to put on the record our concerns. Video Equipment Rentals Anaheim, CA As stated I do not have a objection to the proposed parking area. However, my residence at 455 the Palms, Atlanta, GA Palm Springs, California is the res.lcfei ee, which is probably Boston, MA the most effected by the parking lot. .Chicago, IL Dallas,TX We have owned this residence since 1973. When we Glendale, CA purchased the residence there was a club-house and swimming Las Vegas, NV pool on the proposed project —1 - e! = - - .which I understsand was for the use of residences of the street. I further New Orleans, LA understood as private swimming pools became popular that the Orlando, FL clubhouse was torn down and the swimming pool removed. San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA When we purchased the home in 1973 thU Desert Hospital Washington, DC Established in 1958 InAN VER Video Equipment Rentals ANAHEIM • ATLANTA • BOSTON • CHICAGO • DALLAS • LAS VEGAS • LOS ANGELES• NEW ORLEANS • ORLANDO • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • WASHINGTON, D C. Page two. . Palm Springs Planning Commission Project 5.0421 -PD-158 . was several blocks away from our residence. Therefore, we request the Planning Commission take in consider- ation the many years we have been on the property and request that the Desert Hospital plan their parking lot to afford us the privacy that we deserve as homeowners. We request that a six-foot landscaping area separate our property line from the beginning of the narking area. That a six-foot to eight foot solid-plaster wall be created (not the type of wall that the hospital put on their parking lot on Mel street) so that the headlights of automobiles parking on our side of the lot not shine into our home. This is an obvious request. We request that the hospital plant mature trees next to the wall to block light from entering our yard. In talking with Desert Hospital they admitted the trees they planted on the Mel Avenue were too small and in eight years have not fully grown. When we suggested .Planting maturfrees to the hospital they stated they did not think they had enough funds to do so. . .which is quite amazing when you consider the fact they have enough funds to pave an entire parking lot double the size of their original but they have no funds to plant mature trees on our property line. our final request that a review of the lighting be carefully considered. If this is going to a twenty four hour parking lot we do not want our entire property lite up every nite. I think the important thing that the planning Commission should consider is that our requests are only fair. . .and if members of the Commission lived at 455 The Palms. . .they would certainly want the same consideration that we are requesting. I plan to be in Palm Springs before the meeting of January 14-2004 to review the plans. Thanking you in advance for your nsid a ion. Ve �ruly u Vi �Tt 4undeeJ r cc: Mark Wayne Dundee, Attorney for the Dundee Family Trust cc; Thomas Pabst, Real Estate Attor ey for the Dundee Family Trus cc: File me /O 912 Ruberta Avenue, Glendale, CA 91201 • www.verrents.com Aq 0 912 Ruberta Avenue • Glendale, California 9 0 5030 Schuster Street • Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Los ANGELES — Phone: 818-956-1444 • Fax: 818-241-4519 • LAs VEGAS — 702.895-9777 455 The Palms COLORADO Palm Springs,California CENTRE 818-790-9027- 760-320-556 5 Glendale,CA January 02-2004 The Honorable Ron Oden R E C E I V E D ■ Mayor, Palm Springs CRESCENTA City Hall, Palm Springs JAN06 PLAZA 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way 2004 La Crescents,CA Palm Springs, Califor nia 92262 Plpn nlll 9 to/oning ■ Dear Mayor Oder: RAMSDELL Firstly, Congratulations as Mayor of Palm Springs . PLAZA We have read with interest our man ideas for the City. La Crescenta,CA �' �'■ We have owned residences in Palm Springs since 1960 ' s FLINTRIDGE and for many years were in business on both Palm RENTAL Canyon Drive, and North Indian Avenue. EQUIPMENT CO. Our present residence has been at 455 The Palms, Southern California Palm Springs since 1973. ■ Enclose is a letter sent to the Planning Department directed to the attention of Director, Douglas Evans. RESTAURANT Our past dealings with Mr Evans have been excellent and MANAGEMENT, INC. we hold Mr Evans in high esteem. La Canada-Flintridge, CA The letter explains in detail my and neighbors concern over the privacy to our homes adjoining the new parking lot of the Desert Hospital which is on the property line of our home. As stated in our letter we do not object to the creation of the hospital parking R lot but we were disappointed with the 'hospital ' s lack of concern or interest in offering the protection to our homes from the parking lot,after, talking with hospital VideoEqufpmentfl¢ntali repres:t?ntative. I will have to admit that I have not seen the final Anaheim, CA plans (see note about December 29th) and will do soon Atlanta, GA my next trip to Palm Springs. Boston, MA I hope that the, Palm Springs Planning Commission Chicago, IL and the Palm Springs City Council will seri_0usly consider our Dallas, TX rights for privacy as longtime residences who were in our Glendale, CA present location many years before he hospital expanded Las Vegas, NV into our property .line. New Orleans, LA Thank you for your ponsidera i n. Orlando, FL V r trul ours San Diego, CA n San Francisco, CA � U�► /h Washington, DC Vi nt Dun de Jr Established in. I/ CITY OF PALM SPRINGS DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND INITIAL STUDY Case No:5.0421-PD-1'85, Desert Regional Medical Center City of Palm Springs Initial Study 1 of26 December 29,2003 1. Case No: 5.0421-PD-1 85, Desert Regional Medical Center The project includes a minor amendment to Planned Development District#185, at the Desert Regional Medical Center,for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G.The amendment would allow a 149 parking space expansion of a previously approved 156 spaces parking lot, thereby facilitating development of a gated, secured and night-lighted 305 space parking lot.Public parking areas are permitted in the R-3 zone by right of zone.The proj ect would include some covered parking spaces which would be in compliance with all setback requirements. The parcels which would be included in the master plan expansion, which would be included in this Planned Development District(PD-185), are presently zoned R-3. The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the criteria to determine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or E1R have occurred. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration. The City finds that consideration of the revised Planned Development District and related DRMC Master Plan does not call for the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: 1) Substantial changes to the project analyzed in the negative declaration which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts.The project site was previously utilized as a location multi-family housing. Parking was previously approved on a portion of the project site, as part of the DRMC Master Plan.In addition,no additional buildings are proposed on the project site or on the DRMC campus as part of this project; 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the negative declaration, substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. Again, no additional building square footage is proposed as part of the amendment to the Desert Regional Medical Center Master Plan,and therefore the project would not be expected to attract additional patients to the medical center or vehicle trips to the campus; or 3) New information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the negative declaration, substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts.Environmental conditions at the project site have not changed since the approval of the DRMC Master Plan and PD-184. 94 City of Palm Springs Initial Study 2 of 26 December 29,2003 2. Lead agency name and address: City of Palm Springs 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 3. Contact person and phone number: Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning and Zoning Tel: (760) 323-8245, Fax(760) 322-8360 4. Project location: 1180 Indian Avenue North, APN#507-030-010, 507-030-011, 507-061-005, 507-061-006, 507-061-015,507-061-016, 507-064-024, 507-064-025, 507-064-027, 507-070- 016, 507-064-017 and 507-064-018, Section 11, T4S, R4E, SBBM, 5. Project sponsor's name and address: Desert Regional Medical Center, 1180 Indian Canyon Drive North, Palm Springs, CA 92262 !D � 13 City of Palm Springs bitial Study 3 of 26 December 29,2003 6. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or off-site features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the criteria to detennine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration. The project includes a minor Amendment to Planned Development District #181 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G,to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot,in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility.The lot would be utilized by DRMC employees, and serve as employee overflow parking, during the peak periods. The lot would replace parking that was previously planned for the Hanson House site. The parking lot is designed with circulation running north/south within the parking lot. The R-3 zone allows parking lots by right of zone. The application would also allow a minor expansion of the Planned Development District(PD- 185) in lieu of a change of zone from R-3 to P. The parking is designed with one entry and one exit driveway,both of which are accessible from Mel Avenue.The entry would be gated,with key card access for security purposes.A pedestrian link will connect the project to the rest of the DRMC campus, through a sidewalk located to the east of the Hanson House.A second pedestrian link will continue pedestrian access,by providing a gate to the street to the north, Camino Monte Vista. The project is proposed to be fenced and secured,with a wrought iron view fence located on Mel Avenue and Camino Monte Vista, and a new six foot concrete masonry wall along the east property line and existing fences along the west and north property lines.The parking lot will be night lighted with 12'light fixtures located in the lot adjacent to neighboring residential uses, An existing encroachment by one of the property owners to the north of the site, in the north east courser of the project, may result in final development plans which eliminate a 20'by 112'area and eight(8)parking spaces from the project. The surrounding uses include,multifarmly and single farnily uses to the north, multi family and single family uses to the east,the DRMC campus to the south and multi-family uses to the west. The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185. City of Palm Springs Initial Study 4 of 26 I� �� December 29,2003 Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the criteria to determine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration. The City finds that consideration of the revised Planned Development District and related DRMC Master Plan does not call for the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166, in that the Revised Project does not involve: 1) Substantial changes to the project analyzed in the negative declaration which would involve new significant effects on the environment or substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. The project site was previously utilized as a location multi-family housing. Parking was previously approved on a portion of the project site, as part of the DRMC Master Plan.In addition,no additional buildings are proposed on the project site or on the DRMC campus as part of this project. 2) Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is being undertaken which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the negative declaration, substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts. Again, no additional building square footage is proposed as part of the amendmentto the Desert Regional Medical Center Master Plan,and therefore the project would not be expected to attract additional patients to the medical center or vehicle trips to the campus; 3) New information of substantial importance which would involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the negative declaration,substantially increase the severity of previously identified impacts.Environmental conditions at the project site have not changed since the approval of the DRMC master plan and PD-184. The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the criteria to determine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling forpreparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration. The proposed project: City of Palm Springs hiitial Study 5 of 26 December 29,2003 • Does not propose substantial changes which would result in new significant effects or substantially increased severity of impacts; and • Does not increase the square footage of services rendered by the medical facility, The proposed amendment results in an expansion of 149 spaces to the previously approved 156 spaces, for a total of 305 parking spaces. The site has previously been uses as an unimproved, overflow parking lot.Construction of a fully improved lot will improve the site andreduce fugitive dust and particulate matter emanating from the project site.The proposed project would provide for parking in a site designed to serve as a parking lot, and replaces the previous parking configuration in the area,where unregulated parking occurred an unpaved an unimproved vacant lot. The project does not involve new significant effects on the environment not analyzed in the negative declaration or increase the severity of previously identified impacts. 6. Present Land Use: Thepresent land use includes the DRMC and unimproved, vacant land. The parcel has previously been developed with multi-family housing. The previous land uses were demolished in anticipation of future development as part of the DRMC campus.The site has been heavily traveled,and has been utilized as an illegal dumping locationand as an encampmemby the homeless. The proposed site would relocate parking that was eliminated as part of the last amendment to PD-185,in which the Hanson House facility was approved.The Master Plan had previously include parking at the Hanson House site.As a result of that project,a need arose to relocate parking within the immediate vicinity of the project.The project has been designed as a rectangular shaped parking facility with parking rows oriented in a north south direction. The project includes, one entry way and exit to Mel Avenue, and should therefore have minimal impact to the adjacent residential areas to the north, east and west. A crosswalk would link the parking lotto the existing sidewalk located to the south of the project,between the Hanson House facility and the temporary parking lot to the east of Hanson House. 7. General Plan designation: H43/21, P 8. Zoning: P, R-3 Proposed General Plan designation: H43/21, P Proposed Zoning: PDA 85 9. Is the proposed action a"project" as defined by CEQA? (See Section 2.6 of State CEQA Guidelines. If more than one project is present in Yes X No ❑ the same area, cumulative impact should be considered) 10. If"yes"above,does the project fall into any of the Emergency Projects Yes 0 No X listed in Section 15269 of the State CEQA Guidelines? 11. If"no" on 10., does the project fall under any of the Ministerial Acts Yes 0 No X listed in Section 15268(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines? 12. If "no" on I L, does the project fall under any of the Statutory Yes El No X Exemptions listed in Article 18 of the State CEQA Guidelines? City of Palm Springs initial Study 6 of 26 December 29,2003 13. If "no" on 12., does the project qualify for one of the Categorical Exemptions listed in Article 19 of the State CEQA Guidelines?(Where there is a reasonable probability that the activity will have a significant Yes No X effect due to special circumstances, a categorical exemption does not apply). 14. Surrounding land uses and setting(briefly describe the project's surroundings): North: Multi-family, apartment, hotel and condominium uses and single family South: Professional and medical office East: Single family residential West: Multi-family, retail, professional and medical office 15. Surrounding General Plan and Zoning: North: H43/21, M15, L4 and R3, R2,PD222 South: P and P, PD57, PD72 East:L4, L2 and R-1-A, R-1-B, R2 West:H43/21, P and R3, C-1, P 16. Is the proposed project consistent with(if answered"yes" or'Wa", no explanation is required): City of Palm Springs General Plan Yes X No ❑ N/A ❑ Applicable Specific Plan Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A X City of Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance Yes X No ❑ N/A South Coast Air Quality Management Plan Yes X No ❑ N/A ❑ Airport Part 150 Noise Study Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A X Draft Section 14 Master Development Plan Yes ❑ No ❑ N/A X 10k17 City of Palm Springs Initial Study 7 of 26 December 29,2003 17. Are any of the following studies required? Soils Report Yes ❑ No X Slope Study Yes ❑ No X Geotechnical Report Yes ❑ No X Traffic Study Yes D No X Air Quality Study Yes ❑ No X Hydrology Yes ❑ No X Sewer Study Yes ❑ No X Biological Study Yes ❑ No X Noise Study Yes ❑ No X Hazardous Materials Study Yes ❑ No X Housing Analysis Yes D No X Archaeological Report Yes ❑ No X Groundwater Analysis Yes ❑ No X Water Quality Report Yes ❑ No X Other Yes ❑ No X 18. Other public agencies whose approval is required(e.g.,permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) 19. Incorporated herein by reference is the Final Environmental Impact Report on the General Plan Update. Environmental Assessment/Initiial Study, Desert Hospital Corporation, May 1991 and October 1987. These documents, including all related technical reports, are incorporated by reference. 10A 18 City of Palm Springs Initial Study 8 of 26 December 29,2003 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Agriculture Resources ❑ Air Quality ❑ Biological Resources ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Hazards & Hazardous ❑ Hydrology/Water ❑ Land Use/Planning Materials Quality ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Noise ❑ Population/Housing ❑ Public Services ❑ Recreation ❑ Transportation/Traffic ❑ Utilities / Service ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance Systems EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Nlitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 1.AESTHETICS--Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic ❑ ❑ ❑ X vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock ❑ ❑ ❑ X outcroppings,and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its ❑ ❑ ❑ X surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime ❑ ❑ X ❑ views in the area? LA-C No Impact. The subject property is surrounded by multi-family properties to the north, single family and multi-family development to the east, the DRMC campus andmulti family development to the south,and multi-family developmentto the west.The project includes the construction of a parking lot. The site was previously developed with multi-family units. No new buildings are proposed. The City of Palm Springs Initial Study 9 of 26 December 29,220J000033� /0,4 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact project will not have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. The project will not substantially damage scenic resources, including, butnot limited to, trees,rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highways.The project will not substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings. ID.Less than significant impact. The project includes parking lot lighting. The City of Palm Spring lighting standards requires low level lighting designed to minimize glare and spill and which is designed to preservethe night sky and will be installed according to Zoning Ordinance provision 93.20.00,(Parking Lot Lighting), and will therefore not adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. The project includes low level parking lot lighting, with light fixtures approximately 12' in height adjacent to the adjacent residential units, increasing to 18 feet in height 50 feet from theseunits.The reduced height will reduce glare and light pollution and eliminate light spill from the site. The staff recommendation is to eliminate the 90 degree parking located along the east property line adjacent to the single family residence,in order to reduce light,noise and glare and in its place replace the parking with an augmented landscape screen. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES: In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model(1997)prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to rise in assessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the X Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural El 0 X use, or a Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing enviromnerrt which,due to their location or nature, X could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? 2. A-C. No Impact. The project site has not been historically utilized for agricultural purposes, and therefore does not include the conversion of agricultural farmland,does not conflict with existing zoning City of Palm Springs Initial Study 10 of 26 December 29,2003 /04720 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract and does not involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use?. 3. AIR QUALITY -- Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the ❑ ❑ ❑ X applicable air quality plan? b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ X violation? c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attahrincm under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality ❑ ❑ ❑ X standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial ❑ ❑ ❑ X pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a ❑ ❑ ❑ X substantial number of people? 3. A-E No Impact.The project will not conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan, violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation,result in a cumulativelyconsiderable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors, expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations or create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. The site has previously been utilized for parking. Construction of this facility may have positive environmental impacts,and assist in the prevention of fugitive dust(PM-10) from the site. The project will be designed and constructed in compliance with the City PM-10 Ordinance, Section 8.50 of the Municipal Code (Particulate Matter and Erosion Control). 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: City of Palm Springs Initial Study 11 of 26 December 29,2003 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a)Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special ❑ - ❑ ❑ X status species in local or regional plans,policies, or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, ❑ ❑ ❑ X policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,but not limited to, ❑ ❑ ❑ X marsh, veinal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? d) hnterfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or ❑ ❑ ❑ X migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree ❑ , ❑ ❑ X preservation policy or ordinance? f),Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community ❑ ❑ ❑ X Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional,or state habitat conservation plan? 4.A-F.No Impact.The site is heavily disturbed,has been previouslyused as an unimproved parldng lot, is surrounded by urban development and has no habitat value. The project will not have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service.The projectwill not have a substantial adverse effect on anyriparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or bythe California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service.The projectwill nothave a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(including,butnot limited to,marsh,veinal pool,coastal,etc.) City of Palm Springs Initial Study 12 of 26 December 29,2003 11>14 Mew. Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Lrcorporated Impact Impact through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means.The project will not interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. The project will not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The project will not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in ❑ ❑ ❑ X §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource ❑ ❑ ❑ X pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site orunique geologic ❑ ❑ ❑ X feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those ❑ ❑ ❑ X interred outside of formal cemeteries? 5. A-D No Impact.The site is heavily disturbed,has been previously used as a parking lot,is surrounded by urban development and has no value as a cultural site.The project site is not designated as a historical resource as defined in §15064.5.The project will not lead to a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§15064.5. The project site has not been designated as an arebaeologicalresource pursuant to§15064.5.The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5.The site does not include any unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic features. The project will not directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature.The project will not disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries. 6.GEOLOGY AND SOILS--Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,injury,or death involving: 1'OA03 City of Palm Springs hntial Study 13 of 26 December 29,2003 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other ❑ ❑ ❑ X substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42, ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ❑ X iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including ❑ ❑ ❑ X liquefaction? iv)Landslides? ❑ ❑ ❑ X b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of ❑ ❑ ❑ X topsoil? c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that wouldbecome,unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on-or off- ❑ ❑ ❑ X site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code ❑ ❑ ❑ X (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water ❑ ❑ ❑ X disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 6.A-E. No Impact. The project will not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects,including the risk of loss,injury, or death involving: strong seismic ground shaking; Seismic- related ground failure,including liquefaction;landslides;or result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. The project is not located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse.The project is not located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18- 1-13 of the Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property.The project does not have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water. 7. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS �� MATERIALS—Would the project: City of Pain S,prtngs Initial Study 14 of 26 December 29,2003 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or ❑ ❑ ❑ X disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environnentthroughreasonably foreseeable upset ❑ ❑ ❑ X and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or ❑ ❑ X waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a ❑ ❑ ❑ X result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e,)For a project located within an airport land use plan or,where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ X airport,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ X for people residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or ❑ ❑ 0. X emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or strictures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to ❑ ❑ ❑ X urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 7. A-Il. No Impact. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. The project will not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment.The project will not emit hazardous emissions orhandle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,substances,or waste withinone- quarter mile of an existing or proposed school.The project is not located on a site which is included on City or Palm Springs Initial Study 15 of 26 December 29,2003 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The project is not located within two miles of a public airport or public use airport,however,the project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The project is not within the vicinity of a private airship,and would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. The projectwill not impair implementationof or physicallyinterfere with an adopted emergencyresponse plan or emergency evacuation plan.The projectwill not exposepeople or structures to a significant risk of loss,injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands. 8. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY -- Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ❑ X discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater ❑ ❑ X table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which pennits have been granted)? c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner ❑ ❑ ❑ X which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of fine course of a stream or river,or substantially ❑ ❑ ❑ X increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off- site? e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm ❑ ❑ ❑ X water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? ❑ ❑ ❑ X City of Palm Springs Initial Study 16 of 26 December 29,2003 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard ❑ ❑ ❑ X Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood ❑ ❑ ❑ X flows? i)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, ❑ ❑ ❑ X including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami,or mudflow? ❑ ❑ ❑ X 8. A-J. No Impact. The project will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project will not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(e.g.,the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted.The projectwill not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site.The project will not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area,including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river,or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a mamrer which would result in flooding on-or off-site. The project will not create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources ofpollutedrunoff.The projectwill be required to provide for construction of a project which will accommodate the on-site retention of storm flows.The projectwill not otherwise substantially degrade water quality.The projectwill not place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map.The projectwill not place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows.The project will not expose people or structures to a significantrisk of loss,injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. The project will not result in inundation of the project site by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. 9. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ❑ X City of Palm Springs Inidal Study 17 of 26 010 m9�2003 7 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy,or regulation of an agency withjurisdicfion over the project(including,but not limited to the ❑ ❑ ❑ X general plan,specific plan,local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community ❑ ❑ ❑ X conservation plan? 9.A-C.No Impact.The project will not physically divide an established community.The project will not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an ageneywith jurisdiction over the project(including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance)adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The projecwill not conflict with any applicable habitat conservationplan or natural community conservation plan.The R-3 zone allows public parking as a permitted use when the proposed parking lot is adjacent to a commercial use.The property to the east and south have a General Plan designation of"P"and are zone PDD.The property is adj acentto commerciallyzoned property and parking is pennitted by right of zone. Expansion of the PD is also consistentwith the zone,in that hospitals may be expanded through the use of a conditional use permit in the R-3 zone. In thisinstance,the amendment to the PD serves a similar function the a conditional use permit, and also requires a higher level of review and approval, which occurs through the Preliminary and Final PD process. 10. MINERAL RESOURCES -- Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the ❑ ❑ ❑ X region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally- important mineral resource recovery site ❑ ❑ ❑ X delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan? 10.A-B.No Impact.The project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state or result in the loss of availability of a locally-importantmineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,specific plan or other land use plan. 11.NOISE—Would the project result in: City of Palm Springs Initial Study 18 of 26 December 29,2003 /o f 4bL8 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the ❑ ❑ ❑ X local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundbome vibration or groundbome ❑ ❑ ❑ X noise levels? c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels ❑ ❑ ❑ X existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above ❑ ❑ ❑ X levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use ❑ ❑ ❑ X airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? I) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project expose people residing ❑ ❑ ❑ X or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 11.A-F.No Impact.Surrounding uses include,multi-family to the north,single family and multi-family residential to the east,hospital and medical-related uses to the south,and multi-family uses to the west. The project would result in a minor increase in noise due to an increase in the number of vehicles and pedestrians in the area.However,the increase in noise resulting from the relocation and minor expansion of the parking supply would not be deemed significant. The project will not result in exposure of persons to or in the generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicablestandards of other agencies.The project will not result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.The project will not cause a substanfialpermarnentincrease in ambientnoise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project or a substantial temporaryor periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the projecivicinity above levels existing without the project.The project would not expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING -- Would Qie project: City of Palm Springs Initial Study 19 of 26 December 29,2003 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly(for example, ❑ ❑ ❑ X through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the contraction of ❑ ❑ ❑ X replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement ❑ ❑ ❑ X housing elsewhere? 12. A-C. No Impact. The project would not induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly. The project does not displace any housing. The project does not displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. 13.PUBLIC SERVICES a)Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered govenunental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response tunes or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ X ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ X Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ X 13. A. Less than significant impact. The project will result in the need for fire and police protection. However,the projectwill be fenced and nightlighted for security,which shouldresult in an improvement to existing site conditions. The site has experience problems with vagrants. Hospital security will be responsible for monitoring security of the lot.The project will have no impact to school,parks and other facilities. Therefore, the project should result in a new overall positive impact to neighborhood and City of Palm Springs Initial Study 20 of 26 / December 29,2003 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact vicinity. 14.RECREATION a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantialphysical ❑ ❑ ❑ X deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ X recreational facilities whichrnighthave an adverse physical effect on the environment? 14. A-B. No Impact. Theproject will not trigger demand for the construction of additional residences, does not include recreational facilities and will not result in increased use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. 15.TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC--Would the project: a)Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial ❑ ❑ X ❑ increase in either the number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacity ratio on roads,or congestion at intersections)? b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county ❑ ❑ ❑ X congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a ❑ ❑ ❑ X change in location that results in substantial safety - risks? d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous ❑ ❑ ❑ X intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ❑ X f)Result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ X City of Palm Springs Initial Study 21 of 26 December 29,2003 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation ❑ ❑ ❑ X (e.g., bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? 15.A. Less than Significant Impact.The project will not result in the creation of any additional trips or traffic,however,traffic will be re-routed in the vicinity of the project as well as internally,and traffic on Mel Avenue may experience a minor increase in traffic.Hospital employees and area residents currently park on Mel Avenue.The project will result in the relocation of parking in the area,from the street and from existing adjacent lots to the proposed parking facility. The project will not cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load andcapacity of the street system(i.e., result in a substantial increase in eitherthe number of vehicle trips,the volume to capacityratio on roads, or congestion at intersections 15. B-G. No Impact.The DRMC Master Plan anticipated construction of additional parking along the northern boundary of the master plan area,on parcels on both sides of Mel Avenue.The addition of the Hanson House displacedplarmed parking from that area.This minor amendment to the PDD would result in the relocation of149 parking spaces tothe north of the Hanson IIousefacility. The project will replace parking which was previously approvedbut never constructed at the Hanson House facility.The proposal features a parking facility constructed to code,which will eliminate parking on unimproved,dirt parking lots, which had previously been the custom in this area. Parking on a portion of the project site was previously approved as part of the DRMC Master Plan (PD-185). The project will not exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion managementagencyfor designatedroads or highways.The project will not substantially increase hazards due to a design feature(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment). The project will not result in inadequate emergency access. The project will enhance the DRMC's parking capacity. The DRMC master plan previously included 1,470 parking spaces. This project will increase the number of spaces by 149 to 1,619 parking spaces.The project will not conflict with adoptedpolicies,plans,or programs supporting alternative transportation(e.g.,bus turnouts,bicycle racks). 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS — Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control ❑ ❑ ❑ X Board? b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities,the construction of ❑ ❑ X ❑ which could cause significant environmental effects? City of Palm Springs Initial Study 22 of 26 December 29,2003 /10/ 3� Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of ❑ ❑ ❑ X existing facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and ❑ ❑ ❑ X resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e) Result in a detemrination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the ' project that it has adequate capacity to serve the ❑ ❑ ❑ X project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing containments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacityto accommodate the project's solid waste ❑ ❑ ❑ X disposal needs? g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes ❑ ❑ ❑ X and regulations related to solid waste? 16.A,C-G.No Impact.Wastewatertreatrment service is notproposed as part of this project.No additional wastewater treatment capacity will be required as a result of the development of this project. Theproject will not exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board.The project will not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities.There are presently sufficient water supplies availableto serve the project from existing entitlements and resources.The project will not result in a determinationbythe wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments.The project will generate minimal solid waste. The project will be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs. The project will comply with federalstate,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. 16. B. Less than Significant Impact.The Desert Water Agency (DWA) currently owns, operates, and maintains water distribution and pumping facilities within the project area.Project proponents will be required to cormeet to existing DWA water infrastructure to provide water to the site for construction and irrigation water service. The developer will be required to comply with all rules,regulations, and other requirements of the DWA in order to provide water service to the site. Water service requirements may include,but are not limited to,upgrades,modifications,replacement,and abandomnentof existing DWA facilities. These improvements may require construction within and adj acent to public rights-of-way and exiting and/or proposed easements. Construction will occur in accordance with DWA and City .City of Palm Springs Initial Study 23 of 26 10183 DDeeecem 29,2003 Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact requirements and will not cause any significant effects upon the environment. 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant ❑ El ❑ X or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are ❑ ❑ ❑ X considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects,the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on ❑ ❑ ❑ X human beings, either directly or indirectly? 17.A-C.The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory.The project will not result in impacts that are individually limited,but cumulatively considerable.The project will not have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185.Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the criteria to determine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate.The lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but City of Palm Springs Initial Study 24 of 26 December 29,2003 m/ 3� Less Than Potentially Significant with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration. The project includes a minor Amendment to Planned Development District#181 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G,to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot,in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility.The project constitutes a minor expansion of parking,increasing the supply of on- site parking by 149 spaces for a total of 1,619 parking spaces. The lot would be utilized by DRMC employees, and serve as employee overflow parking, during the peak periods. The lot would replace parking that was previously planned for the Hanson House site. The parking lot is designed with circulation running north south within the parking lot. No new buildings are proposed as part of this project.The R-3 zone allowspublic parking as apermitteduse when the proposedparking lot is adjacent to a commercial use.The property to the east and south have a General Plan designation of"P" and are zone PDD.The property is adjacent to commercially zoned property and parking is permitted by right of zone.Expansion of the PD is also consistent with the zone,in that hospitals may be expanded through the use of a conditional use permit in the R-3 zone.In this instance,the amendment to the PD serves a similar function the a conditional use permit, and also requires a higher level of review and approval, which occurs through the Preliminary and Final PD process. A Notice of Determination will be filed with the Riverside County Clerk,should the projecibe approved by the City Council. City of Palm Springs Initial Study 25 of 26 December 29,2003 18. LISTED BELOW ARE THE PERSON(SS) WHO PREPARED OR PARTICIPATED IN THE PREPARATION Or THE INITIAL STUDY: Douglas R. Evans, Director of Planning and Zoning Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner David Barakian, Public Works Direct/City Engineer DETERMINATION On the basis of this initial evaluation: X I find that the proposedproject COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposedproject could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 1 find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposedproject MAY have a"potentially significant impact"or"potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on theenvironment,but at least one effect 1)has been adequately analyzedin an earlier documentpursuantto applicable legal standards,and 2)has been addressedby mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets.An ENVIRONMENTALIMPACT REPORT is required,butit mustanalyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects(a)have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,and(b)have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project,nothing further is required. i Douglas R. Evan December 29,2003 Director of Planning and Zoni Date 10 �3<0 City of Palm Springs Initial Study 26 of 26 December 29,2003 DATE: May 22, 1991 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Director 5.0421-PD-185-A/ SUBJECT: Environmental Assessment/Initial Study. Case # 5.0588-GPA (1 ) Project Sponsor: Desert Hospital Corporation (2) Project Name (if any): Desert Hospital Expansion (3) Project Location: 1150 N. Indian Canyon Drive (4) Project Description: Phased planned development allowing for hospital r expansion and related health care uses on approximately 30.4 acres bounded Indian Canyon Drive/Tachevah Drive/Via Miraleste/Mel Avenue, R-2/R-4 Zones, Section 11 . Inc udes eneraTP'ian amendment o ems-xpan�c-Pless7ona Hospital designation north of Mel Avenue between Via. Miraleste/Avenida Palos Verdes . Staff. Recommendation: ( ) Negative Declaration; no significant effect on the environment found. � X) Negative Declaration; mitigation measures have been added to the project to avoid, or reduce, impacts to an insignificant level . ( ) Environmental Impact Report; the project may (or will ) have a significant effect on the environment. ( ) Reconsideration of previous environmental assessment due to significant modification to proposal or previously unknown conditions which are deemed to be significant. ( ) Initial screening of proposal on its merits to allow for quick disapprovals prior to initiation of the CEQA process (Section 15075-b). ( ) Special study necessary; continue for preparation of special reports on the following: 6��— CASE 5. 0421 PD-185-A DESERT HOSPITAL CORP. 1. EARTH. b. (yes) Grading of the site will be necessary prior to construction. In extremely dry and windy conditions, blowing sand could have a detremental effect on cars using adjoining roads and adjoining properties. MITIGATION: Tha the provision of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code blowsand abatement measure, as amended by the Ciyt, shall be complied with. g. (maybe) It is reasonable to assume that a major earthquake on a nearby fault will cause severe ground shaking at this site but no less degree than most other areas of the City. New structures shall be constructed according to state requirements regarding earthquake protection. This condition cannot be completely mitigated. Mitigation: As a critical institution, the palnning and design of the facilities an this site shall take into account the likelyhood of an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 on both the San Andreas and the San Jacinto faults. S . LANDUSE The area north of Mel Avenue between Via Miraleste and Avenida Palos Verdes is currently designated for medium dens ityres idential use; it is proposed for hospital parking. 10. RISK OF UPSET Disposal of infectious wastes, disposable syringes and other materials are now and will be disposed of in conformance with State and Federal Standards. 13 . CIRCULATION The project will generate a total of 10, 670 additional daily vehicle trips, 650 vehicles per hour in the am peak hour and 1, 065 vehicles in the pm peak hour. Traffic forecasts estimate that signals at the following intersections could be warrented in the future: Indian Avenue at Paseo E1 Mirador and Via Miraleste at Tachevah. MITIGATION: 1. The developer shall contribute the full cost of signalization at the intersections listed above. The signals shall be installed at the time that the warrant criteria is satisfied. 2. The developer shall contribute a percentage of (this percentage factor is dictated by the traffic engineer) the cost for modifications to the signals at each of the following intersections: Indian Avenue at Tachevah, India Avenue at Vista Chino, and Tachevah at Avenida Caballeros. The signals shall be installed when warrant criteria is satisfied. 3 . The parking along the folowing streets shall be removed to provide adequate capacity for the traffic volumes genarated by this project: Via Miraleste - Tachevah Drive to Mel Avenue Tachevah Dr. - Indian Avenue to Avenida Caballeros Mel Avenue - Indian Avenue to Via Miraleste Ave. Palos Verdes - Paseo E1 Mirador to Mel Avenue 4. All driveway openings shall .be installed a minimum of 200 feet apart. 5. All driveways shall be constructed per City Standard Drawing No. 205 and shall be a minimum of 32 feet in width with a 25 foot radius return. 6. All parking stalls shall be installed a minimum of 50 feet from the end of curb return to allow for stacking. 7. Any damage repair on streets in the vicinity, cause by the construction of this project, shall be carried the full width of the street. S. The Hospital work program offers staggered work shifts for employees, thus reducing the impact on traffic circulation in the area. 15. ENERGY a. Energy consumption will increase as building additions are completed and occupied. Coordination of development with local utility companies shall be done through all phases of construction. 16. UTILITIES d. The sewer study that was submitted in 1987, is being evaluated by the Engineering Department in order to assess if the study is still valid in their avaluation for sewer capacity for the area. 1$ . AESTHETICS �� New highrise buildings are proposed for the site. They will block some views from via Miraleste of the lower slopes of the mountains; views could also be partially blocked from properties north of Mel Avenue and Pasoe E1 Mirador. h�-00 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF DETERMINATION r� (Negative Declaration) To: ( XX Clerk/Board of Supervisors From: City of Palm Springs 14th Floor PO Box 1786 County Administrative Building Palm Springs, CA 92263 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 ( ) Office of Planning & Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 15075 of the State CEQA Guidelines CS9KIXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXA. Case 5.0421-PD-185 Project Title/Common Name: Contact Person: Telephone Number: Marvin D. Roos 619/323-8245 Project Location: On Desert Hospital campus at 1150 N. Indian Avenue, R-4 Zone, Section 11 . ( Project Description: Remodel and expansion of hospital including a helipad. This is to advise that the City of Palm Springs on November 18 , 19 87 has made the following determinations regarding the above-described project: 1 . The project has been approved by the City; 2. An Environmental Impact Report was not prepared in connection with this project; 3. Mitigation measures ( X� were, ( ) were not made a condition of approval . 4. The project in its approved form will not have a significant effect on the environment; and 5. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA. A copy of the Negative Declaration may be examined at the above City Hall address . Date Received for Filing R�ROOS Planning Director Date: December 1 1987 , (Revised 6-87) 11) yf DATE: October 14, 1987 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Planning Director SUBJ ECT: Environmental Assessment/Initial Study. Case No. 5.0421-PD-185/5.0456-G (1 ) Project Sponsor: Desert Hospital Corp. (2) Project Name (if any) : Desert Hospital Expansion Program (3) Project Location; 1150 N. Indian Avenue (4) Project Description: Phased Manned development allowing _for hospital expansion and related health care uses on approximately 26 acres bounded by Indian Avenue, Tachevah Drive, Via Miraleste and Mel Avenue; R-3/R-4 Zones; Section 11. Includes General Plan Amendment to expand "Hospital " designation on Land Use Plan and to delete portion of Paseo .El Mirador * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * from Street Plan. INITIAL STUDY DETERMINATION Staff Recommendation: ( ) Negative Declaration; no significant effect on the environment found. (X) Negative Declaration; mitigation measures have been added to the project to avoid, or reduce, impacts to an insignificant level . ( ) Environmental Impact Report; the project may (or will ) have a signi- ficant effect on the environment. ( ) Reconsideration of previous environmental assessment due to significant modification to proposal or previously unknown conditions which are deemed to be significant. ( ) Initial screening of proposal on its merits to allow for quick disap- provals prior to initiation of the CEQA process (Section, 15075 (b) ). ( ) Special study necessary; continue for preparation of special reports on the following: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Environmental Check List Form (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers are required on attached sheets.) Yes maybe No 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? e. Change in topography or ground surface J relief features? d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? I e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? 1 ' f. Changes in deposition or erosion of beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay, inlet or lake? g. E>posure of people or property to geolo- gic hazards such as earthquakes; landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? i b. The creation of objectionable odors? c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents, or the course of di- rection of water movements, in either ✓ i O�� marine or fresh waters? b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage pat- terns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? its May NO d. Change in the amount of surface water In any water body? f e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality, in- cluding but not limited to temperature,- dissolved oxygen or turbidity? ✓ f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of on aquifer by cuts or excavations? h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? ✓ i. Exposure of people or property to water re- lated hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? / 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Charge in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic Plants)? ✓ b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? d. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? S. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish and shellfish, benthic organisms or insects)? / b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare or endangered species of animals? c. Introduction new species animals into �D on area, or result in a barrierer to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing fish or wildlife habitat? Yes Maybe No 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Increases in existing noise levels? b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? / 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? / 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in a sub- stantial alteration of the present or planned ✓ i land use of an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: . a. Increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? / b. Substantial depletion of any nonrenewable natural resource? J 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal involve: a. A risk of on explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of on accident or upset conditions? ✓ b. Possible interference with on emergency response pion or on emergency evacuation plan? II. Population. Will the proposal alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? ✓ 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect existing hous- ing, or create a demand for additional housing? _✓ 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement? f b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or demand for new parking? c. Substantial impact upon existing transpor- tation systems? ✓ d. Alterations to present patterns of circula- tion or movement of people and/or goods? e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? } 14. Public Services. Will the proposal have an Yes MaYlIle No --" effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: _ a. Fire protection? f b. Police protection? / d. Parks or other recreational facilities? e. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? I f. Other governmental services? ✓ IS. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? f b. Substantial increase in demand upon exist- _ ing sources of energy, or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? J b. Communications systems? J_ C. Water? 1 d. Sewer or septic tanks? f e. Storm water drainage? 7 f. Solid waste and disposal? / 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? ✓ b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in the obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? f 19. Recreation, Will the proposal result in an impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? f 20. Cultural Resources. =\� a. Will the proposal result in the alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or {{{{ historic archaeological site? Yes Maybe No b. Will the proposal result in adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure, or object? J c. Does the proposal have the potential to cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d. 11611 the proposal restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area? / 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wild- life population to drop below self sus- taining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? ✓ b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? (A short- term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future.) J c. Does the project have impacts which are individually limited, but cumulatively con- siderable? (A project may inpoct on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small, but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant.) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? _h / Initial Study Prepared By: (Initials) /U f lit le pLA W61 ) - [ II Initial Study Reviewed For Findings and Recommendation: MARVIN D. ROOS ammng Director 1. EARTH. b. Grading of the site will be necessary prior to construction. In extremely dry and windy conditions, blowing sand could have a detrimental effect on vehicles using adjoining roads and adjoing properties• MITIGATION: That the provisions of Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code blowsand abatement measure, as amended by the City, shall be complied with. 9- It is reasonable to assume that a major earthquake on a nearby fault will cause severe groundshaking at this site but to no less degree than most other areas of the City. New structures shall be constructed according to state requirements regarding earthquake protection. This condition cannot be completely mitigated. MITIGATION: As a critical facility, the planning and design of facilities on this site shall take into account the likelihood of an earthquake of magnitude 7.5 on both the San Andreas and the San Jacinto Faults. 6. NOISE. a & b. The proposal includes provisions for a heliport which is likely to produce off-site noise levels of 45 Ldn which are clearly acceptable for residential use; single-event intrusions could be on the order of 85 dBA for a short time. However, helicopters currently land either in a parking lot at the north side of the hospital or in the intersection of Via Miraleste/Paseo el Mirador. MITIGATION: That the heliport be used for emergency purposes only and the primary access be from the west• 8. LAND USE. The area between Paseo el Mirador and Mel Avenue (approximately 4 acres) is currently designated for Medium-Density Residential Use; it is proposed for hospital parking and hospice use. 10. RISK OF UPSET. Disposal of infectious wastes, disposable syringes and other materials are now and will be disposed of in conformance with State and Federal standards• �v19� Y 13. CIRCULATION. The project will generate a total of 10,390 additional daily vehicle trips, 1,160 of which will occur during the evening peak hour. After project completion, all of the intersections in the vicinity will operate at a Level of Service E or better. Traffic forecasts have been adjusted to account for the conversion of Paseo el Mirador to a private driveway status west of Via Miraleste. Required parking shall be provided on-site. MITIGATION: 1. The developer shall contribute the full cost of signalization at the intersection of Via Miraleste and Tachevah Drive. The signal would be installed when the warrant criteria is satisfied. 2. The developer shall contribute the full cost of the modification of the Indian Avenue at Tachevah Drive traffic signal . The modification would consist of installing left-turn phasing for northbound/southbound traffic: This would be provided when left-turn warrant criteria is satisfied. 3. The developer shall contribute one-half the cost for signalization at each of the following intersections: Sunrise Way at Tachevah and Vista Chino at Via Miraleste. The signals will be installed when warrant criteria is satisfied. The design and construction of the above traffic signals will be provided by the City of Palm Springs. The signal locations will be added to the City's Capital Improvement Program, with the developer's contribution. 4. The parking along the following streets shall be removed to provide adequate capacity for the traffic volumes that will be generated by this project: Via Miraleste - Tachevah Drive to Mel Avenue Tachevah Dr. - Indian Ave. to Avenida Caballeros Mel Avenue - Indian Avenue to Via Miraleste Avenida Palos Verdes - Paseo el Mirador to Mel Avenue 5. All driveway openings shall be installed a minimum of 200 feet apart. 6. All driveways shall be constructed per City Standard Drawing No. 205 and shall be a minimum of 32 feet in width with a 25 foot radius return. 7. All parking stalls shall be installed a minimum of 50 feet from the end of curb return to allow for stacking. lo � Y � 15. ENERGY. a. Energy consumption will increase as building additions are completed and occupied. Coordination of development with local utility companies shall be done through all phases of construction. In the most recent construction project, the Hospital 's power plant was sized to accommodate additional buildings. 16. UTILITIES. d. A Sewer Study has been required by the Engineering Division to assess the potential impact of the hospital expansion program on the City's sewer system. Impact fees may be assessed as appropriate. 18. AESTHETICS. New highrise buildings are proposed for the site. They will block some views from Via Miraleste of the lower slopes of the mountains; however, they are no higher than the existing highrise buildings which do not block views of the upper slopes. The homes to the east of Via Miraleste are oriented with views to the north-south rather than through the hospital campus. /j 10 A 4 ! 1 1 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS , CALIFORNIA NOTICE OF DETERMINATION (Negative Declaration) CLERK OFT�! To: (X) Clerk/Board of Supervisors FrgggDecCa} i3SnAIC�iirtt�P�dngs 14th Floor F4�9w6�R.+k78152 Countv Administrative Building Pa 05Wngs , CA 92263 4080 Lemon Street Riverside, CA 92502 JAN191990 Refmryd: 2 z ( ) Office of Planning & Research - 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 fay' Duh Sacramento, CA 95814 ntyof side,State ofCalifornia SUBJECT: Filing of Notice of Determination in compliance with Section 15075 of the State CEQA Guidelines (SCH ) . Project Title/Common Name: Case 5.0421-PD-185 Revised Desert Hospital Contact Person: Telephone Number: Marvin 0. Roos 619/323-8245 Project Location : On ,North-'Indian-Avenbe:between Tachevah Drive and Paseo E1 Mirador, R-4 Zone, Section 11 . Planned development districtin lieu ot e change Project Description:for revised Master Plan for hospital expansion including highrise structures, parking, and a helicopter landing pad. This is to advise that the City of Palm Springs on December 13 19 89 has made the following determinations regarding the, above-described project: 1 . The project has been approved by the City; 2. An Envirommental Impact Report was not prepared in connection with this project; 3. Mitication measures (X� were , ( ) were not made a condition of approval . 4. The project in its approved form will not have a significant effect on the environment; and 5. A Negative Declaration was prepared for this project pursuant to the provisions of CEQA.. A. copy of the Negative Declaration may be examined at the above City Hall address . s Data Received for Filing AW I N D. R005 Planning Director n "fir V�t-4 1 S'i'�, 1."�`� Date: January 8,/1�990 ReLf 3iPed .6-37 ) „�7 Page 4 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2004 Encilia, and a Variance to allow a 10 foot sideyard setback, located on .1 71 acres at 190 Calle Encilia, at the southeast corner of Calle Encilia and Arenas Roadd VP-IL zone, Section 14 (AM). Continued public hearing. Director reported that staff is working with the applicant to resol e a couple of issues at this time. Chairman Shoenberger opened the Public Hearing. There ere no appearances. M/S/C (Marantz/Grence 6-0, 1 absent) to continue tot meeting of January 28, 2004. Case 5.0976 CUP An application by Burrtec I dustries for Palm Springs Transfer and Recycling for a Conditional Use Permit and to review a d aft Mitigated negative Declaration on Environmental Impact to construct a total of 50,987 squ a feet of buildings to comprise a waste transfer and recycling facility at 19th Ave. and Mc ane Street, M-2 Zone, Section 15. Continued from December 10, 2003 meeting. Director reported that staff is pr aring written responses to comments received at the last Planning Commission meeting d will report back when those are prepared. The item was removed fro he agenda pending written response to public comments. Case 5.0421-PD185-An application by Desert Regional Medical Center for a minor Amendment to Planned Development District#185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD-185 and R-3, Section 11. Commissioner Grence abstained due to a conflict of interest as he lives within 500 feet of the subject project and he left the meeting. Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, reported that the minor amendment to the approved 1987, 29- acre master plan is to allow construction of a parking facility. He reviewed the surrounding land uses and reported that the expansion is consistent with the R-3 Zoning standards and will serve as overflow parking for employees during peak hours and there will be a guard gate with key-entry system. He reported that the proposed construction is intended to replace the parking area previously utilized at the existing Hanson House location. He reviewed an existing encroachment area with an adjacent single family residence. He confirmed that pedestrian links exist and that there was a neighborhood meeting at which parking, traffic, landscaping, lighting, fencing, and security were discussed. He stated that one request from that meeting was for low-level lighting and a buffer to the single family residence to the east (which is addressed in the proposed Conditions of Approval). He reported that an addendum to the Negative Declaration/Initial Study was prepared as per the California Environmental Quality Act and confirmed that all property owners within 400 feet of the subject site were noticed of today's Public Hearing. He distributed to.45X0- Page 5 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2004 a letter from a neighbor requesting a property line wall eight feet in height and limited height parking lot lighting (on file in the Department of Planning and Zoning). He reported that some utilities will be undergrounded as part of the construction of the parking lot. Chairman Shoenberger opened the Public Hearing. - Mr. Vincent Dundee addressed the Planning Commission to state that it is his letter that staff distributed and that his residence is located immediately adjacent to the hospital; however, in 1973 when he originally purchased his home, the hospital was three blocks away. He stated that, as proposed, cars would be parking right at the property line. He stated that the proposed project will impact his way of life. He thanked staff for working with him to evaluate the application. He asked that a wall eight feet in height be constructed as a buffer and noted that the home adjacent to his has an existing wall of that height. He also asked that mature trees be planted directly next to his home and noted that the trees planted on Mel Avenue took eight years to grow to an acceptable size. He asked that light poles be limited in height to 12 feet as measured from the ground and that lighting be similar to that of the parking lot lighting next to the hospital. He thanked the Planning Commission for its consideration of his requests. Mr. Lowell Pierson addressed the Planning Commission to state that he owns the property on which the hospital encroaches and that he believes the proposed parking lot will be an improvement over the existing empty field. He stated that he has had to ask for Police Department assistance in removing homeless people from that field as it is immediately adjacent to his property. He asked that the Planning Commission approve a block wall height of eight feet as the residential area is now surrounded by commercial and that, as other walls eight feet in height have been constructed, there is a precedent set in the neighborhood. In addition, he noted that there is a significant slope in the land (up to 22 inches) where the wall would be constructed and he believes his pool and spa area would be visible to the parking lot were the wall not high enough. Mr. Mike Fontana, representing Desert Regional Medical Center, addressed the Planning Commission to state that Mr. Ralph Raya, lighting consultant, and other project team members are present if there are any questions. He confirmed that there is no objection to raising the height of the block wall between the subject property and adjacent residences. He also stated that the project team is sensitive to the neighbor's request for mature landscaping and asked that staff review the proposed landscaping with Mr. Dundee. He stated that, regarding project lighting, fixtures were purposefully separated from residential property lines and double loaded in the interior of the parking lot. He asked that the Engineering condition of approval requiring a pedestrian activated LED crossing on Mel Avenue be reconsidered as the pedestrian activity in that area is largely hospital employees. He stated that there is no objection to raised decorative concrete crossing or rubber berms or dots but that the LED crossing is an excessive measure for the use and location. Mr. Ralph Raya, project lighting consultant, addressed the Planning Commission to state that the proposed lighting system utilizes a sharp cut off fixture to eliminate any glare and he distributed documents to the Planning Commission regarding the proposed fixtures'photometric performance and reflector system. He stated that the lighting plan has been designed to be sensitive to the neighborhood concerns. He stated that light poles (and lights) may be visible regardless of the height of wall. He reported that the poles are proposed at 18 feet(but could be reduced to 16 feet ioAT3 Page 6 of 7 Planning Commission Minutes January 14, 2004 in height in the residential area if requested) and will be mounted on concrete bases(which will not impact overall height). He clarified that, if pole height is not optimal, more poles will be necessary. There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. Commissioner Conrad commented that, if she were a property owner in this area, she may prefer to have higher poles and fewer light fixtures and suggested that the applicant and the neighborhood have some flexibility regarding Condition No.15. Dave Barakian,City Engineer, reported that the purpose for the proposed LED pedestrian crossing is that the crossing is at a mid block location and it is crucial that pedestrians be visible. He reported that Mel Avenue does have a significant amount of traffic and has a serious accident record in addition to mature trees which reduce visibility. He stated that the recommendation for the LED crossing was reached because pavement markers would not be as visible and overhead lighting would be too intrusive into the neighborhood. He reported that installation of an LED system may cost approximately $35,000. M/S/C (Conrad/Marantz 5-0, 1 abstention, 1 absent)to approve subject to Conditions of Approval and: A. Maximum decorative wall height is eight feet; and B. Mature landscaping be installed on the east and north property lines adjacent to existing single family residences; and C. Condition No.15 be amended to allow maximum flexibility regarding the number and height of light fixtures in order to be acceptable to the hospital and the neighborhood and subject to the approval of the Director of Planning and Zoning; and D. Applicant to work with the City Engineer regarding LED pedestrian crossing and address in the Final Planned Development District application. Commissioner Grence returned to the meeting. Case 5.0990 CUP - Application Costa Nichols for Desert Discount Wine, Spirits and Gifts for a liquor store specializing in wine nd gourmet food speciality store with on site tasting room, located at 611 S. Palm Canyon Dr., ite #1, Zone PD-77, Section 11. Matthew Feske, Assistant Planner, report that the proposed store will be located in the existing Sun Center (suite one) and that there are n external modifications proposed except for a Sign Program and some tenant improvements. He orted that the applicant has applied through the Alcoholic Beverage Control Department for a be wine, and spirits license. He stated that the store will have a tasting room in addition to onsite s es and executive specialty gift baskets sold both on the premises and mailed out. Chairman Shoenberger opened the Public Hearing. Th e being no appearances, the Public Hearing was closed. 10ASY Vincent Dundee, Jr. 455 The Palms Palm Springs, California 92262 January 24, 2004 City Council City of_ Palm Springs Case No 5.0421 -PD-158 Office of the City Clerk Desert Regional Medicial P 0 Box 2743 Center Parking Lot Palm Springs, California""92263-2743 Dear City Council Members: I am in receipt of notice of City Council Meeting on February 4th-2004 at 7:00 P.m at the Chambers of City Hall. It is my intention to be present at the meeting and will request a few minutes to speak. . .however, since I do have to travel a great deal for my motion picture company just in case my schedule prevents me from being present I would like the enclosed material be placed in the record. Firstly, I am probably the most affectived home owner by the Desert Hospital project since my home at 455 The Palms is directly on the property line of the proposed project. We have lived in this residence since 1973 and have owned other residences in Palm Springs since the 1960 For many years we owned retail businesses on Palm Canyon Drive and North Indian Avenue so we hope the City Council will give our views consideration- My family is not acrainst the parking lot per sec. . .we attended the Planning Commission Meeting on the subject recently and we were pleased that most our views were also suggested by the Planning Department. The Planning Commission was also most helpful in reviewing the Poster- Board of photographs and general information that I presented at the meeting. With one exception the hospital represesentative ' s seemed agreeable to our requests. . . stating that they had no objection to a eight foot wall to be plaster on both sides (also approved by the planning commission) . .agreement to plant mature trees along our property line and a landscaped buffer zone between our property line and the beginning of parking for the lot. The Planning Department in their approval of the plans stated no more then 12-foot lighting standards be placed on the parking lot. This the same size that the hospital uses on many of their parking lot close to the hospital. . . obviously they don't want the glare of the parking lights to effect their patients. Although nothing ,was decided for certain at � Planning l-Y�b tl�i w7esa+i i�.c 912 Ruberta Ave., Glendale, CA 91201 818-956-1444 Fax 818-241-4519 Commission Meeting on the lighting. . .the hospital representatives stated they wanted to place the same size light standards they use on their Mel Street Parking lot. This size standard would light up our home like a base- ball fieldin the middle of a game. we are not talking about a few hours a night. . . but the hospital has stated the parking lot will be in use 24 hours a day. . .meaning the lights will be from dusk to the early morning hours. We request that members of the City Council visit the Mel Street Parking lot at night. . .or at 4:00 a.m in the morning to see what these size light standards produce. We think the Planning Department made a good recommendation when they suggested the 12 foot standards and hope the City Council will 7o along with their Planning Department on this issue. Thank you for your consideration and I hope to see you at the February 04-2o04 meeting. Very tiuly o s, Ilft i Vint" Int Dundee 1GJ►r Encl: Pervious material sent to Planning Department to be reentered into the records if necessary. cc; Planning Department, City of Palm Springs cc; Desert Hospital File �IF�lL� Vincent Dundee 912 RubertgAve., Glendale, CA 91201 • 818-956-1444 Fax 818-241-4519 January 16, 2004 Mr Alex Meyerhoff City of Palm Springs Planning & Zbning Department Palm Springs, California 92263 Dear Alex: I would like to express our appreciation to you and Doug Evans for your assistance in the Desert Hospital Parking Lot project. It appeared that events went very well at the Commission Meeting. After the meeting the hospital stated :theywould plaster our residence side of the 8 foot-wall. There was some discussion about the type of trees to be planted. . . .a good suggestion would' be to follow the type of trees that the Spa Casino planted at their new location. The only problem that seems to exist is the matter of lighting. We are still in favor of the Planning Department recommendation of the 12 foot standard. .even though it might take more lights. All you have to do is drive by the Hospital ' s Mel -Avenue Parking lot and see the glare from the fixtures that the hospital wants to place in the new parking lot. .it lights up the entire sky with yellow lighting. . .since these lights are going_ on all night long. . . it wouldnot be fair to have the lighting which exists on Mel Avenue parking lot flood the area. Please place my request for the 12 foot standard of lighting in the records so if it is necessary for us to take legal action our notification will be on the record. Once again—thank you for youfe�nt st on the case. Vel yo rs,�A _ ViDundee cc; Mark Wayne Dundee,LLM- Attorney for the Dundee Family me �� 912 Ruberta Avenue • Glendale, California 91201 a 5030 Schuster Street • Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Los ANGELES — Phone: 818-956-1444 • Fax: 818-241-4519 • LAS VEGAS — 702-895-9777 January 02-2003 COLORADO CENTRE Mr Douglas R. Evans By Certified Mail Glendale,CA Director of 'planning Return Receipt 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, California 92262 CRESCENTA PLAZA RE: My residence at 455 The Palms, Palm Springs,California La Crescenta, CA in regard to Case No 5.0421-PD-1 58. Dear Mr Evans: RAMSDELL PLAZA -Although I have made a phone call to the Planning La Crescenta,CA Commission planner in charge of the above project my phone call was never replied to. I was advised the 0 proper way to review the proposed plan was to make an FLINTRIDGE appointment wihb the planner in charge of the project. RENTAL I attempted this on Monday December 29, 2003 when I EQUIPMENT CO. was in Palm Springs. As of this date the phonecall has Southern California never been replied to. However, on Wednesday, December 31 , 2oO3 I did receive the proposed plan for the project in mail. Although I will RESTAURANT be out of state at my Nevada office the coming week I plan MANAGEMENT. INC. to be at the January 14, 2004 meeting. La Canada-Flintridge,CA Thus far, my only knowledge of the project was a note I received from the Desert Hospital. Since I was unable to attend that meeting I did write them a letter and reviewed the limited objections I and my family have to the project. I followed this with a phonecaLL To the Desert Hospital ER representative who I was advised was handling the project. I was rather disappointed with his response and thus taking Vthis time to put on the record our concerns. Video Equipment Rentals Anaheim, CA As stated I do not have a objection to the proposed parking area. However, my residence at 455 the Palms, Atlanta, GA Palm Springs, California is the residence which is probably Boston, MA the most effected by the parking lot. Chicago, IL Dallas, TX We have owned this residence since 1973 . When we Glendale, CA purchased the residence there was a club-house and swimming Las Vegas, NVproject . - 4- - .which pool on the proposed I understsand was for the use of residences of the street. I further New Orleans, LA understood as private swimming pools became popular that the Orlando, FL clubhouse was torn down and the swimming pool removed. San Diego, CA San Francisco, CA When we purchased the home in 1973 the Desert Hospital Washington, DC Established in 1958 IbAss VER Video Equipment Rentals ANAHEIM • ATLANTA • BOSTON • CHICAGO • DALLAS • LAS VEGAS • L05 ANGELES• NEW ORLEANS • ORLANDO • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO • WASHINGTON, D.C: Page two. . +Palm Springs Planning Commission Project 5.0421 -PD-158. was several blocks away from our residence. Therefore, we request the Planning Commission take in consider- ation the many years we have been on the property and request that the Desert Hospital plan their parking lot to afford us the privacy that we deserve as homeowners. We request that a six-foot landscaping area separate our property line from the beginning of the parking area. That a six-foot to eight foot solid-plaster _ t`1=1 be created (not the type of wall that the hospital put on their parking lot on Mel street) so that the headlights of automobiles parking on our side of the lot not shine into our home. This is an obvious request. We request that the hospital plant mature trees next to the wall to block light from entering our yard. In talking with Desert Hospital they admitted the trees they planted on the Mel Avenue were too small and in eight ,years have not fully grown. When we suggested plantinq .maturgi-ees to the hospital they stated they did not think they had enough funds to do so. . .which is quite amazing when you consider the fact they have enough funds to pave an entire parking lot double the size of their original but they have no funds to plant mqLture trees , on our property line. Our final request that a review of the lighting be carefully considered. If this is going to a twenty four hour parking lot we do not want our entire property lite up every nite. I think the important thing that the, planning Commission should consider is that our requests are only fair. . .and if members of the Commission lived at 455 The Palms. . .they would certainly want the same consideration that we are requesting. I plan to be in Palm Springs before the meeting of January 14-2004 to review the plans. Thanking you in advance for your nsid a ion. Ve �ruly u Vi Ht"4undee�Jr cc: Mark Wayne Dundee, Attorney for the Dundee Family Trust cc; Thomas Pabst, Real .Estate At tor ey for the Dundee Family Trus cc: File me 912 Ruberta Avenue,Glendale,CA 91201 •www.verrents.com Phone:818.956-1444• Fax:818-241.4519•Toll Free:800.794.1407 0 912 Ruberta Avenue • Glendale, California 91201 0 5030 Schuster Street • Las Vegas, Nevada 89118 Los ANGELES — Phone: 818-956-1444 • Fax: 818-241-4519 • LAS VEGAS — 702-895-9777 455 The Palms COLORADO Palm Springs,California CENTRE 818-790-9027- 760-320-556 5 Glendale,CA The Honorable Ron Oden ■ Mayor, Palm Springs CRESCENTA City Hall, Palm Springs PLAZA 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way La crescents,CA Palm Springs, Califor nia 92262 ■ Dear Mayor Oden: RAMSDELL Firstly, Congratulations as Mayor of Palm Springs . PLAZA We have read with interest our man ideas for the City. La Crescents,CA Y Y ■ We have owned residences in Palm Springs since 1960' s FLINTRIDGE and for many years were in business on both Palm RENTAL Canyon Drive and North Indian Avenue. EQUIPMENT CO. Our present residence has been at 455 The Palms, Southern California Palm Springs since 1973. ■ Enclose is a letter sent to the Planning Department directed to the attention of Director, Douglas Evans. RESTAURANT Our past dealings with Mr Evans have been excellent and MANAGEMENT. INC. we hold Mr Evans in high esteem. La Canada-Flintridge,CA The letter explains in detail my and neighbors concern over the privacy to our homes adjoining the new parking lot of the Desert Hospital which is on the property line of our home. As stated in our letter we do not object to the creation of the hospital parking R lot but we were disappointed with the hospital ' s lack of concern or interest in offering the protection to our homes from the parking lot,after talking with hospital VldeoEquipmatRenlah representative. I will have to admit that I have not seen the final Anaheim, CA plans (see note about December 29th) and will do so on Atlanta, GA my next tripe to Palm Springs. Boston, MA I hope that the Palm Springs Planning Commission Chicago, IL and the Palm Springs City Council will serigusly consider our Dallas,TX rights for privacy as longtime residences who were in our Glendale, CA present location many years before he hospital expanded Las Vegas, NV into our property line. New Orleans, LA Thank you for your ponsidera i n. Orlando, FL V r tru1 ours San Diego, CA ��'""" OIL San Francisco, CA Uy r, Washington, DC Vi nt Dun de Jr 10444 Established m � u 507 065 037 Donald Haas 291 E Mel Ave#223 paln1 Springs,CA 92261 HAA5291sY ' J.03 53 fJ.9. FORWARD TIME EXP R"rKi TO :WEJ K! HAAS'.00NALU J 1510 PXNE VALd_E'Y L".0 e ANNING CA 92220-5473 RETURN '1'0 .SENDER - SOS b ` W S nor n a11Cit SCE 9 ,? Y- y iI 1402 061 C'a 117�e Sil 4 �1CaJo 1OIOzwl CA 92 �o o22 Lo bu030 034 Rose De attireoce cease LobAl &�Omelli nGcl sau Jose lira Ave de - ' CA -9s12S �T r do 030 Seat,6e A91?j�� p2 2�r1 p6S Cg330ktj 0 2 s.� s 061 - .. 1 3ug ce2e 021 - �° A 92 262 r r AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING NOTICES I, the undersigned City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, California, do hereby certify that a copy of the Notice of Public Hearing regarding Case No. 5.0421 — PD158 Amendment in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvement for parking lot #G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility located at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD185 and R-3, Section 11, was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached list on the 23rd day of January, 2004. A copy of said letter and attachment is attached hereto. Said mailing was completed by placing a copy of said Notice in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid, and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 23rd day of January, 2004. s PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING CITY COUNCIL CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0421-PD-158 An application by Desert Regional Medical Center for an Amendment to Planned Development District#185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot #G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD-185and R-3, Section 11 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of February 4, 2004. The City Council meeting begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application by Desert Regional Medical Center for an Amendment to Planned Development District #185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, on an approximately 1-acre site at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD- 185 and R-3, Section 11 The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the criteria to determine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. Section 92.04.01 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance currently allows public parking as a permitted use in the R-3 Zone. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration. The proposed application, site plan, and related documents are available for public review daily, between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Zoning Department, located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. At this meeting the City Council is expected to take action on the addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Addendum and the Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file and available to the public. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the Council meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400)feet of the subject property. An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Zoning, (760) 323-8245. PATRICIA A. SANDERS City Clerk • hs#+i ► �jSIR ►"►iii�,►'f'1►f'�tNM'itf� ►��1►ff�;M#,►i,�irM,y#,�„i,�f�„�I►#iit� ►1r#►i�►#�i�#►i*#*#j►`?i`ii�►#;Ial►�►#�Ii�►#iflMr Mfll►�I #'�'it#'►i#i'►i#i'��►it' ififiii#i'�if#�i##+i##♦� i,►iril►##�`f'�`►�i,�"i� ►+1d►ii►ii+iMfii�ii'�►ii,#�„'►f�`i#iiii�M� ♦iiiiit♦ iiiii#�#� Iris#f#fi##�+►�I►i►ii - i#iiiii#fii##fft'►� ♦tii♦i1►i i#t♦#ii#♦ . aifiii„►i„►f,►•1�,�,# - #i,,►#ii,�#�„+1fi►i#f,�i ftfiffi♦ ♦fi#iifiV �►#►#fffi�i�Fi,►#ifs#►i1►i�ii#piifli�►#Oii#�� 1►ii##iiiir#ii�fifi,�#iff#i#*i,�i�,ff#,►f�ii#,►i�� ♦.i..i�i#�f��.►i�i..#..i�f�i#.#..i#,.i,.fii..i i/ CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE NO.: • i • . • • . • - - ' - . . ,. - • • . . • 1 •. ,'Desert Regional Medical Center MR BILL DAVIS AND MR PETER DIXON MS TRISHA DAVIS TENNIS CLUB AREA TENNIS CLUB AREA 431 SOUTH MONTE VISTA DRIVE 227 SOUTH CAHUILLA NEWDesert Regional Med PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR FRANK TYSEN C/O CASA CODY COUNTRY INN MS. CHRISTINE HAMMOND MR BOB WEITHORN SMALL HOTELS TAHQUITZ RIVER ESTATES TENNIS CLUB /SMALL HOTELS 175 SOUTH CAHUILLA ROAD i ' 1155 SOUTH CAMINO REAL 261 SOUTH BELARDO ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR TIM HOHMEIER MS ROXANNE FLOSS ( MR PHIL TEDESCO DEEPWELL j OLD LAS PALMAS DEEPWELL RANCH 1387 CALLE DE MARIA 930 CHIA 1303 WEST PRIMAVERA DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MR MARSHALL ROATH MS MARGARET PARK MS SHERYL HAMLIN AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB AREA ! AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE CAHUILLA INDIANS--J 4-D�--J =J 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS VERIFICATION NOTICE -zJ -0 =J PLANNING &ZONING DEFT ATTN: SENIOR SECRETARY PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2743 SPONSORS --J DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER MR CHRISTOPHER MILLS 1150 NORTH INDIAN CANYON DRIVE CHRISTOPHER S MILLS ARCHITECT PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 1255 EAST RAMON ROAD PALM SPRINGS CQ 92264 I 505 184 006 505 1841sta 505 184 013 Cniste Casey Gail Rose Tijernia-swearinge 1466 N Palm Canyon Dr 624 1/2ro 79111 Falmouth St Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm S92264 Indio, CA 92201 505 184 014 505 184 015 505 184 016 Lina Khasky&Robert Sprint Barbara Wolimaker Harjit Singh&Maujit Kaur 12464 Laurel Terrace Dr 14431 Chase St#G 4952 E Whitton Ave Studio City, CA 91604 Panorama City, CA 91402 Phoenix,AZ 85018 505 194 019 505 184 027 507 030 001 David&Irene Ya houbian Javid Ya houbian&David Ya houbia Malihe&Shookhfrm Boussa Sionit Ralim&N Yaghoubiui PO Box 1172 425 Lincoln Blvd 72114 Follensbee St Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Santa Monica, CA 90402 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 507 030 002 507 030 003 507 030 004 Robert Randall Smith Rick Chrinuenti Robert on 25999 Glen Eden Rd#46 3420 Oak Glen Dr 643 Edin 5i Corona, CA 92883 Los Angeles, CA 90068 San Fr Cisco, 94112 507 030 005 507 030 006 507 030 007 Ballanthnes Hotel Llc Lorraine Daniel West End Leisure Group Inc 1420 N Indian Canyon Dr 1380 N Indian Canyon Dr 41 288 E Camino Monte Vis Patin Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 030 008 507 030 012 507 030 013 Stuart Artingstall&Ian Harper Rose Swearingen Rogers Galen Eugene&Robers Galen 312 E Camino Monte Vis 43040 Port Maria Rd 3444 Camino Del Rio N 4200 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Indio, CA 92201 San Diego, CA 92108 507 030 014 507 030 015 507 030 016 Tild Resorts Inc Palos Verdes Villas Inc Palos Verdes Villas 354 E Stevens Rd 15771 Rocklield Blvd#200 3657 Monte Real Palm Springs, CA 92262 Irvine,CA 92618 Escondido, CA 92029 507 030 020 507 030 021 507 030 022 Christopher&Doris Vecchia Robert Mccue Jr. &Marcia Mccue Marjorie&Raymond Ellis 506 E Miraleste Ct 505 E Miraleste CL 2601 S Cherokee Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 507 030 4gCA 507 030 025 507 030 026 Teffiey I� us Lowell&Patricia Pearson Roland&Janina Haskell PO Box 2921 Braeholm Ph 456 E The Palms St Palm IT 92263 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 030 027 507 030 028 507 030 029 Guy Sclunidt&James,$pigener Douglas Halm Mark Dierickx&Frank Delelys 486 E The Palms St 231 Belmont Ave E#402 853 N La Cienega Blvd Palm Springs, CA 92262 Seattle,WA 98102 Los Angeles, CA 90069 bids j--0 Oj 507 030 031 507 030 032 507 030 033 Dtudee Paul&Rozane Williamson Bozo Kokolj&Arm Kokolj 5141 Earl Dr 7432 3rd St 1 537 E The Palms St La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011 Downey, CA 90241 I Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 030 034 507 061011 507 061012 Lobue Lawrence M&Borrelli Mickie Posada Palms Investments Me Rose Tijerina-swearinge Rose Decease Lobue i 120 W Vereda Sur 79-111 Farmouth Dr 559 W Alma Ave 1 Palm Springs, CA 92262 . Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 San Jose, CA 95125 507 061 013 507 061 017 507 061 018 Rose Tijerina-swearinge Ester Carla Scott Ester Carla Scott 79-111 Farmouth Dr 10202 Aqueduct Dr 10202 Aqueduct Dr Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Cypress, CA 90630 Cypress, CA 90630 507 061 019 507 061 0 0 507 061 021 Ester Carla Scott Terrence 'cice Jones Bruce Zelony 10202 Aqueduct Dr 3500 E Tac Dr#A 344 E Mel Ave#E Cypress, CA 90630 Palm Sprin A 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 061 022 507 064 022 507 064 023 Mayle Desert Healthcare District Hospital Dist Desert 10 Novato Ter 16935 W Bernardo Dr 4170 i 355 S Grand Ave#4400 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 San Diego, CA 92127 Los Angeles, CA 90071 507 064 024 507 06' 001 507 065 002 Hospital Dist Desert Ronald& v ly Ramsey Colton Joseph G&Lorraine M 355 S Grand Ave#4400 291 E Mel e# Spri 301 Colton Los Angeles, CA 90071 Palm r s, A 92262 27070 Val Deane Way Hemet, CA 92544 507 065 003 507 065 004 507 0 5 005 Dagrula&Cosmo&Kaye Daquila Dexter jorie Delaney Palmer P p 25671 Whip Rd 291 E Me ve#230 291 E Ave#240 Monterey, CA 93940 Palm Sp ' g , CA 92262 Palm S rim s, CA 92262 507 065 006 507 065 007 507 065 008 Tim Griffin&Joyce Brandel James&Sandra Hawes Sandra Mann 22351 Platirm 750 Camino Norte PO Box 3205 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Palm Springs, CA 92262 South Pasadena, CA 91031 507 065 009 507 065 010 507 065 1 Samuel Rivkin Thomas Ledelia M She , nnolly 2815 Nichols Canyon Rd 924 SE 7th St 10445 ilslure Blvd#802 Los Angeles, CA 90046 1Fort Lauderdale,FL 33301 Los Alcles, CA 90024 507 065 2 507 065 013 507 065 014 Reuo&Ni anier Ivica Maras James Kearse 420 Moutere Ln#4B -: 291 E Mel Ave#291 2247 Evergreen Point Rd Sau Clen A 92672 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Medina, WA 98039 507 065 015 507-065-016 507 065 017 Rancho El Mirador Homeowners Assoc; AVIS SULLIVAN CarmenRivero 291 E Mel Ave#311 291 EAST MEL AVENUE#321 291 E Mel Ave#331 Palm Springs, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4047 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 065 018 507 065 019 507 065 020 Carlos M ratnontes Charles Russell i Mary Lou Marin 1575 Howard Ave 176 Del Mar Ave 7779 Hallandale Dr San Ysidro, CA 92173 1 San Clemente, CA 92672 San Diego, CA 92120 507 065 021 507 065 022 507 065 023 Harold Frye&Margaret Frye Houghtor he rill F&Joan M William&Betty Wagner 1612 5th St Sherrill Ho non I I 1 291 E Mel Ave#330 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 200 Pacific fights Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Santa Rosa, A 95403 507 065 024 f 507 065 025 507 065 026 Artlme.&Jo Mi chell Robert Weiss&Lydia Weiss James Parsons Jr. 291 E Mel Ave 20 1795 Fox Springs Cir 1236 Devon PI Palm Springs, C 262 Newbury Park, CA 91320 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ii 507 065 027 507 065 028 517 O65 02 Priscilla Sawyer Battery Street Dev Cro t[i ward A&Shirley D 578 Aldwych Rd 2977 Cataract PI Croset El Cajon, CA 92020 El Cajon, CA 92020 291 E Ave 0270 Palm prin ,CA 92262 507 065 030 507 065 031 507 065 032 Ruben&Irene Ayala Glenn Travis Richard Clifford 12941 Rhodes PI 291 E Mel Ave#202 219 E Mel Ave#212 Chino, CA 91710 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 065 033 507 065 034 507 065 035 Lill,&Rudy Bauer Jeannie Silva&Joanne Cork Samuel Ravkan 1022 Gaylawn Ct PO Box 101 2815 Nichols Carryon Rd La Puente, CA 91744 El Cajon, CA 92022 Los Angeles, CA 90046 507 065 036 507 065 037 50 065 38 Ronald&Lipsett S' 'd Weinstock Donald Haas Eli b i Felix 145 Hodencamp R 4204 291 E Mel Ave#223 1173 owa Ave Thousand Oaks, C 1360 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Los les, CA 90049 III 507 065 039 507 065 040 507 065 041 W Michael&A Mercedes Passarello Samuel Rivkin Guy&Connie Roberts 291 E Mel Ave#243 2815 Nichols Canyon Rd 1980 Elsie Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Los Angeles, CA 90046 West Bloomfield,MI 48324 507 065 042 507 065 043 507 065 044 Ronald Diaz Barry&Patricia Miller Descanso Prop 225 Hermosa Ave#101; 2733 Sandgate Rd 14097 Proctor Valley Rd Long Beach, CA 90802 Springfield,IL 62702 Jtnnul, CA 91935 507 065 045 507 5 04 507 065 047 Harth Lenora F I Bra dle B 7ts John Copage&Vendella Copage 112 Fremont P1 1677 7ilcinas St433 E Duarte Rd#D Los Angeles, CA 90005 Gilbe85233 Arcadia, CA 91006 507 065 048 507 065 049 507065050 Bernardo&Lia Daquila Curtis Anthony&Renee Silva Robert Leblanc&Julio Cesar Salinas Cosino&Kaye Daquila 10 Rushwick Rd 291 E Mel Ave#372 1235 Foxtord Rd Mount Laurel,NJ 08054 Palm Springs,CA 92262 La Vence CA 91750 ' 507-065-051 507 065 052 507 065 053 MR AND MRS KEITH GOODMAN James Kearse Samuel Rivlrin 291 EAST MEL AVENUE#362 i 2247 Evergreen Point Rdi 2815 Nichols Canyon Rd PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 Medina,WA 98039 Los Angeles, CA 90046 507 065 054 507 065 055 507 065 056 Lance&Katluyn Silva Jeffrey&Cathy Hinds Keith Allen&William Sullivan 291 E Mel Ave 4332 Edward Pfeffer 6401 E Nohl Ranch Rd#100 Palm Springs, CA 92262 4250 Point Loma Ave Anaheim CA 92807 San Diego,CA 92107 507 065 057 507 065 058 507065059 Tamara Crater R Randolph Loechner Jr. James Matthew&Jane Patrortite 291 E Mel Ave 4302 2144 Blendon PI 6604 Bequette Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262 Saint Louis,MO 63143 Pico Rivera, CA 90660 507 065 060 507 065 061 507 065 063 Joseph&Pilar Barrigas Allan&Linda Brown Charles Russell&Colleen Russell 13674 Comanche 291 E Mel Ave#262 176 Del Mar Ave Tustin, CA 92782 Palm Springs, CA 92262 San Clemente, CA 92672 507 070 016 507 070 018 Hospital Dist Desert i Hospital Dist Desert 355 S Grand Ave#4400 355 S Grand Ave#4400 I Los Angeles, CA 90071 Los Angeles, CA 90071 II AFFIDAVIT OF MAILING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) I, the undersigned, say: I am and was at all times herein mentioned, a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Riverside, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action or proceeding;that my business address is 3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, California; that on the 30th day of December, 2003, 1 served the within NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING for PLANNING COMMISSION CASE NO. 5.0421-PD-185 to consider an application for a revision of a Planned Development 185 to allow an amendment to the master plan for an expanded surface parking lot with 305 parking spaces on Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zone PD- 185, Section 11. This Notice was served on persons contained in Exhibit"A"attached hereto in said action or proceeding by depositing a true copy thereof, enclosed in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in a mailbox, sub-post office, substation or mail chute, or other like facility, regularly maintained by the Government of the United States in the City of Palm Springs, California, addressed to the list of persons or firms indicated on the report received from the title company dated on July 7, 2003 and certified by the City's Planning Technician, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A". I hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. _ o etta D. Moffett Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 30th1h day of December 2003. NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0421-PD-1 58 An application by Desert Regional Medical Center for an Amendment to Planned Development District#185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD-185and R-3, Section 11 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN thatthe Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs, California,will hold a public hearing at its meeting of January 14,2004.The Planning Commission meeting begins at 1:30 p.m., (public hearings begin at 2:00 p.m.), in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California. The purpose of the hearing is to consider an application by Desert Regional Medical Center for an Amendment to Planned Development District #185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for parking lot#G, to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, on an approximately 1-acre site at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD- 185 and R-3, Section 11 The City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)sets forth the criteria to determine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate. The lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. Section 92.04.01 of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance currently allows public parking as a permitted use in the R-3 Zone. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration. The proposed application, site plan, and related documents are available for public review daily, between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm Springs in the Planning and Zoning Department, located at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. At this meeting the Planning Commission is expected to take action and make a recommendation of adoption of this addendum to the Mitigated Negative Declaration. The Addendum and the Mitigated Negative Declaration are on file and available to the public. If any individual or group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearings described in this notice or in written correspondence at or prior to the Commission meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all property owners within four hundred (400)feet of the subject property. An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be heard. Questions regarding this case may be directed to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, Department of Planning & Zoning, (760) 323-8245. AAAi_ Douglas R. Ev ns Director of PI nning and Zoning ►ii��iiii+i++i♦ ►+i+i'�i�i+i+i+i+�+i+i+i+i+i� ♦iiiii♦ii.►iiiiiiiiiii� ►iiii♦iiir ♦iiii♦i�Aii♦ ♦iii♦iiii+►iiiiii♦iiii� o+i+i�i+i+i+i+i+i+.►+i+i�'i+i+i+i+i+i+i+i"G+i I►iiiiiiiii♦iiiiiiii ►♦♦ ♦iiiiiiii+iiiii♦i♦iii� ♦iiiii♦♦ ♦ii��iii� _ ►iiioi„M+i+,�y��i. � _ +`iiii+*+iiiii,,►iii , ►iiii♦�►i iiiiiiii♦ ♦i0i♦i♦♦ ii♦iiiii,l - ii♦i♦it►♦ . iiiii�ii♦ ♦♦i♦iii♦ ♦iiiiiii� ►i�i�+ii+i+��riOiii�,►i,►ili,►ii+0,`iii,►i+i+� i►iiiii/►iiiiiiiiiiiiii♦ i�'O�+�t��►'*O�'O'�i�i±i±i�i�i�i*+�i�+*i�+�.�i�i� . . . . Desert Regional - .ical Center . - Public Hearing Notices Notification Information for Planning Commission Hearing on January 14, 2004 Case No. 5.0421-PD-185 Applicant Name: Desert Regional Medical Center Address 388 Mel Avenue Palm Springs, CA 92262 Project Location & 388 Mel Avenue Description Revision of Planned Development 185 to allow an amendment to the master plan for an expanded surface parking lot with 305 parking spaces on Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zone PD-185, Section 11. Assigned Planner: Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner Labels Prepared by: First American Title and Yoav Shernock, Planning Technician Certification to City Clerk Date: January 2, 2004 Property Owners / Groups / Date Notices Number of Notices Organizations Mailed Mailed Applicant/Sponsors December 30, 2003 3 Property Owners: Land Owner (master lessor) December 30, 2003 110 Master Lessor (sub-lessor) Sub-lessee (unit owner) Indian Land Owners N/A Neighborhood Coalition December 30, 2003 9 Homeowners Association N/A ONIPP N/A Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians Rep December 30, 2003 1 City Rep for Verification 1 Public Agencies - IS or EA N/A Other Interested Parties N/A TOTAL NUMBER MAILED: 124 OF PALM S,^� City of Palm Springs "` - • '�' Department of Planning &Zoning �� FOQN MEMORANDUM Date: December 30, 2003 From: Yoav Shernock Planning Technician Subject: Mailing Labels for Notice of Public Hearing Planning Commission Case No. 5.0421 Desert Regional Medical Center This is to certify that the attached labels were created on July 7, 2003 using the most current information available. To the best of my knowledge, the labels are complete and accurate. 4�✓t Yoav Shernock, Planning Technician December 30, 2003 :Idm 505 184 006 505 184 012 505 184 013 Cristo Casey Gail M ore Rose Tijenia-swearinge 1466 N Palm Canyon Dr 624 l/2 ista Oro 79111 Falmouth St Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm S ng , 92264 Indio, CA 92201 505 184 014 505 184 015 505 184 016 Lina IQiasky&Robert Spurt Barbara Wohlmaker Harjit Singh&Manjit Kaur 12464 Laurel Terrace Dr 14431 Chase St#G 4952 E Whitton Ave Studio City, CA 91604 Panorama City, CA 91402 Phoenix,AZ 85018 505 184 019 505 184 027 507 030 001 David&Irene Yaghoubian Javid Yaghoubian&David Yaghoubia Malihe&Shooklrtim Boussa Sionit Rahim&N Yaghoubian PO Box 1172 425 Lincoln Blvd 72114 Follensbee St Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 Santa Monica, CA 90402 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 507 030 002 507 030 003 507 030 004 Robert Randall Smith Rick Chinrienti Robert , on 25999 Glen Eden Rd#46 3420 Oak Glen Dr 643 Edin r St Corona, CA 92883 Los Angeles, CA 90068 San Fr Cisco, 94112 507 030 005 507 030 006 507 030 007 Ballanlines Hotel Llc Lorraine Daniel West End Leisure Group Inc 1420 N hrdian Canyon Dr 1380 N Indian Canyon Dr 41 288 E Camino Monte Vis Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 030 008 507 030 012 507 030 013 Stuart Artingstall&Ian Harper Rose Swearingen Rogers Galen Eugene&Robers Galen 312 E Canino Monte Vis 43040 Port Maria Rd 3444 Canino Del Rio N#200 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Indio, CA 92201 San Diego, CA 92108 507 030 014 507 030 015 507 030 016 Tild Resorts Inc Palos Verdes Villas Inc Palos Verdes Villas 354 E Stevens Rd 15771 Rockfield Blvd#200 3657 Monte Real Palm Springs, CA 92262 Irvine, CA 92618 Escondido, CA 92029 507 030 020 507 030 021 507 030 022 Christopher&Doris Vecchia Robert Mccue Jr. &Marcia Mccue Marjorie&Raymond Ellis 506 E Miraleste Ct 505 E Miraleste Ct 2601 S Cherokee Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92264 507 030 023 507 030 025 507 030 026 Jeffrey us Lowell&Patricia Pearson Roland&Janina Haskell PO Box 4 1 2921 Braeholm PI 456 E The Palms St Palm Spr' ig CA 92263 Hermosa Beach, CA 90254 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 030 027 507 030 028 507 030 029 Gary Sch nidt&James Spigener Douglas Halm Mark Dierickx&Frank Delelys 486 E The Palms St 231 Belmont Ave E 4402 853 N La Cienega Blvd Palm Sprigs, CA 92262 Seattle,WA 98102 Los Angeles, CA 90069 3 r�s 5 c / 507 030 031 507 030 032 507 030 033 Dundee Paul&Rozane Williamson Bozo Kokolj&Ann Kokolj 5141 Earl Dr 7432 3rd St 537 E The Palms St La Canada Flintridge, CA 91011 Downey, CA 90241 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 030 034 507 061 011 507 061 012 Lobne Lawrence M&Borrelli Mickie Posada Palms Investments Llc Rose Tijerina-swearinge Rose Decease Lobne 120 W Vereda Sur 79-111 Farmouth Dr 559 W Alma Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262 Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 San Jose, CA 95125 507 061 013 507 061 017 507 061 018 Rose Tijerina-swearinge Ester Carla Scott Ester Carla Scott 79-111 Farmouth Dr 10202 Aqueduct Dr 10202 Aqueduct Dr Bermuda Dunes, CA 92201 Cypress, CA 90630 Cypress, CA 90630 507 061 019 507 061 0 0 507 061 021 Ester Carla Scott Terrence icke jones Bruce Zelony 10202 Aqueduct Dr 3500 E Tac h Dr#A 344 E Mel Ave#E Cyl)ress, CA 90630 Palm Spain , A 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 061 022 507 064 022 507 064 023 Mayle Desert Healthcare District Hospital Dist Desert 10 Novato Ter 16935 W Bernardo Dr 0170 355 S Grand Ave#4400 Rancho Mirage, CA 92270 San Diego, CA 92127 Los Angeles, CA 90071 507 064 024 507065001 507 065 002 Hospital Dist Desert Ronald& v ly Ramsey Calton Joseph G&Lorraine M 355 S Grand Ave#4400 291 E Mel e#301 Crdton Los Angeles, CA 90071 Palm Spri s, A 92262 27070 Val Deane Way Hemet, CA 92544 507 065 003 507 065 004 507 A10 005 Daquila&Cosmo&Kaye Daquila Dexter � orie Delaney Palmer P p 25671 Whip Rd 291 E Me ve 4 230 291 E Ave#240 Monterey, CA 93940 Pahn Sp g , CA 92262 Palm S rim s, CA 92262 507 065 006 507 065 007 507 065 008 Tim Griffin&Joyce Brandel James&Sandra Hawes Sandra Mama 22351 Platino 750 Canino Norte PO Box 3205 Mission Viejo, CA 92691 Palm Springs, CA 92262 South Pasadena, CA 91031 507 065 009 507 065 010 507 065 1 Sanmel Rivkin Thomas Ledelia M Shelia imolly 2815 Nichols Canyon Rd 924 SE 71h St 10445 ilslure Blvd#802 Los Angeles, CA 90046 Fort Lauderdale,FL 33301 Los Ai eles, CA 90024 507 065 2 507 065 013 507 065 014 Reno&Ni ame Ivica Maras James Kearse 420 Montere Ln#4B 291 E Mel Ave#291 2247 Evergreen Point Rd San Clemen A 92672 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Medina, WA 98039 501 065 015 507-065-016 507 065 017 Rancho EI Mirador HomeoAarers Assoc AVIS SULLIVAN Carmen Rivera 291 E Mel Ave#311 291 EAST MEL AVENUE#321 291 E Mel Ave 4331 Palm Springs, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-4047 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 065 018 507 065 019 507 065 020 Carlos Miramontes Charles Russell Mary Lou Marm 1575 Howard Ave 176 Del Mar Ave 7779 Hillandale Dr San Ysidro,CA 92173 San Clemente, CA 92672 San Diego, CA 92120 507 065 021 507 065 022 507 065 023 Harold Frye&Margaret Frye Houghton he nil F&Joan M William&Betty Wager 1612 51li St Sherrill Ho rton 291 E Mel Ave#330 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 200 Pacific feights Dr Palm Springs, CA 92262 Santa Rosa, CA 95403 507 065 024 507 065 025 507 065 026 Arthue&Je Mi chell Robert Weiss&Lydia Weiss James Parsons Jr. 291 E Mel Ave 20 1795 Fox Springs Cir 1236 Devon PI Palm Springs, C 262 Newbury Park, CA 91320 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 507 065 027 507 065 028 507 16102 Priscilla Sawyer Battery Street Dev Cro iti ward A& Shirley D 578 Aldwych Rd 2877 Cataract Pl Crose El Cajon, CA 92020 El Cajon,CA 92020 291 E Ave 4 270 Patin prin CA 92262 507 065 030 507 065 031 507 065 032 Ruben&Irene Ayala Glenn Travis Richard Clifford 12941 Rhodes PI 291 E Mel Ave 4202 219 E Mel Ave#212 Chino, CA 91710 Palm Springs,CA 92262 Palm Springs, CA 92262 507 065 033 507 065 034 507 065 035 Lily&Rudy Batter Jeannie Silva&Joanne Cork Samuel Rivkin 1022 Gaylawn Ct PO Box 101 2815 Nichols Canyon Rd La Puente, CA 91744 El Cajon,CA 92022 Los Angeles, CA 90046 507 065 036 507 065 037 50 065 38 Ronald&Lipseit Si id Weinstock Donald Haas Eli b Felix 145 Hodeucamp R #204 291 E Mel Ave#223 1173 owe Ave Thousand Oaks, C 1360 Palm Springs, CA 92262 Los 1 les, CA 90049 507 065 039 507 065 040 507 065 041 W Michael&A Mercedes Passarello Samuel Rivkin Guy&Counie Roberts 291 E Mel Ave#243 2815 Nichols Canyon Rd 1980 Elsie Dr Patin Springs, CA 92262 Los Angeles,CA 90046 West Bloomfield,MI 48324 507 065 042 507 065 043 507 065 044 Ronald Diaz Barry&Patricia Miller Descamo Prop 225 Hermosa Ave#102 2733 Sandgate Rd 14097 Proctor Valley Rd Long Beach, CA 90802 Springfield,IL 62702 Jamul, CA 91935 ihF Q�lar 507 065 045 507Y 507065047 Harth Lenora F Brads John Copage&Vendetta Copage 112 Fremont P1 1677nasSt 433 E Duarte Rd#D Los Angeles,CA 90005 Gilb85233 Arcadia, CA 91006 507 065 048 507 065 049 507 065 050 Bernardo&Lin Daquila Curtis Anthony&Renee Silva Robert Leblanc&Julio Cesar Salinas Coshm&Kaye Daquila 10 Rushwick Rd 291 E Mel Ave#372 1235 Foxford Rd Mount Laurel,NJ 08054 Palm Springs, CA 92262 La Verne, CA 91750 507-065-051 507 065 052 507 065 053 MR AND MRS KEITH GOODMAN James Kearse Samuel Rivkin 291 EAST MEL AVENUE#362 2247 Evergreen Point Rd 2815 Nichols Canyon Rd PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 Medina,WA 98039 Los Angeles, CA 90046 507 065 054 507 065 055 507 065 056 Lance&Kathryn Silva Jeffrey&Cathy Hinds Keith Allen&William Sullivan 291 E Mel Ave 4332 Edward Pfeffer 6401 E Nolil Ranch Rd#100 Pahn Springs, CA 92262 4250 Point Loma Ave Anaheim, CA 92807 San Diego, CA 92107 507 065 057 507 065 058 507 065 059 Tamara Crater R Randolph Loeclmer Jr. James Matthew&Jane Patrouite 291 E Mel Ave#302 2144 Blendon PI 6604 Bequetle Ave Palm Springs, CA 92262 Saint Louis,MO 63143 Pico Rivera, CA 90660 507 065 060 507 065 061 507 065 063 Joseph&Pilar Barrigas Allan&Linda Brown Charles Russell&Colleen Russell 13674 Comanche 291 E Mel Ave#262 176 Del Mar Ave Tustin, CA 92782 Palm Springs, CA 92262 San Clemente, CA 92672 507 070 016 507 070 018 Hospital Dist Desert Hospital Dist Desert 355 S Grand Ave 44400 355 S Grand Ave#4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 Los Angeles, CA 90071 rDesert MR BILL DAVIS AND MR PETER DIXON MS TRISHA DAVIS TENNIS CLUB AREA TENNIS CLUB AREA 431 SOUTH MONTE VISTA DRIVE 227 SOUTH CAHUILLAonal Med PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR FRANK TYSEN C/O CASA CODY COUNTRY INN MS. CHRISTINE HAMMOND MR BOB WEITHORN SMALL HOTELS TAHQUITZ RIVER ESTATES TENNIS CLUB / SMALL HOTELS 175 SOUTH CAHUILLA ROAD 1155 SOUTH CAMINO REAL 261 SOUTH BELARDO ROAD PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 MR TIM HOHMEIER MS ROXANNE FLOSS MR PHIL TEDESCO DEEPWELL OLD LAS PALMAS DEEPWELL RANCH 1387 CALLE DE MARIA 930 CHIA 1303 WEST PRIMAVERA DRIVE PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 MR MARSHALL ROATH MS MARGARET PARK MS SHERYL HAMLIN AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB AREA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS 565 WEST SANTA ROSA DRIVE CAHUILLA INDIANS -J =zJ=J-0 -J 650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS VERIFICATION NOTICE =J-1) =D PLANNING & ZONING DEPT ATTN: SENIOR SECRETARY PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-2743 SPONSORS -o DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER MR CHRISTOPHER MILLS 1150 NORTH INDIAN CANYON DRIVE CHRISTOPHER S MILLS ARCHITECT PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 1255 EAST RAMON ROAD PALM SPRINGS CQ 92264 No.6952 6!�F`0:JF: rt,Dut?IL!ZPt ,�ID-:C9E::N'C5'i C^ ?. RTII'i�4'g,e2113 A1fdCr--VvrE titio 1,:G uG Pt➢e�LPt P:IE�4R7NC4 CIL.,C.ns Pry.;sR .gP�.u:J4x� PROOF OF PUBLICATION on by`�e' it eg al e /'� An an Anneon by Desart Regional Medical Centel Dis- (20I5.5.C.C.P) trjcfa118 n Bien oaf a c1 TO Pionged Done at the Deli- art Regional Medreal Center, for a Master Plan Evpansion and parking lot improvements for Pahl- mg [of ,.G, to allow the construction oT a 306 ^pace pallang let in Place of a previously =p- p"ved too parking lot facility,at 388 Mal Avenue between Indian Canyyo m n Die and Via Mnalesto, Zane. PD-186 and 19-3, Section 11. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN filar the City Council of the Cliy of Palm Springs, Catrfomla,will hold a public hearing at its moohng of Febmary 4,2004. STATE OF CALIFORNIA The City Council meeting begins at 7:U0 P.m. in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 3200 E Tah- County of Riverside - quits Cfnyen way, ralm SPings. The purpose of the hearing a is consider an ap- plication by Desert Regional Medical Centel for an Amendment n ndent to Planed Development Dislnct 085 in fall of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Ec-'- cansion ¢o,a!IPt�f th 9-Iot onsnPcvon of a 305 srizae -P t.C,: p puling at In place of a previeusly approved 156 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of panting lot foci lnz. on an appioximataly I-acre sde a[388 Mel Avenue balueen Indian Canyon the County aforesaid;I am over the age of eighteen Drive and Via NIboota, Zones rD-105 and K'aa, years,and not a party to or interested in the Section l 1. above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a j 'n_s VIcluty rviril, printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING ��I I�COMPANY �- a newspaper of general circulation,printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, ! r 1 I r.-I- P' P tJ' 11 II I I County I�- of Riverside,and which newspaper has been j I a r adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of �� 1 California under the date of March 24,1988.Case Number 191236;that the notice,of which the f I P annexed is armted copy I --r en (set,p m type not smaller YP y �l .1`=.�f,hi;T°'_T than non panel,has been published in each regular �- '_ 1-1__ and entire issue of said news a er and not in an supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: The City of Palm Songs is the lead agency re- sthponsible for tile ppreparation of this Addendum to e Negative Peclaation prepared To the DDIDC Punned Development Plainer for PD-185, Section January 23rd I5t64 of the Cal iomia_Envlran11rcmd Qnall1y Act (CIEDA.)sets Earth file criteria to deteimino wheth- __—____—___--______________________________________________ -arch Addendum to li Negative Declaration is ap- propnale. The lead agency or responsible agency may pa,pe,re an addendum t sly o o Previou certi- -- - fietl Negative Declaianon if some changes la ad --_ - - -- _--_— --- - '---'--" dltions are necessary but none of the conditions All in the year 2004 descubed in Section 16162 of CEOA —11�19 foa preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the or LIH have occored. Section g2.oao1 of me foregoing i9 tY11C and correct. Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance cumently allows g g public parlang as a permitted use n the R-3 29th Zone. An addendum need not he chculated for public review but Is hereby Included with the Dated at Palm Springs,California this---------day adopted Negative Declaration The proposed sppIncei site plan, and related of----------Januar - ----------------------- 2004 documents are available for public review daily, Y-- + bebntean 8 at, and c pm at thtl City of Palm Spnngs in the Planning and Zoning Department, ) `� located at 3200 Tahgotz Canyon Way r ' G - `•��'—c:; z-.�_�`--1°,..-.- At this Fri the City Council is expec-tad 10 Lane Negative D on the addendum to a d file ted MA- ' ) Signature Negative gativeason.The Addendum and the MA- Voted Negative Declarzton,are al file and avail- able to the Public, n any individual of group coal - [loll tho cation n coot, issues fused may be lan0.ed 0a those issues raised If Wile public u lie mg^described a]or in [his notice of in written cor- resp of ondsnco pin ioi to the Council meeting Notice of Public Hesnng is being sent to all Plep- ' owners "chin fou hunrJied (400)feet of the sub city property An opparfundy will be given at eai� hearings roi all in ter es Wed anisette to be heals. Ouestions regarding III case may be dr rected to Alex Meyeihofk, Pnnci al Planner, De- paitmerl of Planning A.Zoning, �60)3?3-0245 PA'rRICIA A SANDERS City Clark PUD January,23, 2004 No 6752 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT AN ADDENDUM TO A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, AND 140TICE OF PUBLIC HEARING PLANNING COMMISSION CITY OF PALM SPRINGS Case No. 5.0421-PD-1513 An application by Desert Regional Medical Center for an Amendment to Planned Development Dis- trict 4185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Des- ert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan PROOF OF PUBLICATION UB T! A TION Expansion and paikmg lot improvements for park- PROOF l 1 V 1JLll.ti 11 1� ing lot on to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously so- (2015.5.C.C.P) proved 156 parking lot facility,at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Dilve and Via Miraleste, Zones PD-185and R-3, Section 1 I NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Planning Commission of the City of Penn Spiings, Califor- nia, will hold a public hearing at its meeting of January 14, 2004. The Planning Commission meeting begins at 1:30 p.m., (oublic heaiings be- gin at 1.00 p.m.), in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs, California STATE OF CALIFORNIA The purpose of the hearing Is to consider an ap- plication by Desert Regional Medical Center for County of Riverside an Amendment to Planned Development District 4185 in lieu of a change of zone at the Desert Regional Medical Center, for a Master Plan Ex- Pansion and parking lot improvements for parking ot IYG, to allow the construction of a 305 space parlang let In place of a previously approved 156 parking lot famlrty on an approximately 1-acia - site at 388 Mel Avenue between Indian Canyon Drive and Via Miraleste, Zones PD-185 and li-3, Section "I1 I am a citizen of the United States and a resident of the Count aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen r-- f V,.,nily MeP]r 7 Y g iC- _ �Li1t- �� I- years,and not a party to or interested in the above-entitled matter.I am the principal clerk of a l r'r-_ printer of the,DESERT SUN PUBLISHING I_ 'Moll`� I - -I j I- COMPANY a newspaper of general circulation, 1 L� printed and published in the city of Palm Springs, 3 _ t^-- County of Riverside,and which newspaper has beenJZ-f adjudged a newspaper of general circulation by the Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of ` - - 1 I-1 California under the date of March 24,1988.Case I Number 191236;that the notice,of which the CITY OF vtM SPRINGS annexed is a printed copy(set in type not smaller _ than non pariel,has been published in each regular and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any The City of+Palm Springs is the lead agency re- supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit: �per,elbe^ter-the r Pa tire g the Negatve DecPaiatlon prepared for the DRMC o, Planned Development District far PD-185. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Qualityy Act (CEOA sets forth the cntena to determine wheth- er an�ddendnm to a Negative Declaration is ap- propriate.The lead agency or responsible agency January2nd may prepare an addendum to a previously cedi- fie Negative Declaration if some changes or ad- ------—----,-------------------—--------------------—----— ditlons are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEOA calling for prepparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred Section 92.04.01 of the ------------------------------------------------------------- Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance currently allows All in theyear2004 public parking as a permitted use In the R-3 one. An addendum need net be circulated for I certify(or declare)under penalty of perjury that the public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declension. foregoing is true and correct. rl, The proposed applicable, site Elan, and related 5 documents are available for public review daily, s,Dated at Palm Springs,California this---------day between 8 am and 5 pm at the City of Palm P g Y Springs in the Planning and Zoning Department, Iecaled at 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way. of----------January----------------------------2004 At this meeting the Planning Commission is e)o- ppected to take action and make a recommends- Ion of adoption of this addendum to the Mitigat- ed Negative Declaration.The Addendum and the �`-'L �! 1/�I)_ avai abed Negative Declaration are an ire and ________ _'__� -_----_---------,_ available to the public. If any individual or grove challenges the action in court, issues the limited be mlimited to only those issues raised att thee pub- lic hearings described In this notice or inwritten correspondence at or prior to the Commission meeting. Notice of Public Hearing is being sent to all prop- erty owners within four hundred (400) feet of the subject property An opportunity will be given at said hearings for all interested persons to be eard Questions regarding this case may be di- rected to Alex Meyerhoff, Principal Planner, De- partment of Planning G Zoning, P60) 323-8245 Douglas R. Evans Director of Plannng and Zoning Pub. Desert Sun 1 2/2004 RESOLUTION NO. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING CASE NO. 5.0421-PD-185, AN APPLICATION BY THE DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT 185, IN LIEU OF A CHANGE OF ZONE, FOR A MASTER PLAN EXPANSION OF THE DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER CAMPUS, AND FOR PARKING LOT IMPROVEMENTS TO ALLOW THE CONSTRUCTION OF A GATED, SECURED, AND NIGHT LIGHTED 305 SPACE PARKING LOT, IN PLACE OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 156 SPACE LOT, PARKING LOT #G, AT THE DESERT REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, ON ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 507-061-005, -006, -015, -016, 507-030-010, AND -011, LOCATED AT 388 MEL AVENUE, ZONE PD-185, SECTION 11. WHEREAS, the Desert Regional Medical Center, (the "Applicant") has filed an application for an amendment to Planned Development District#185 for a minor amendment to the Desert Regional Medical Center Master Plan, for an expansion of PD#185 in lieu of a change of zone, for a Master Plan Expansion and parking lot improvements for Parking Lot#G,to allow the construction of a 305 space parking lot in place of a previously approved 156 parking lot facility, at 388 Mel Avenue; and WHEREAS, notice of public hearing of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Springs to consider the Applicant's application for an amendment to PD-185 were given in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2003, the applicant conducted a community meeting to educate the neighbors and community about the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the City of Palm Springs is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of this Addendum to the Negative Declaration prepared for the DRMC Planned Development District for PD-185. Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) sets forth the criteria to determine whether an Addendum to a Negative Declaration is appropriate; and WHEREAS, the lead agency or responsible agency may prepare an addendum to a previously certified Negative Declaration if some changes or additions are necessary but none of the conditions described in Section 15162 of CEQA calling for preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR have occurred. An addendum need not be circulated for public review but is hereby included with the adopted Negative Declaration; and WHEREAS, the City finds that consideration of the revised Planned Development District and related DRMC Master Plan does not call for the preparation of a subsequent Negative Declaration or EIR pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15162 or Public Resources Code Section 21166; and WHEREAS, on January 14,2004,a public hearing on the application for an amendment to PDA 85 were held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and /Odwoo WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed all evidence provided including the staff report dated January 14, 2004 and all other written and oral testimony, and finds the Project, subject to the conditions of approval, consistent with the requirements of the ordinances of the City and with State law; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2004,a public hearing on the application for an amendmentto PD-185 were held by the Planning Commission in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission voted to recommend that the City Council approve said project; and WHEREAS, on February 4, 2004,a public hearing on the application for an amendment to PD-185 were held by the City Council in accordance with applicable law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed all evidence provided including the staff report dated February 4, 2004 and all other written and oral testimony, and finds the Project, subject to the conditions of approval,consistent with the requirements of the ordinances of the City and with State law; and NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED thatthe City Council of the City of Palm Springs, California, after considering the evidence provided at the meeting does hereby that the City Council approve Case No 5.0421-PD-185,a minor amendment to PD-185 and expansion of the DRMC Master Plan and DRMC campus, subject to the attached conditions, Exhibit A. ADOPTED this 4th day of February 2004. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA By City Clerk City Manager Reviewed and Approved as to Form: EXHIBIT A Case No. 5.0421-PD-185 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Desert Regional Medical Center 388 Mel Avenue February 4, 2004 Before final acceptance ofthe project,all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, the Director of Planning and Zoning, the Chief of Police, the Fire Chief or their designee, depending on which department recommended the condition. Any agreements,easements or covenants required to be entered into shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney. PROJECT SPECIFIC CONDITIONS Administrative 1. The proposed development of the premises shall conform to all applicable regulations of the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance, Municipal Code, or any other City Codes, ordinances and resolutions which supplement the zoning district regulations. 2. The owner shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Springs, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs or its agents, officers or employees to attach, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the City of Palm Springs, its legislative body, advisory agencies, or administrative officers concerning Case 5.0421-PD-1 85. The City of Palm Springs will promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action, or proceeding against the City of Palm Springs and the applicant will either undertake defense of the matter and pay the City's associated legal costs or will advance funds to pay for defense of the matter by the City Attorney. If the City of Palm Springs fails to promptly notify the applicant of any such claim, action or proceeding or fails to cooperate fully in the defense,the applicant shall not,thereafter, be responsible to defend, indemnify,or hold harmless the City of Palm Springs. Notwithstanding the foregoing,the City retains the right to settle or abandon the matter without the applicant's consent but should it do so, the City shall waive the indemnification herein, except, the City's decision to settle or abandon a matter following an adverse judgement or failure to appeal, shall not cause a waiver of the indemnification rights herein. 3. Thatthe property owner(s)and successors and assignees in interest shall maintain and repair the improvements including and without limitation sidewalks, parking areas, landscape, irrigation, lighting, signs, walls, and fences between the curb and property line, including sidewalk easement areas that extend onto private property, in a first class condition, free from waste and debris, and in accordance with all applicable law, rules, ordinances and regulations of all federal, state, and local bodies and agencies having jurisdiction at the property owner's sole expense. This condition shall be included in the recorded covenant agreement for the property if required by the City. 10C 5 4. This project shall be subject to Chapters 2.24 and 3.37 of the Municipal Code regarding public art. The project shall either provide public art or payment of an in lieu fee. In the case of the in-lieu fee, the fee shall be based upon the total building permit valuation as calculated pursuant to the valuation table in the Uniform Building Code, the feeing being 1/2% for commercial projects or 1/4%for residential projects with first$100,000 of total building permit valuation for individual single-family units exempt. Should the public art be located on the project site, said location shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Planning and Zoning and the Public Arts Commission, and the property owner shall enter into a recorded agreement to maintain the art work and protect the public rights of access and viewing. Final Design 5. Final landscaping, irrigation, exterior lighting, and fencing plans shall be submitted for approval by the Department of Planning and Zoning prior to issuance of a building permit. Landscape plans shall be approved by the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner's Office prior to submittal. Mature landscaping shall be required adjacent to the single family residences on the north and east property lines. The applicant shall work with the City Engineer regarding the LED pedestrian crossing, as part of the final PD. 6. An eight foot tall decorative block wall shall be required to be constructed along the north and east property line, adjacent to existing single family residences. 7. Covered parking, in the form of carports, may be included as part of the Final Development Plans GENERAL CONDITIONS/CODE REQUIREMENTS 8. The project is subject to the City of Palm Springs Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. The applicant shall submit an application for Final Landscape Document Package to the Director of Planning and Zoning for review and approval prior to the issuance of a building permit. Refer to Chapter 8.60 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 9. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Fugitive Dust and Erosion Control Plan shall be submitted and approved by the Building Official. Refer to Chapter 8.50 of the Municipal Code for specific requirements. 10. The grading plan shall show the disposition of all cut and fill materials. Limits of site disturbance shall be shown and all disturbed areas shall be fully restored or landscaped. 11. Drainage swales shall be provided adjacent to all curbs and sidewalks-3'wide and 6" deep. The irrigation system shall be field tested prior to final approval of the project. Section 14.24.020 of the Municipal Code prohibits nuisance water from entering the public streets, roadways or gutters. 12. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Engineering specifications. 13. Perimeter walls shall be designed, installed and maintained in compliance with the corner cutback requirements as required in Section 9302.00.D. fflcf 14. The design, height, texture and color of fences and walls shall be submitted for review and approval prior to issuance of building permits. 15. An exterior lighting plan in accordance with Zoning Ordinance Section 93.21.00, Outdoor Lighting Standards, shall be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning & Zoning prior to the issuance of building permits. Manufacturer's cut sheets of all exterior lighting on the building, in the landscaping, and in the parking lot shall be submitted for approval prior to issuance of a building permit. If lights are proposed to be mounted on buildings, down-lights shall be utilized. A photometric study shall be required for all parking areas, driveways and entries. Final light fixture height shall be reviewed with neighbors and subject to Planning Commission approval. 16. Parking lot lightfixtures shall align with stall striping and shall be located two to three feet from curb face. 17. No outside storage of any kind shall be permitted except as approved as a part of the proposed plan. 18. Prior to the issuance of grading or other permits, locations of all telephone and electrical boxes must be indicated on the grading plans and must be completely screened and located in the interior of the site. Electrical transformers must be located toward the interior of the project maintaining a sufficient distance from the frontage(s) of the project. Said transformer(s) must be adequately and decoratively screened. Parking 19. Parking stalls shall be delineated with a 4 to 6 inch double stripe - hairpin or elongated "Ll" design. Individual wheel stops shall be prohibited; a continuous 6" barrier curb shall provide wheel stops. 20. Concrete walks with a minimum width of two(2)feet shall be installed adjacent to end parking spaces or end spaces shall be increased to eleven (11)feet wide. 21. Tree wells shall be provided within the parking lot and shall have a planting area of six feet in diameter/width. 22. Standard parking spaces shall be 17 feet deep by 9 feet wide; compact sized spaces shall be 15 feet deep by 8 feet wide. Handicap parking spaces shall be 18 feet deep by 9 feet wide plus a 5 foot walkway at the right side of the parking space; two (2) handicap spaces can share a common walkway. One in every eight (8) handicap accessible spaces, but not less than one (1), shall be served by an 8 foot walkway on the right side and shall be designated as "van accessible". 23. Handicapped accessibility shall be indicated on the site plan to include the location of handicapped parking spaces, the main entrance to the proposed structure and the path of travel to the main entrance. Consideration shall be given to potential difficulties with the handicapped accessibility to the building due to the future grading plans for the property. 24. Compact and handicapped spaces shall be appropriately marked per Section 9306.00C 10. /D C SO` 25. Curbs shall be installed at a minimum of five (5)feet from face of walls,fences, buildings, or other structures. Areas that are not part of the maneuvering area shall have curbs placed at a minimum of two (2) feet from the face of walls, fences or buildings adjoining driveways. POLICE DEPARTMENT: 26. Developer shall comply with Section II of Chapter 8.04 of the Palm Springs Municipal Code. BUILDING DEPARTMENT: 27. Prior to any construction on-site, all appropriate permits must be secured. ENGINEERING: The Engineering Division recommends that if this application is approved, such approval is subject to the following conditions being completed in compliance with City standards and ordinances. Before final acceptance of the project,all conditions listed below shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. STREETS 28. Any improvements within the public right-of-way require a City of Palm Springs Encroachment Permit. 29. Submit street improvement plans prepared by a Registered Civil Engineer to the Engineering Division. The plan(s)shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. MELAVENUE 30. Dedicate an additional right-of-way of 5 feet to provide the ultimate half street right-of-way width of 25 feet across that portion of the property identified as APN 507-061-005 and APN 507-061-006. 31. Dedicate an easement 2 feet wide along the back of the proposed driveway approaches for sidewalk purposes. 32. Construct a 14 feetwide entrance driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No.201.The centerline of the entrance driveway approach shall be located approximately 167 feet west of the east property line, as shown on the approved site plan. The entrance driveway shall be gated and signed to restrict access to ingress only. 33. Construct an exit driveway approach in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No.201.The centerline of the exit approach shall be located approximately 165 feet east of the west property line,as shown on the approved site plan.The final design of the exit driveway approach shall be subject to approval by the Fire Marshall. The exit driveway shall /O C 4 be gated and signed to restrict access to egress only. 34. All proposed trees along the proposed exit driveway approach shall allow 13.5 feet of vertical clearance for emergency Fire Department vehicle access. 35. Construct a 5 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. 36. Only one pedestrian crossing shall be allowed across Mel Avenue. The approved crossing point shall be the most easterly crosswalk as shown on the approved site plan. The pedestrian crossing shall be constructed as a raised, decorative concrete crosswalk, with pedestrian-activated in-pavement LED indicators,subjectto the approval of the City Engineer. The applicant shall with the City Engineer to explore other options, as part of Final Development plans. 37. The existing curb and gutter shall remain in place except for curb cuts necessary for the proposed driveway approaches. 38. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. CAMINO MONTE VISTA 39. Construct a 5 feet wide sidewalk behind the curb along the entire frontage in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 210. 40. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. THE PALMS 41. All broken or off grade street improvements shall be repaired or replaced. SEWER 42. The existing public sewer main within Avenida Palos Verdes (vacated) shall be maintained in place.New landscaping and lighting improvements requiring deep excavations orwhich will interfere with the City's maintenance and operation of the sewer main shall be relocated away from the existing sewer main, as required by the City Engineer. GRADING 43. Submit a Precise Grading Plan prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer or qualified Architect to the Engineering Division for review and approval. A PM 10 (dust control) Plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Building Department prior to approval of the Precise Grading plan. The Precise Grading Plan shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. Minimum submittal includes the following: A. Copy of signed Conditions of Approval from Planning Department. /oc7 B. Copy of Site Plan stamped approved and signed by the Planning Department. C. Copy of current Title Report D. Copy of Hydrology Study 44. A National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System(NPDES)stormwater permit,issued from the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Phone No. 760-346-7491) is required for the proposed development. A copy of the executed permit shall be provided to the City Engineer prior to approval of a Grading Plan. 45. In accordance with City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, Section 8.50.025(c),the developer shall post with the City a cash bond of two thousand dollars ($2,000.00) per acre for mitigation measures of erosion/blowsand relating to his property and development. 46. The area in which this project is situated is indicative of desert soil conditions found in many areas of Palm Springs. The Engineering Division does not require a soils report. This does not mean that subterranean conditions unknown at this time may not affect construction done on this site. 47. Contact the Building Department to get information regarding the preparation of the PM10 (dust control) plan requirements. 48. In cooperation with the Riverside County Agricultural Commissioner and the California Department of Food and Agriculture Red Imported Fire Ant Project, applicants for grading permits involving a grading plan and involving the export of soil will be required to present a clearance document from a Department of Food and Agriculture representative in the form of an approved "Notification of Intent To Move Soil From or Within Quarantined Areas of Orange, Riverside, and Los Angeles Counties' (RIFA Form CA-1) prior to approval of the Grading Plan. The California Department of Food and Agriculture office is located at 73-710 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert (Phone: 760-776-8208). DRAINAGE 49. All stormwater runoff passing through and falling onto the site shall be accepted and conveyed to an approved drainage system (if available). On-site retention/detention or other facilities approved by the City Engineer shall be required if off-site drainage systems are unavailable or cannot contain the increased stormwater runoff generated by the development of the property. Provide a hydrology study to determine if the increased stormwater runoff due to development of the site exceeds the capacity of offsite drainage systems (if any exist),and to determine required stormwater runoff mitigation measures for the proposed development. Final detention/retention basin sizing and other stormwater runoff mitigation measures shall be determined upon review and approval of the hydrology study by the City Engineer and may require redesign or changes to site configuration or layout consistent with the findings of the final hydrology study. 50. The off-site stormwater runoff historically outlet along the north property line across this property shall be accepted and conveyed across the property in a manner acceptable to the City Engineer. A Hydrology Study shall be prepared that considers the runoff generated off- site and conveyed from Camino Monte Vista through the adjacent property to an existing /0 G 8' retention basin with overflow onto the project site. 51. The project may be subject to unpaid flood control and drainage implementation fees. The acreage drainage fee at the present time is$9,212 per acre per Resolution No. 15189. Fees shall be paid prior to issuance of a grading permit. If the developer can demonstrate prior payment of applicable drainage fees, the developer can receive credit towards required drainage fees. ON-SITE 52. The minimum pavement section for all on-site parking areas shall be 2-1/2 inch asphalt concrete pavement over 4-inch aggregate base with a minimum subgrade of 24 inches at 95% relative compaction, or equal. If an alternative pavement section is proposed, the proposed pavement section shall be designed by a California registered Geotechnical Engineer using "R" values from the project site and submitted to the City Engineer for approval. GENERAL 53. Any utility trenches or other excavations within existing asphalt concrete pavement of off-site streets required by the proposed development shall be backfilled and repaired in accordance with City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 115. 54. All proposed utility lines shall be installed underground. 55. All existing utilities shall be shown on the grading/street plans. The existing and proposed service laterals shall be shown from the main line to the property line. 56. The original improvement plans prepared forthe proposed development and approved by the City Engineer shall be documented with record drawing"as-built'information and returned to the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Any modifications or changes to approved improvement plans shall be submitted to the City Engineerfor approval prior to construction. 57. In accordance with Chapter 8.04.401 of the City of Palm Springs Municipal Code, all existing and proposed electrical lines of thirty-five thousand volts or less and overhead service drop conductors,and all gas,telephone,television cable service,and similarservice wires or lines, which are on-site,abutting,and/ortransecting,shall be installed underground unless specific restrictions are shown in General Orders 95 and 125 of the California Public Utilities Commission, and service requirements published by the utilities. The existing overhead utilities located along the north property line and across the center of the project site meet the requirement to be installed underground. The developer is advised to investigate the nature of these utilities,the availability of undergrounding these utilities with respect to adjacent and off-site properties, and to present its case for a waiver of the Municipal Code requirement, if appropriate, to the Planning Commission and/or City Council as part of its review and approval of this project. /o c If utility undergrounding is deferred in accordance with specific direction by the Planning Commission and/or City Council, the record property owner shall enter into a covenant agreeing to underground all of the existing overhead utilities required by the Municipal Code in the future upon request of the City of Palm Springs City Engineer at such time as deemed necessary. The covenant shall be executed and notarized by the property owner and submitted to the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. A current title report; or a copy of a current tax bill and a copy of a vesting grant deed shall be provided to verify current property ownership. 58. Contact Whitewater Mutual Water Company to determine impacts to any existing water lines and other facilities that may be located within the project. Make appropriate arrangements to protect in place or relocate any existing Whitewater Mutual Water Company facilities that are impacted by the development. A letter of approval for relocated or adjusted facilities from Whitewater Mutual Water Company shall be submitted to the Engineering Division prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 59. Nothing shall be constructed or planted in the public right-of-way adjacent to any driveway which does or will exceed the height required to maintain an appropriate sight distance per City of Palm Springs Zoning Code Section 93.02.00, D. 60. All proposed trees within the public right-of-way and within 10 feet of the public sidewalk and/or curb shall have City approved deep root barriers installed per City of Palm Springs Standard Drawing No. 904. TRAFFIC 61. A minimum of 48 inches of sidewalk clearance shall be provided around all street furniture, fire hydrants and other above-ground facilities for handicap accessibility.The developer shall provide same through dedication of additional right-of-way and widening of the sidewalk or shall be responsible for the relocation of all existing conduit, pull boxes and all appurtenances located on the Mel Avenue and Camino Monte Vista frontages of the subject property. 62. Construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be provided for on all projects as required by City Standards oras directed bythe City Engineer.As a minimum,all construction signing, lighting and barricading shall be in accordance with State of California, Department of Transportation, "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones" dated 1996, or subsequent additions in force at the time of construction. 63. This property is subject to the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee which shall be paid prior to issuance of building permit. /OG /v