Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1993 - MINUTES - 9/27/1993 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL MINUTES SEPTEMBER 27, 1993 A Special Meeting of the City Council of the City of Palm Springs, was called to order by Mayor Maryanov, in the Large Conference Room, City Hall, 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way, on Wednesday, September 27, 1993, at 7:30 p.m. ROLL CALL: Present: Councilmembers Lyons, Reller-Spurgin, Schlendorf and Mayor Maryanov Absent: Councilmember Hodges REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA: City Clerk reported that the call and notice for the meeting was done in accordance with Council procedures and the Brown Act for Special Meetings, on September 24, 1993. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Consistent with the City Council's policy, public comments permitted which related only to the item for which the meeting was called) a) The following persons spoke in support of the Council taking a position to endorse the amendment to the Act, thereby adding the Wilderness Area designation: Joan Taylor, representing the Sierra Club, noting that the conservation community takes some responsibility in not bringing this to the Council's attention sooner;and commenting on the historical efforts since the 1930s to secure the area for preservation and/or wilderness status. John Purcell, Secretary of the Friends of the Indian Canyons, noting the unique opportunity to protect one of the most unique and beautiful areas. Steve Nagel, U.S. Department of Interior,Bureau of Land Management,stated that Palm Hills is the heart of the Scenic Recreation Area established in 1990 for its natural heritage, i.e., the Big Horn Sheep, species and resources; that a checker board pattern will remain even if the wilderness designation is not applied, vis a vis the Scenic Designation, and it takes an act of Congress to remove lands within the Scenic designation. (144- Bill Helman, Desert Riders and C.V. Trails Council, spoke in favor. 001) Bill Byrne, Friends of Environment, stated that their position was clear at the time of the General Plan; that there is a lack of water in the area,with no significant amounts for any large scale development; and added that money is available to purchase private ownership. Elizabeth Green, Friends of Desert Mountains, noted that an initiative petition is being circulated to preserve and retain open space and wildlife. Pete Dangerman, consultant for Friends of the Indian Canyons, stated that he felt there is full recognition that the character of the area is wilderness; that the effort has been to preserve the palm oasis below and escrow recently closed on land acquisition last year; that the key to the oasis is water, and all of the area in the watershed is jeopardized by any reduction or change in the nutrient load or quantity of water; that if it is not wilderness, the ability to get money for future acquisition is reduced. He commented that thousands of people visit the canyons each year. The following persons spoke in opposition,and urged the Council oppose the amendment to the Act: Karen Aguilar, Vice-President of the Board of Realtors and Chair of the Economic Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, opposed taking of private land for wilderness designation,stated that it will give away the future of Palm Springs,in that this is the only area that provides for the city's future; and that there are the Indian Canyons and lots of other nice and beautifully natural areas already in preservation. Myra Goldwater, realtor and Palm Springs resident, stated that 70% of California was given in federal land ownership when the State was admitted, and while there are rights on both sides, there is ample land held in federal ownership and as wilderness, and she was confident the beauty of Palm Springs will remain,and private property interests must be considered. Council Minutes 9-27-93 Page 2 PUBLIC COMMENTS (Continued) Steve Lovekin, stated that he felt they dealt up-front on the General Plan update process and participated in that; that there is no outstanding BLM offer to his family for their property,as the BLM offer was rejected; that he feels the familly's land has been targeted and the effort is to stop development, and if that happens, nothing will be developed to the south of it, nor will anything ever get started; that he feels it is a sneak attack and gauged for that purpose; that had it been openly and timely considered,there would have been opposition and that effort would have been mobilized; that it would be very hard to convince a lender of a$750 million project to get any time to stalk about development if the area is designated wilderness; and that Council needs to give a resounding No to the amendment. Amy Forbes, attorney for the Lovekin family, stated that the Palm Hills General Plan compromise was achieved and everyone, including the environmentalist, were satisfied; that it allowed resort planning subject to specific plans,and other considerations stipulated as part of the General ]Plan process, including land exchange to create a consolidated preserve and permanent open space, that once designated, the checker board pattern cannot be undone; that the designation precludes any access, and prevents the natural negotiation process to occur. Charles Dooley, resident, urged Palm Springs respect what it has to offer, and not deny the privilege of going ahead with the General Plan consensus. Craig MacArthur, attorney representing O'Connor, stated that the major issue is access, and the complete prohibition of same is the area is designated wilderness, including specifically the four corners of Dunn Road in Section 6, and urged that the Council strongly oppose the action, and be outraged at the lateness of the request. Rick Stevens, Director of Planning for Q Companies (?), stated that the proposed amendment caught them off-guard, and the work of a decade is jeopardized in just a few days; that they have worked to consolidate private and public land ownerships so it is not more beneficial to one than to another, and to maintain the road alignment that best protects the sensitive habitat but respects the private ownership rights;that additional time is needed to illuminate these issues and consider that in the process of the General Plan Update for Palm Hills,all groups agreed on the blueprint for the future for the area, and there was no surprise that there were both conservationists and development interests;that the amendment does not balance these issues, rather simply wipes out that balance. Katrina Heinrich, spoke as a resident, and member of the Economic Development Committee of the Chamber of Commerce, expressed concern that such a major decision was being asked of the Council with only 2-3 days notice; that she understood the;County made a deal with the Sierra Club to not oppose the amendment if it did not oppose the Eagle Mountain project, and if there was any truth in that, there are consequences that might arise out of such decision making; that Palm Hills is the only area that will result in very low planned environmentally sensitive community,and planned growth is not anti- environment; that the area is not ancient forests or housing wildlife not found elsewhere, and asked that Council request additional time in which to study the issue. Bob Mainiero stated that the future of Palm Springs lies in the Palm Hills area, and the amendment should be opposed. Bob Schlesinger, attorney for the Edna Root Foundation, urged opposition. Councilmember Lyons entered at 6:30 p.m., during the public;comments. 1. CALIFORNIA PROTECTION ACT, 5-21 PROPOSED AMENDMENT Mayor read a communication from Congressman McCandless, a copy of which is on file with the City Clerk, stating his views on the inclusion of Palm Hills as wilderness in 5.21, .not as a condemnation of the wilderness, rather that thought be given to the process by which it is established, and afford all affected parties a voice in the process, and an opportunity to discuss other related matters prior to making a determination of such importance to the future of the City and its residents. Director of Planning&Zoning highlighted his memorandum, as on file with the City, noting the (144- proposed areas on the Palm Hills map on display in the conference room, noting also that a key 001 issue is the question of access, and that the Federal Government probably would not grant any significant access corridor, and if'such did not go through the federal land, access would be Council Minutes 9-27-93 Page 3 1. CALIFORNIA PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT (Continued) allowed but would otherwise be severely limited; and that the General P➢pn provides that the Council would be looking at specific plans that might be like this,or something similar, that would affect the future ability to develop Palm Hills. He noted that four resolutions were distributed, providing alternative actions. Mayor stated that he has heard that the land is very difficult to develop and the big hom sheep designation will make it more difficult to do so; that there is no water; that there is no development about to start, that access is very difficult, that funds might be available,but it is to those who are the most opposed; and that he questioned why the rush to designate the wilderness at this time. Director of Planning & Zoning stated that the question is better asked oy Senator Feinstein, however, there has been a championing by interest groups and that places a rush on the Council; that there is legislation pending which has been worked on for a long time,commenced by Senator Cranston, and appears to have created a window of opportunity for including this amendment. Counci➢member Lyons stated that the City is totally committed to open space; that the General Plan was crafted with great care and a lot of concern; that he shares the belief that there is a lack of water and feels that will prevent development on any scale; that he feels c total insensitive on the part of the State and Federal government when it comes to local planning concerns and setting up environmental road blocks to projects that have been totally environmental sensitive, that he resents the eleventh hour rush to make a decision; that the area is huge and the Council is being asked to cede it to the Federal Government on what he felt was the whim of Senator Feinstein, and he was not prepared to make that decision. Mayor stated that the Senator contacted him on the basis that she was approached to include the amendment and that she was looking for the City's views, and whether she will seek its inclusion in committee, he did not know, however, felt she was the instigator of the amendment. CounciEmember Schlendorf stated that she represents the City on the Scenic Recreation Area Conservation and understood the desire to put the area into protection and to tag onto the Protection Act, but as the Council, the whole picture must be looked at and the question asked whether property owners rights have been damaged significantly, and whenever private land is taken for public use there is significant damage, and she felt that was stepping on a person's constitutional rights; that the area is blanketed with regulations and this wilt add one more, and will be death of any development; that the City needs to get into a public process and resolve this, and she felt that after restructuring city government, a process should be set to make the decision on this land,including possibility of de-annexation if it becomes a wilderness,and the issue of who controls land planning; that she favored a No position, with addition to the resolution that within a year, there will be an answer as to how to move forward with a public process on the decision. She felt that a neutral position would be tantamount to approval. Councilmember Reller-Spurgin stated that she was sensitive to the enviroumeut, and Palm Hills is the most beautiful part of the city, and is as much a tourist attraction as other areas; that she believed she was elected to make decision in the best interest of the majority and the economic future of the city is what needs to be of concern, and these issues cannot be decided in 4-5 days as to whether it is in best interest of the City; that she has tried to meet environmental sensitivity and good economic development, and more thought needs to be given to the proposal. Mayor stated that the Council went through the general plan process and reached some decision to the point, and if the property could be purchased at fair market value that would be a different case;that the City cannot purchase it,nor does the Federal government appear in that position that the land seems to be adequately protected and the land planning process Bays no development unless a specific pan is presented; that he agreed with the sentiments of the Council in not making a decision as important as this and the ramifications which go along with it, without more study. Director of Planning&Zoning stated that an additional section could be added to the Council to include outlining concerns of the Council, and conveying that to the Senator's office. 1 j Council Minutes 9-27-93 Page 4 1. CALIFORNIA PROTECTION ACT AMENDMENT (Continued) Councilmember Schlendorf stated that her concerns were that each wilderness area has a management plan but it is not the same plan, and she was concerned as to what kind would be proposed for the Palm Hills area;and what priority was being placed on property to be purchased, considering there is no money to purchase property so designated in the 1960s and 1980s, and what the funding sources will be.; and de-annexation is of concern. Resolution 18183 taking a No position, and describing Council concerns needing to be addressed was moved by Schlendorf, seconded by Lyons, and unanimously carried, Hodges absent that R18183 be adopted. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business, Mayor declared the meeting adjourned. 4-� (L/��- JUDITH SUMICH City Clerk