ATTACHMENT C
Letter from Appellants
APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL
Major Development Permit – 82-Unit Affordable Housing Project 305 W San Rafael Drive, Palm Springs, CA 92262
December 1, 2025
Via Email
City Clerk
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Appeal of Planning Commission Approval — Major Development Permit for Affordable Housing Development at 305 W San Rafael Drive Planning Commission Action Date: November 18, 2025
Case No.: DP 2025-0011
I. INTRODUCTION AND STANDING
This letter constitutes a timely appeal of the Planning Commission’s November 18, 2025 approval of a major development permit, density bonus, associated incentives/waivers, and CEQA determinations authorizing construction of an 82-unit, 100% affordable housing development at 305 W San Rafael Drive (the “Project”).
Appellants are:
● William Gordon Phillips, owner of 282 W Santa Catalina Road ● Linda and Cyrous Sacket, owners of 262 W Santa Catalina Road Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0 Both properties are located immediately south of the Project site and are directly affected by the approved Project’s height, massing, privacy, environmental, and cumulative impacts. Appellants qualify as “affected parties” with standing under Palm Springs Municipal Code (PSMC) Chapter 2.05. This appeal is filed within the applicable statutory appeal period.
II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND APPROVAL BEING
APPEALED
The approved Project includes:
● Three multifamily buildings containing 82 income-restricted units; ● Three-story massing immediately adjacent to existing residential properties;
● Approximately 137 parking spaces;
● Multiple waivers and concessions under Gov. Code § 65915 et seq. (State Density Bonus Law);
● A CEQA exemption or limited environmental review; and ● Authorization of increased height and density beyond the scale historically associated with the R-2 zoning district.
Appellants hereby appeal the entirety of the Planning Commission’s decision, including all findings, approvals, incentives, waivers, and environmental determinations.
III. GROUNDS FOR APPEAL
A. Unmitigated Nuisance and Adverse Health/Welfare Impact from New Height ⚖
Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0 The Planning Commission's approval of a three-story structure immediately adjacent to established single-family residences constitutes the creation of a permanent and unmitigated private nuisance. This vertical encroachment results in a substantial and highly offensive invasion of Appellants' property rights, specifically interfering with the free use and comfortable enjoyment of their homes and private yards. The elevated vantage point of the three-story massing creates unavoidable direct and diagonal sightlines into private, protected areas, including pool enclosures and interior living spaces, resulting in an unreasonable and actionable invasion of privacy. This condition is more than a mere diminution of view; it is a profound and ongoing intrusion that threatens the peace, repose, and security of the adjacent property owners. This significant, detrimental alteration of the neighborhood character and the resulting intrusion is so severe and unavoidable that it rises to the level of adversely affecting the public health, safety, and general welfare of the families residing there, thereby violating fundamental planning principles requiring compatibility and the mitigation of significant project impacts. Because the impact is both unavoidable and unmitigable at the approved three-story height, the approval is contrary to the required findings of the Municipal Code and must be reversed.
B. Significant Privacy Impacts
Because the Project site directly abuts an established single-family neighborhood, any three-story massing—regardless of its placement on the site—creates direct and diagonal sightlines into private backyards and pool areas on Santa Catalina Road, resulting in unavoidable and unmitigable privacy intrusion.
Given the site’s geometry and relative grade, setbacks, landscaping, or relocating the third story elsewhere on the site cannot eliminate these impacts. A maximum height of two stories across the entire site is the only feasible mitigation that protects adjacent residential privacy.
Despite these predictable impacts, the approval does not require:
● increased setbacks;
● opaque balcony materials or privacy fins;
Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0 ● mature landscaping or screening; or
● any reduction to the height envelope.
The absence of such measures, combined with the approval of three-story massing, results in significant unmitigated privacy impacts to adjacent homes.
C. Illegal Siting and Encroachment of the Multi-Family Refuse Enclosure The approved site plan places the high-volume, multi-unit refuse enclosure directly against, or very near to, the Appellants' boundary wall, a condition that violates multiple provisions of the Municipal Code and Building Codes:
● Violation of Setback and Siting Standards: Commercial-scale refuse enclosures must be sited to minimize nuisance impacts and typically require substantial setbacks from adjacent single-family zones. A near zero-lot-line placement maximizes noise, odor, and vermin risks, creating a clear and immediate health and safety nuisance that is explicitly discouraged or prohibited by city planning principles.
● Unmitigated Health Nuisance: The proximity of a high-volume trash operation creates an unavoidable, unmitigable health nuisance due to the proliferation of odor, liquid waste, and pests, which directly infringes on the Appellants' right to the quiet enjoyment of their property.
D. Illegal Structural Encroachment on Appellants' Private Property The developer's plan to utilize the Appellants' privately-owned boundary wall as a structural or perimeter component for the entire complex is a severe and illegal structural encroachment and a clear violation of property rights. The developer has a duty to construct all necessary boundary, retaining, and facility walls entirely within their own parcel. This unauthorized and unpermitted reliance on the adjacent private property for structural support for any component of the multi-family development—whether for a carport, an amenity structure, or the Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0 primary perimeter—is a fundamental trespass and an assumption of property rights the developer does not possess. Any site plan that explicitly allows or requires the use of adjacent private property to complete a required development component fails to protect private property rights as required by the Municipal Code.
E. Overconcentration of Income-Restricted Housing and Social Services in the Immediate Area
The immediate vicinity already contains a substantial concentration of income-restricted affordable housing developments, as reflected in the City’s 2025 affordable housing inventory. Within approximately a 1–1.5 mile radius are numerous subsidized projects, including:
● Vista Sunrise and Vista Sunrise II (approximately 140 units combined – permanent supportive housing for special-needs populations). ● Monarch Apartments (60 units – approved 2024)
● Aloe Palm Canyon (71 units)
● Multiple additional LIHTC and affordable developments Moreover, the Palm Springs Navigation Center, located at 3589 McCarthy Road, lies less than half a mile from the Project site and serves as the City’s primary hub for homeless navigation services, case management, and temporary sheltering.
Adding another 82 units of 100% income-restricted housing further intensifies an already disproportionate concentration of subsidized housing and social-service uses in this single neighborhood.
The Planning Commission’s approval contains no analysis of:
● equitable geographic distribution of affordable housing; ● cumulative impacts associated with this clustering;
● neighborhood stability and compatibility concerns;
● fair-share planning principles; or
Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0 ● General Plan policies discouraging concentration of special-needs housing in one area.
This omission is significant and inconsistent with CEQA and accepted planning practice.
F. Improper or Overbroad Application of Density Bonus Law Nothing in the record demonstrates that the Project cannot meet its affordable housing objectives within a two-story configuration. The Density Bonus Law provides waivers only when development standards would “physically preclude” construction of the affordable units. (Gov. Code § 65915(e).) A two-story alternative could clearly accommodate the unit count through reasonable adjustments to site layout, footprint, unit mix, or density. The City was required to evaluate such feasible alternatives before approving height waivers that create unmitigable privacy impacts.
The record contains no substantial evidence that:
● a two-story maximum would physically preclude construction of the 82 units;
● a reduced height envelope or step-down was infeasible; ● alternative massing or site plans were evaluated; or ● three-story construction was physically necessary.
Granting full three-story height waivers without evaluating less intrusive alternatives is inconsistent with § 65915(e).
G. Insufficient Findings Under the Palm Springs Municipal Code Required findings concerning:
Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0 ● compatibility with surrounding development,
● protection of public health, safety, and welfare,
● consistency with the General Plan, and
● mitigation of impacts on adjacent properties
are not supported by substantial evidence, given the Project’s height, scale, cumulative impacts, and unmitigated privacy issues.
H. Inadequate Environmental Review (CEQA)
Reliance on a categorical exemption or limited environmental review is improper due to:
● unusual circumstances (three-story massing adjacent to single-family homes);
● privacy, shading, and visual impacts;
● cumulative impacts from nearby affordable housing and the Navigation Center;
● circulation and parking considerations; and
● lack of alternatives analysis.
These factors require fuller CEQA evaluation.
I. Architectural and Design Compatibility Issues
The Project’s design does not reflect the architectural character associated with Palm Springs, including building scale, massing, articulation, and contextual Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0 design. These issues are relevant to the major development permit findings and should have been addressed prior to approval.
IV. REQUESTED RELIEF
Appellants respectfully request that the City Council:
1. Grant this appeal and set aside or modify the Planning Commission approval.
2. Require redesign of the Project to a maximum height of two (2) stories across the entire site.
The R-2 district is intended for low-density development, and no substantial evidence shows that a two-story configuration would physically preclude construction of the project. Given the direct adjacency to single-family backyards and outdoor living areas, any three-story element—anywhere on the site—creates direct or diagonal sightlines that cannot be feasibly mitigated.
3. Require revised plans demonstrating:
a. A feasible two-story configuration;
b. Revised massing or layout appropriate to the neighborhood context; c. Increased setbacks along the southern boundary;
d. Robust privacy mitigation (landscape buffers, screened balconies, window placement);
e. Architectural revisions consistent with Palm Springs design standards.
4. Require appropriate CEQA review, including analysis of privacy, shading, visual, traffic, and cumulative impacts and feasible alternatives to the approved height.
Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0
5. Ensure that ARC review includes binding, enforceable conditions addressing height, massing, privacy, and design compatibility.
V. RESERVATION OF RIGHTS
Appellants reserve all rights to supplement or amend this appeal after reviewing the administrative record and to pursue all remedies available under CEQA, State Density Bonus Law, and the Palm Springs Municipal Code.
VI. CONCLUSION
Appellants support the City’s efforts to expand affordable housing, provided such development is appropriately scaled, compatible with its surroundings, and consistent with applicable law. As approved, the Project does not adequately address issues of height, massing, privacy, cumulative impacts, or neighborhood and design compatibility.
Appellants respectfully request that the City Council grant this appeal and require modifications consistent with the concerns and evidence presented.
A citywide commitment to affordable housing does not diminish the City’s responsibility to protect adjacent homeowners from avoidable and unmitigated privacy intrusions. For this site, given its direct adjacency to single-family backyards and outdoor living areas, a two-story maximum height across the entire Project site is the only feasible and reasonable mitigation that protects residential privacy and neighborhood compatibility.
Respectfully submitted,
William Gordon Phillips
Owner, 282 W Santa Catalina Road
Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Linda Sacket
Owner, 262 W Santa Catalina Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Cyrous Sacket
Owner, 262 W Santa Catalina Road
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Docusign Envelope ID: 59EEA1F0-8B31-4D55-B6A2-4623C7C0E1B0
Linda Sacket 262 W. Santa Catalina Rd. Palm Springs, CA 92262 [email protected] 818-933-1111 December 14, 2025 City of Palm Springs Planning Commission 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92262 Re: DP 25-0011 – 305 W. San Rafael Avenue
Concerns: Required Public Notice Not Provided; CEQA Exemption Improper;
General
Plan
Inconsistency;
Privacy/Nuisance/Health
violations:
AFFH
obligations;
Lack
of
Supporting
Evidence
To the City of Palm Springs:
This letter is submitted on behalf of affected neighbors to formally object to the Planning Commission’s
approval
of
Development
Permit
DP
25-0011
and
the
use
of
a
Class
32 CEQA
exemption.
After
reviewing
the
staff
reports
and
noticing
file,
it
is
clear
that
the
approval
suffers
from
several
major
legal
defects:
1. The City did not provide the mailed public notice required by State law , which means
the
hearing
was
not
legally
conducted.
2. The Class 32 CEQA exemption was applied without the evidence or findings required
for
its
use
,
and
the
project
does
not
meet
several
mandatory
criteria.
3. The State Density Bonus does not allow development that creates health, safety, or
nuisance
impacts
nor
does
it
mandate
automatic
approval
of
height
increases
that
directly
harm
adjacent
homes.
4. The siting of the project contributes to an unlawful overconcentration of affordable
housing
in
a
single
neighborhood.
5. The plans have errors, omissions and additional problems that were not disclosed or
discussed
during
the
approval.
Any of these issues on its own requires the City to withdraw the approval and rehear the project.
Together,
they
leave
no
lawful
basis
for
the
decision
to
stand.
I. REQUIRED MAILED NOTICE WAS NOT PROVIDED
A. State law requires mailed notice to all nearby property owners Government Code section 65091 requires cities to send mailed notice to all property owners within
300
feet
whenever
a
Planning
Commission
holds
a
public
hearing
on
a
discretionary
land-use
request.
This
rule
applies
to
development
permits,
density
bonus
requests,
CEQA
exemptions,
and
any
similar
approvals
that
the
project
requires.
This is not optional. It is the basic due-process protection for people who live next to a proposed project.
B. The City did not mail any notices for this hearing The noticing file for DP 25-0011 contains:
• no affidavit of mailing
•
no
list
of
property
owners
•
no
mailing
labels
•
no
proof
of
service
•
no
evidence
that
any
notices
were
sent
Multiple adjacent homeowners confirm they received nothing.
This is not a case where “someone didn’t check their mailbox.” There is no evidence that any notices
were
mailed
at
all.
This requirement exists even when no zoning change is proposed, because discretionary approvals
may
still
substantially
affect
neighboring
properties.
A
multi-story,
high-density
development
adjacent
to
existing
single-family
homes
is
precisely
the
type
of
project
for
which
notice
is
required.
C. A public hearing without the required mailed notice is not valid California courts have been clear: if a city does not send the mailed notice required by State law,
the
hearing
is
not
legally
valid
.
The
Planning
Commission
does
not
have
authority
to
act
without
following
the
noticing
requirements.
Because the City did not provide the required notice:
• the Planning Commission did not have jurisdiction to approve the project;
•
the
CEQA
determination
adopted
at
the
hearing
is
invalid;
and
•
the
approval
must
be
reheard
after
lawful
notice
is
provided.
D. CEQA also requires proper public notice
CEQA requires public notice before a lead agency adopts an exemption at a public hearing.
Because
the
City
did
not
send
mailed
notice,
the
CEQA
exemption
is
also
invalid
for
that
reason
alone.
II. THE CLASS 32 CEQA EXEMPTION WAS APPLIED
IMPROPERLY
Even if the hearing had been legally noticed (it was not), the Class 32 exemption still cannot be used
here.
The
City’s
own
documents
do
not
contain
the
evidence
needed
to
support
the
findings
required
for
this
exemption.
A. The project exceeds the General Plan’s maximum density A Class 32 exemption requires full consistency with the General Plan. The site’s General Plan density
limit
is
15 units
per
acre
.
The
project
proposes
19.2 units
per
acre
.
This is simply not consistent.
Density
Bonus
Law
does
not
allow
a
project
to
exceed
General
Plan
density
limits.
Because the project is not consistent with the General Plan, the City cannot use a Class 32 exemption.
B. No traffic, VMT, or cumulative impact analysis was conducted The City must show that the project will not create traffic or cumulative impacts. But the staff report
contains:
• no traffic study
•
no
Vehicle
Miles
Traveled
(VMT)
analysis
•
no
parking
spillover
analysis
•
no
cumulative
impact
review
•
no
supporting
data
of
any
kind
CEQA requires actual evidence, not assumptions. There is none here.
C. The claim that the project is near a “major transit stop” is unsupported
Staff repeatedly relies on the idea that the site is located near a major transit stop. But:
• Palm Springs does not have 15-minute bus service
•
No
staff
report
identifies
a
qualifying
stop
•
No
transit
data
is
included
in
the
record
Several of the City’s findings—parking reductions, traffic conclusions, and even some CEQA justifications—are
based
on
this
assumption.
Without
evidence,
the
finding
cannot
be
used.
D. Required off-site improvements disqualify the project from a Class 32 exemption
The project requires construction of off-site improvements, including:
• new curbs
•
new
gutters
•
new
sidewalks
•
potential
street
widening
Class 32 can only be used when impacts are limited to the project site. Off-site street work triggers
impacts
outside
the
property
boundary,
which
means
the
exemption
cannot
be
used.
E. The area surrounding the site is not 75% urbanized Class 32 requires the project to be surrounded by urban development on at least 75% of its perimeter.
But
the
City’s
own
staff
report
states
that
one
side
of
the
site
is
vacant
land
,
which
does
not
qualify
as
urbanized.
Another
side
is
industrial.
This
requirement
is
not
met.
F. The project presents “unusual circumstances” that prevent the use of
any
CEQA
exemption
The project includes characteristics that make it unusual for this location:
• a 31.3-foot-tall building next to single-family homes
•
a
height
exceeding
zoning
limits
by
11 feet
•
density
far
above
the
surrounding
pattern
•
massing
out
of
scale
with
nearby
properties
These factors create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects and therefore prevent
any
CEQA
exemption
from
being
used.
III. THE PROPOSED THIRD STORY CREATES SIGNIFICANT
PRIVACY,
NUISANCE,
AND
HEALTH
IMPACTS
FOR
NEARBY
FAMILIES,
AND
THE
STATE
DENSITY
BONUS
DOES
NOT
AUTHORIZE
THESE
IMPACTS
In addition to the legal deficiencies in noticing and CEQA compliance, the project’s proposed third
story
raises
severe
and
unaddressed
concerns
related
to
privacy,
nuisance,
child
health,
and
neighborhood
compatibility.
The
staff
reports
do
not
contain
any
analysis
of
these
impacts,
despite
the
fact
that
the
third
floor
would
directly
overlook
the
private
rear
yards,
play
areas,
and
living
spaces
of
adjoining
homes.
This is not theoretical. Families adjacent to the project site include seniors , toddlers and an 11-year-old
granddaughter
who
actively
use
their
yards
for
daily
play,
supervision,
learning,
and
outdoor
activity.
The
addition
of
a
third
story
introduces
new
and
intrusive
sightlines,
noise
exposure,
lighting
glare,
and
massing
impacts
that
will
fundamentally
change
how
these
families
use
their
outdoor
space,
and
severely
compromise
the
physical
and
mental
health
of
residents.
These impacts were not studied, not mitigated, and not acknowledged.
A. A Third Story Is Not Typical or Compatible With the Surrounding Pattern
The surrounding neighborhood consists primarily of one- and two-story homes. Even the multifamily
buildings
in
the
area
do
not
include
a
31-foot-tall
mass
directly
abutting
single-family
yards.
Introducing
a
third
story
at
this
location
is
a
significant
departure
from
existing
character
and
creates
immediate
privacy
and
nuisance
impacts.
B. The City Conducted No Analysis of Privacy, Shading, or Family-Well-Being
Impacts
The staff report does not include:
● privacy impact evaluation ● Sightline analysis ● Massing diagrams ● Noise analysis ● Discussion of impacts to families with small children ● Any mitigation or design modifications CEQA requires the City to consider whether a project could cause significant privacy, aesthetic, noise,
or
child-health
impacts—especially
when
the
project
represents
an
unusual
circumstance
,
as
this
one
does.
C. The Third Story Creates Direct and Foreseeable Nuisance and Health
Impacts
The third-floor units and balconies would enable residents to look directly into:
● children’s play areas
● bedrooms and living rooms of adjacent homes
● backyards used for daily activity and recreation ● private family spaces that have never been subject to such intrusion
For families with toddlers and an 11-year-old, predictable consequences include:
● reduced outdoor play due to loss of privacy
● increased parental stress and supervision burden ● inability to comfortably use yards
● decreased sense of safety and well-being
These are not aesthetic preferences. They are tangible nuisance and health impacts that cities are
obligated
to
prevent.
D. The State Density Bonus Does Not Override the City’s Duty to Prevent
These
Impacts
The City may attempt to argue that the State Density Bonus (Gov. Code §65915) forces acceptance
of
a
third
story.
That
is
inaccurate.
Density Bonus Law:
● does not override the General Plan
● does not allow development that creates health, safety, or nuisance impacts ● does not require approval of height increases that directly harm adjacent homes ● does not eliminate the City’s police-power obligation to protect public welfare ● does not waive CEQA requirements or eliminate “unusual circumstances” analysis
1. Density Bonus incentives cannot violate public health or create nuisances
The City retains full authority to prevent height, massing, or design features that create:
● privacy intrusions
● nuisance conditions
● unsafe or unhealthy living environments for neighbors
Density Bonus Law does not convert the City into a mandatory rubber stamp.
2. Privacy and child-safety impacts are legitimate, objective grounds for modifying
a
proposed
incentive
Impacts on families raising young children—including intrusion into backyards, play areas, and bedrooms—are
valid
planning
considerations.
They
fall
squarely
within
the
City’s
continued
authority
to
condition
or
modify
incentives
to
prevent
unreasonable
impacts.
3. CEQA “unusual circumstances” analysis blocks use of Density Bonus as a
shield
Even if Density Bonus incentives apply, CEQA still prohibits reliance on an exemption where unusual
circumstances
create
a
reasonable
possibility
of
significant
effects.
A
three-story
mass
directly
overlooking
single-family
yards
is
exactly
that
type
of
unusual
circumstance.
4. Height increases must still be evaluated with evidence, conditions, and alternatives
The City cannot rely on Density Bonus Law to bypass privacy mitigation.
The City must show—through analysis, not assumption—that the third story does not cause harm.
The
current
record
contains
no
such
analysis.
E. Conclusion
The third story, as proposed, creates unavoidable privacy, nuisance, and health impacts on neighboring
families.
No
study,
mitigation,
or
justification
has
been
provided.
And
Density
Bonus
Law
does
not
compel
approval
of
a
height
increase
that
causes
these
foreseeable
harms.
For these reasons, and in addition to the noticing and CEQA defects, the City must require removal
or
major
redesign
of
the
third
story
as
part
of
any
reconsideration
of
the
project.
IV. THE PROJECT CONTRIBUTES TO AN UNLAWFUL
OVERCONCENTRATION
OF
AFFORDABLE
HOUSING,
VIOLATING
FAIR
HOUSING
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE
LAWS
The City’s decision to site this project in a neighborhood that already hosts a significant portion of
the
City's
affordable
housing
is
not
merely
a
policy
dispute;
it
is
a
violation
of
state
and
federal
mandates
to
distribute
housing
opportunities
equitably.
By
clustering
low-income
housing
in
this
specific
corridor
while
higher-opportunity
areas
remain
untouched,
the
City
is
failing
its
legal
obligations
under
Affirmatively
Furthering
Fair
Housing
(AFFH)
and
CEQA
Environmental
Justice
principles.
A. Violation of the Duty to “Affirmatively Further Fair Housing” (Gov.
Code
§65583)
Under California’s Housing Element Law (Gov. Code §65583(c)(10)), the City is legally required to
“affirmatively
further
fair
housing”
(AFFH).
This
statutory
obligation
mandates
that
cities
take
meaningful
actions
to
overcome
patterns
of
segregation
and
foster
inclusive
communities.
1. Duty to Distribute, Not Concentrate : AFFH requires the City to distribute affordable housing
opportunities
throughout
the
community,
rather
than
concentrating
them
in
neighborhoods
that
already
bear
a
disproportionate
share.
2. Prima Facie Violation : If Palm Springs continues to approve low-income developments in
this
same
concentrated
area,
it
provides
prima
facie
evidence
that
the
City
is
failing
to
meet
its
AFFH
obligation.
3. Federal Alignment: This state requirement aligns with federal HUD guidance, which states
that
local
governments
"may
not
cluster
low-income
housing
in
a
manner
that
perpetuates
segregation
or
disproportionately
burdens
specific
neighborhoods."
B. CEQA Prohibits Actions That Exacerbate Environmental Inequity Since
2016,
CEQA
has
explicitly
incorporated
Environmental
Justice
(EJ)
principles.
Agencies
are
required
to
evaluate
whether
a
project
"exacerbates
existing
environmental
burdens
on
disadvantaged
communities"
or
neighborhoods
already
impacted
by
pollution,
traffic,
or
density.
1. Disproportionate Burden : By placing yet another high-density project in a neighborhood
that
has
arguably
already
absorbed
its
"fair
share,"
the
City
is
creating
a
concentration
of
impacts—including
traffic,
noise,
shadowing,
and
infrastructure
load.
2. Failure of the Exemption : The City attempted to bypass this analysis by using a Class 32 Exemption.
However,
a
Class
32 Exemption
prohibits
the
analysis
of
cumulative
burdens.
By
using
an
exemption,
the
City
is
actively
avoiding
its
duty
to
analyze
the
cumulative
environmental
justice
impact
of
this
concentration.
This
is
exactly
the
type
of
regulatory
avoidance
CEQA
was
designed
to
prevent.
C. State Density Bonus Law Does Not Override Fair Housing or Environmental
Justice
We
anticipate
the
City
may
argue
that
State
Density
Bonus
Law
compels
approval.
This
is
a
critical
legal
misunderstanding.
While
Density
Bonus
Law
provides
incentives
and
concessions
to
developers,
it
does
not:
1. Override the City’s obligation to AFFH (Gov. Code §65583); 2. Override the requirement to analyze cumulative impacts under CEQA; or 3. Authorize the clustering of affordable units in a single neighborhood. Density Bonus
Law
is
an
incentive
program,
not
a
shield
against
civil
rights
and
environmental
justice
laws.
The
City
cannot
use
the
Density
Bonus
as
an
excuse
to
ignore
the
inequitable
distribution
of
housing.
D. Overconcentration Invalidates the Class 32 Exemption Finally, this overconcentration
serves
as
a
fatal
legal
defect
for
the
CEQA
exemption
itself.
● Unusual Circumstances : The disproportionate clustering of affordable housing in
one
specific
corridor
constitutes
an
"unusual
circumstance"
under
Berkeley
Hillside.
● Cumulative Impacts : The addition of this project to an area with existing affordable
housing
creates
a
"cumulative
impact"
on
public
services,
traffic,
and
neighborhood
character.
● Result : Because Class 32 Exemptions cannot be used where there are cumulative
impacts
or
unusual
circumstances,
the
mere
fact
of
this
overconcentration
knocks
out
the
exemption.
The
approval
therefore
collapses.
Conclusion on Fair Housing: We are not opposing the creation of affordable housing. We are opposing
the
disproportionate
siting
that
stacks
projects
near
our
homes,
burdens
one
community
disproportionately,
and
avoids
distributing
affordable
housing
equitably
across
Palm
Springs.
This
pattern
violates
the
principles
of
equity,
fairness,
and
compliance
with
Housing
Element
law.
V.
INCOMPLETE,
MISLEADING
AND
PROBLEMATIC
PLANS
In addition to the issues presented above, the plans themselves are at times misleading, erroneous
and
could
present
further
issues.
● The plan elevations have wrong height notations. For example on the B-B cross section the
plans
note
a
Finished
Floor
(FF)
level
of
419.50.
This
is
wrong.
The
FF
height
appears
to
be
619.50.
This
is
more
than
2 feet
higher
than
the
neighboring
level.
Thus
exacerbating
the
overbearing
building
height
impact.
● The cross sections of the plans show inevitable drainage to the rear of the property, and consequent
drainage
into
the
single
family
residences
on
the
south
side.
The
plans
show
a
drainage
pit
that
directs
all
the
water
for
800
feet
along
the
rear
southern
section
with
a
12”
drop,
which
must
handle
runoff
from
an
area
of
approximately
90,000
sqft.
In
heavy
rains,
overflow
is
inevitable
and
excessive.
There
does
not
appear
to
be
any
adequate
sump
or
other
pump
to
handle
overflow
from
the
pit.
Engineering
hydrology
studies
and
plans
are
required.
● The plans include the adjacent southern private property wall and foliage as privacy features.
The
plans
should
have
a
privacy
wall
built
the
whole
length
of
the
southern
border,
plus
landscaped
tall
privacy
hedging
to
at
least
15 feet
height
located
on
the
project
property.
VI. REQUIRED REMEDIES
Because:
● The City failed to provide statutory mailed notice; ● The creation of unavoidable privacy, nuisance, and health impacts on neighboring families
● The Planning Commission lacked jurisdiction; ● The CEQA exemption is legally defective; ● The plans are misleading and problematic; ● The approval is inconsistent with the General Plan; and ● The record contains no substantial evidence;
…the City must:
1. Vacate the Planning commission approval of DP 25-0011 2. Withdraw the CEQA Class 32 exemption 3. Provide mailed notice in compliance with Government Code §65091 4. Conduct proper CEQA review, including traffic/VMT and cumulative analysis 5. Examine the plans for correct finished pad heights, non-inclusion of neighbor private
walls
and
plantings,
engineered
drainage
plans
and
stormwater
drainage.
Erect
story
poles
prior
to
the
noticed
meeting
for
proper
height
effect
evaluation.
6. Rehear the project before the Planning Commission at a lawfully noticed hearing.
These steps are necessary to restore transparency, protect the rights of affected residents, and ensure
that
the
review
process
complies
with
state
law.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your response.
Sincerely,
Linda Sacket
Cc. Palm Springs City Clerk - [email protected] Cc. Director of Planning Services - Christopher Hadwin - [email protected] Cc. Palm Springs Deputy City Clerk - Brent Rasi - [email protected] Cc. Palm Springs City Project Planner - Glen Mlaker. - [email protected]