HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/6/2006 - STAFF REPORTS - 1.A. JNIBMRR JefFer Mangels
Butler & Marmaro LLP
David P.Waite 1900 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Direct:(310)785-5319 Los Angeles, California 90067-4308
Fax:(310)712-3319 (310)203-8080 (310)203-0567 Fax
DWaite@jmbm.com www.jrnon m
December 6, 2006
Honorable Mayor and fC 32�
Members of the City Council
,City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Proposed Amendment of Environmentally Sensitive Area Specific Plan
Zoning Ordinance
Dm Mayor Oden and Members of the City Council:
As you know,this office represents Shadowrock Real Estate Development,LLC
("Shadowrock"). This letter incorporates by reference and applies to the current proposed
ordinance the comments set forth in our letter to you,dated September 1,2006, objecting to the
Environmentally Sensitive Area Specific Plan("ESA-SP") zoning ordinance("Ordinance No.
1700"),which was adopted by the City Council on September 6,2006. This letter also provides
turther objections to the proposed ordinance amending the ESA-SP to be considered by the City
Council on December 6,2006 (the 'Proposed Ordinance"), As previously stated, as applied to
the property owned by Shadowrock,the Proposed Ordinance, as modified, constitutes a
regulatory taking of Shadowrock's property located in Planning Area 6 and Planning Area 7(the
"Shadowrock Property").
The Proposed Ordinance adds Section 9L21A-057 to the Palm Springs Municipal Code,
which obligates a developer to execute a Performance Agreement with the City that requires the
land to be renaturalized if the improvement is not completed"as permitted." This action
qualifies as au unpermitted restraint on the use of private property,because it requires a
developer to affirmatively maintain its property in a"naturalized" state. In addition,this
paragraph does not take into consideration the practical reality of developing a project,which
may require design changes that limit scope or a staging of a project due to financing or market
conditions. The paragraph also allows the City to hold a letter of credit or other security to fund
any(required renaturalization,but does not provide a method for releasing the funds in the event
the project is delayed or the scope is reduced. Therefore,the language of this paragraph is vague
and unenforceable.
The Proposed Ordinance also adds Section 91.21.1.05K,which deems the "failure to
protect the natural terrain"or the grading of the natural terrain without the proper City approvals
to be a public nuisance. Again,this paragraph provides an affirmative obligation of a property
owner to protect the natural terrain of the land,which is an unperimitted restraint on the use of
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations 1 Los Angeles•San Francisco
4337267v1 1
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
December 6,2006
Page 2
private property_ In addition,the Municipal Code already provides recourse against an owner
that fails to obtain proper approvals for activities, such as grading,which require City permits.
Therefore, creating a public nuisance claim will only increase litigation and add time and costs to .
the City in bringing or defending such claims,which are unnecessary and may be resolved
administratively.
Finally, the Proposed Ordinance adds Section 9121.1.07-C,which allows an owner to
transfer residential density from a lot within the ESA-SP zone to a receiving site in the City. The
paragraph allows a bonus of 1.2 units at the receiving site for every I unit from the sending site,
which will promote the transfer of such residential density,but does not consider the much
higher economic value of a single unit within the ESA-SP zone,which has extensive views and
immediate access to recreation and trails. The 20 percent density bonus does not sufficiently
create an economic equivalency in terms of the value of development within the ESA-SP zone
and elsewhere in the City. We propose that the permitted density transfer be based on assessed
values of the sending and receiving sites. In addition,we propose that in order to avoid a takings
claim as applied to the Shadowrock Property and to allow an economically viable use for the
property,the density bonus should be applied to the transfer of the residential density permitted
on the Shadowrock Property prior to adoption of Ordinance No. 1700.
As previously stated,the City Council's adoption of Ordinance No. 1700 was contrary to
the vested rights and entitlements provided for in the Shadowrock Development Agreement, and
constituted a taking of Shadowrock's property located in Planning Area 6 and Planning Area 7.
We believe that the Proposed Ordinance amending Ordinance No. 1700 does not satisfy these
claims. We encourage you to approve sufficient residential density transfer, as applied to the
Shadowrock Property,in order for the City to avoid liability for a regulatory taking.
Sincerely,
Dau,cc L4J a. t�
I.
DAVID P. WAITE of
7effer,Maugels,Butler &Marmaro LLP
DPW:11
Cc: Mark Bragg, Shadowrock Real Estate Development,LLC
rn�}�irlJeRcr Mangck I
4337167vt Jl�J-U1V1. BWcr h'Marm�rour I
J�//��RR��BM//��I Jeffer Mangels
1V1 Butler& MarmaroLLP
David P.Waite 1000 Avenue of the Stars, 7th Floor
Direct.,(310)785-5319 Los Angeles, California 90067-4303
Fax:(310)712-3319 (310)203-8080 (310)20$.0567 Fax
DWaite@jmbm.com www.jmbm.com
September 1,2006
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Cotmcil
City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Proposed Environmentally Sensitive Area Suecifie Plan Zoning Ordinance
Dear Mayor Oden and Members of the City Council:
This office represents Shadowrock Real Estate Development,LLC ( Shadowrock"). This
letter supplements the accompanying letter provided by Mr.Mark A.Bragg,Managing General
Partner of Shadowrock,and provides further legal support for Sbadowrock's objections to the
draft Environmentally Sensitive Area Specific]Plan("BSA-SP")proposed zoning ordinance(the
"Proposed Ordinance")to be considered by the City Council on September 6,2006.
t As applied to the properly owned by Shadowrock,the Proposed Ordinance,if adopted,
i constitutes a regulatory taking of Shadowrock's property located in Planning Area 6 and
Planning Area T We provide further legal analysis in support of Shadowrocles objections to the
Proposed Ordinance below. This analysis is not intended to be.exhaustive,it sets forth the legal
basis upon which the City will be required to pay just compensation to Shadowrock if the
Proposed Ordinance is adopted.
1. THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CREATES
CONSTITUTIONALLY PROTECTED VESTED RIGHTS
Shadowrock has constitutionally protected vested rights under an existing Development
Agreement which was approved by the City on November 17, 1993,and remains in full force
and effect. The Development Agreement includes not only the property which is included within
the approved,Planned Development District("PDD")No. 224,but also implicates certain real
property adjacent to and located in the vicinity of the Shadowrock project which is intended to
be incorporated into the Shadowrock project in the future. (Development Agreement,Recital B
and Section 1,1)
Section 13 of the Proposed Ordinance correctly acknowledges that the Proposed
Ordinance cannot legally be applied to previously approved projects,including the Shadowrock
project and the property included within.PDD No,224. Because the Development Agreement
also contemplated that additional property located adjacent to and in the vicinity of the
A Limited Liability Law Partnership Including Professional Corporations / Los Angeles•San Francisco
4I9GG02vI
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
September 1,2006
Page 2
Shadowrock project was to be included within the project at a future date,the Development
Agreement itself imposes limitations and constraints on the City's ability to restrict development
in Planning Area 6 and Planning Area 7.
In addition,as explained below,the Proposed Ordinance results in a dramatic down-
zoning of Shadowrock's property sufficient to constitute a taking of property by governmental
action requiring just compensation.
2" THE PROPOSED ORAINANCE CONSTITUTES A REGULATORY TAKING OF
SHADOWROCK'S PROPERTY
Constitutional takings are grounded in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
United States Constitution,the"supreme law of the land" (U.S. Const_Art.VI, cl.2; Cal. Const.
.Art.III sect. I). These Amendments guarantee the rights of due process, equal protection and
just compensation when private property is impressed into public use. The California just
compensation clause(Cal. Const.Art. 1, section 19)states that "[p]rvvate property may be taken
or damages for public use only when just compensation . . .has first been paid to the owner."
(Emphasis added)
The seminal case is Pennsylvania Coal Co_v. Mahon,260 U.S. 393 (1922), in which
justice Holmes stated that "[t]he general rule at least is that while property may be regulated to a
certain extent, if regulation goes too far it will be recognized ass taking." ld. at 415.
(Emphasis added) Justice Holmes explained that the question of whether a regulation goes too
far is"a question of degree—and therefore cannot be disposed of by general propositions." Id.
at 416. But some guidance has emerged in case law,including this paraphrased tbree-pronged
formulation fmm Penn Central Transportation Co_v. City of New York 438 U.S. 104, 124
"[T]he Couri's decisions have identified several factors that have
particular significance. The [1] economic impact of the regulation
on the claimant and,particularly, [2]the extent to which the
regulation has interfered with distinct investment-backed
expectations are, of course,relevant considerations. (Citation) So,
too,is [3]the character of the governmental action." Id. (bracketed
numbers added)
Two years after Penn Central,the Court offered another formula,stating that the
application of a general zoning law"effects a taking if the ordinance does not substantially
advance legitimate state interests [citation],nr denies an owner economically viable use of his
land. . ." Agins v. Tiburon,447 U.S. 255,260-261 (1980)(emphasis added). Agins established
the disjunctive test for regulatory takings which has been followed by California courts. See 152
Valparaiso Associates v. City of Cotati. 56 Cal.A.pp.4th 378,384(1997)(not necessary to be
'(h�7� r�lclfnr Mn+Ns �
_J J.�J.1JLVl BWer4 Mamuiy{U
4196G02v1
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
September 1, 2006
Page 3
deprived of all economically viable use to show no fair return on an investment). In all of these
formulations,the focus is on the effect or impact of the regulation oil the property owner.
More recently,the Unites States Supreme Court has held that when government prevents
a property owner froze,making economically beneficial or productive use of his property or
prevents realization of reasonably anticipated profits from it,that conduct can be a permanent or
temporary taking of property for which the Fifth Amendment requires just compensation. E.g.,
First English Evangelical Lutheran Church of Glendale v_County of Los Au ep les,482 U.S. 304
(1987).
Each"regulatory taking" case must be analyzed on its own particular facts, The basic
framework for regulatory taking analysis in California was summarized in Twain Harte
Associates,Ltd.v. County of Tuolumne,217 Cal.App3d 71, 83-84(1990):
"'This Court has generally been unable to develop any set formula
for determining when justice and fairness require that economic
injuries caused by public action be compensated by the
government,rather than remain disproportionately concentrated on
a few persons. Rather,it has examined the taking question by
engaging m essentially ad hoc, factual inquiries that have identified
several factors--such as the economic impact of the regulation,its
interference with reasonable investment backed expectations,and
the character of the government action--that have particular
significance."
Applying the basic test to the Proposed Ordinance demonstrates that,if
approved,the Proposed Ordinance would clearly amount to a regulatory taking of
Shadowrock's property in Planning.Area 6 and Planning Area 7.
3. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE,IF ADOPTED,WILL UNREASONABLY
INTERFERE WITH SHADOWROCK'S REASONABLE INVESTMENT
BACKED EXPECTATIONS FOR ITS PROPERTY LOCATED IN PLANNING
AREA 6
When faced with near infinite governmental creativity in devising regulatory actions,
there is no single legal staudard,or litmus test, for determining when a taking occurs. E_g.,
Agins v. City of Tiburon.447 U.S.255,260(1980);Ruckelshaus v.Monsanto Co 467 U.S.
986, 1005 (1995). A taking can occur when government actions deny a property owner
economically beneficial or productive use of private property,even without consideration
of the owner's original investment backed expectations. Healing v. California Coastal
Contm'u.,22 Cal.AppAth 1158, 1169(1994); San Diego Gas &Electric,supra First English,
�/�/r JeRcr Mmgaie
FI966@vl
Ji"-'-'�'r enlor#Mvmaro Syr
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
September 1, 2006
Page 4
supra;Nollan v.California Coastal Commission,483 U.S. 825 (1987);Dolau v_ City,of Tigard,
512 U.S. 374(1994); Ruckelshaus, sunra.
Here, approximately ten(10)acres of Shadowrocles property is located in Planning Area
6 and consists of a square of 600 feet on each side which fronts on Highway 111 and is bounded
by the levee on the northeast. The Proposed Ordinance would down-zone that property from 6
units per acre to 1.5 units per acre. Such a severe down-zoning would leave Shadowrock with
virtually no economically viable use for the property. The proposed change would have an
overwhelmingly negative impact on the property s development potential when considering the
costs to develop the property relative to any expected return on investment.
As in Healing,the loss of value in Sbadowrocles property is so dramatic that the Cites
proposed regulatory change constitutes a taking even without considering the City's proposed
interference with Shadowrocles reasonable investment backed expectations. Shadowroek's
argument is further strengthened by the fact that the property was purchased in anticipation of
building 6 units per acre, a fact that is reflected in its financing arrangements.
4. THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE,IF ADOPTED,WILL RESULT IN A
CATEGORICAL GOVERNWNT TAIONG OF SHADOWROCK'S PROPERTY
LOCATED IN PLANKING AREA 7
A categorical taking occurs when"goverment regulations deprive a landowner of all
beneficial use" of the property. Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council.505 U.S. 1003 (1992).
Such a taking occurs when a landowner is called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial
uses of his property in the name of the common good.
In Keystone BituminouJs Coal Association vs_DeBenedictis. the U.S. Supreme Court
focused on blow to evaluate whether owners have been deprived of all economically viable use.
480 U.S_ 470 (1987). To determine this issue,the Court looked to the value that was left in the
owners'property,rather than the value that was taken.
These concepts have been applied directly in a down-zoning context,not only in
California,but throughout the United States. See for example Company. City of Scottsdale.
(Ariz 1986)720 P2d 513 and 528,cert denied, 107 SCt 577(1986). Much like the City of Palm
Springs'proposed ESA-SP,the City of Scottsdale attempted to create a Hillside Conservation
Area. The court found that the zoning ordinance establishing a conservation area and permitting
no new development was an unconstitutional taking despite the public interest goal of preserving
the mountains and hillsides.Id.
Here,the approval of the Proposed Ordinance would constitute a categorical taking of
Shadowrock's property located in Planning Area T This 21 acre property was zoned"Urban
Reserve"when purchased. The 50 year old Urban Reserve designation allowed for commercial
development along Highway 111. Eliminating all development and designating the area"open
�JaRcr Maipch
419660Ev1
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
September 1,2006
Page 5
space" constitutes a taking because it deprives Shadowrock of all beneficial use of this property.
The stated purpose of these proposed zoning changes is to preserve open space. In effect,the
City is seeking to gain parkland without having to pay for it. Plainly and simply,this is
regulation gone"too far."
As in Lucas Shadowrock is being called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial
uses of their property for the sake of a claimed common good and for claimed public benefits.
Moreover,under the Keystone analysis, Shadowrock is left with no value in the property after it
loses its development potential.
5. CONCLUSION
Based on the foregoing,if the City elects to adopt the Proposed Ordinance,the new
zoning standards are not only contrary to the vested rigbts and entitlements provided for in the
Shadowrock Development.Agreement,but will also constitute a taking of Shadowrockrs property
located in Planning Area 6 and Planning Area 7,requiring the City to pay just compensation to
Sbadowrock.
Sineerely,
aaot
DAVID P. WAITE of
7effer,Mangels,Butler&Marmaro LLP
DPW:11
Cc: Mark Bragg, Shadowrock Real Estate'Development,LLC
�/r[��/{Ileller nangel+
4196602v1 .f����+•+ �'dol MermanW
ppLM S.4
V N
• F F
• + C�Hmmc n5 �
c4`'F°R�,,a CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
' DATE: December 6, 2006 PUBLIC HEARING
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREA-SPECIFIC PLAN (ESA-SP) ZONE (SECTION 92.21 ET SEQ)
ON THREE ISSUES, AS FOLLOWS:
1. USE OF COMPLETION BONDS FOR PROJECTS WITHIN THE ESA-
SP ZONE; AND
2, ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS AGAINST UNAUTHORIZED WORK
WITHIN THE ESA-SP ZONE.
3. TRANSFER OF DENSITY OUTSIDE THE ESA-SP ZONE;
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Planning Department
' SUMMARY
On September 13, 2006, the City Council initiated a Zone Text Amendment to consider
certain amendments to the recently-adopted Environmentally Sensitive Areas — Specific
Plan (ESA-SP) Zone for the Chino Cone (Ord. No. 1700). The Council directed the
Planning Commission to consider three possible changes:
1. Requiring the posting of bonds to assure completion of work;
2. Identifying unauthorized grading or other activity as a public nuisance,
subject to restoration; and
3. Allowing the transfer of density from within the ESA-SP zone to other
areas of the City.
On October 4, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a study session and provided
staff with comments on the three issues. On October 25th, the Commission held a
noticed public hearing on proposed code language and directed staff to prepare a
resolution for final Commission action. On November 8, 2006, the Commission voted 5
to 0 (Hochanadel abstain, Cohen absent) to recommend the amendment to the City
Council.
The amendment, as recommended by the Planning Commission is similar to draft
language reviewed by the City Council on September 13, 2006. The most significant
change is that the language for new Section 92.12.1.05.J (Performance Agreement)
provides more specific statements about the renaturalization of the landscape that is to
occur should a project not be completed. Staff does not object to this change, although
we believe that the project-specific performance agreements would provide a more
tailored approach to addressing what happens should a project be abandoned.
ITEM NO,
City Council Staff Report December 6, 2006
Zone Text Amendment_ESA-SP Zone Page 2 of 2
Lastly, staff and the Planning Commission recommend that draft amendments be
classified as Categorically Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) under Class 8 — Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the
Environment (Section 15308 — State Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA). We
believe that each proposed amendment will provide enhanced environmental protection
of the designated areas by establishing greater control over grading and development
activities, or by encouraging the relocation of development density out of the zone ESA-
SP Zone entirely.
RECOMMENDATION:
Conduct a public hearing and introduce the draft amendment to the ESA-SP Ordinance
for first reading.
FISCAL IMPACT: Finance Director Review:
No fiscal impact.
Crd6 JFwGing, All Thomas J, r� son
Direc r of Plannj g ervices Assistant Ci Manager, Dev't Svcs
David H. Ready
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Draft Ordinance to Amend the ESA-SP Zone (Section 92.21)
2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 6044
3. Planning Commission Staff Reports and Meeting Minutes (10/4/06 and 10125/06)
4. Letter from Michael Grant; Best Best & Krieger, LLP\
5. Proposed language from Jono Hildner (submitted 10/25/06)
;CIP
D R A F T
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING SECTIONS 92.21.1,05, AND 92.21.1.07 OF THE PALM
SPRINGS ZONING CODE, RELATING TO REGULATIONS FOR
ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE DEVELOPMENT AREAS, INCLUDING
THE CHINO CONE.
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs ordains:
SECTION 1 Section 91.21.1.05 of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code is amended to
add Subsections J and K, as follows:
J. Performance Agreement.
Prior to the issuance of any permit for grading or construction of any
improvement on any property within an ESA-SP zone, the Developer shall enter
into an agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney,
ensuring, should the improvement not be completed as permitted, that the land
will be renaturalized in compliance with the provisions of this Section. The
obligations of the Developer pursuant to such agreement shall be secured in
amounts required by the City Engineer necessary to complete such
renaturalization consistent with the provisions of Chapter 9.65 of the Municipal
Code: however, such security shall be in the form of cash, irrevocable letter of
credit, assignment of a certificate of deposit, or similar form of security approved
by the City Manager and the City Attorney.
K. Enforcement
in addition to any remedy otherwise available to the City pursuant to this Code
or the Municipal Code, the failure to protect the natural terrain or the
defacement, grading, grubbing, scaring or any other act disturbing the natural
terrain of any property within the WSA-SP zone without prior City approval of
plans for such work, or in a manner inconsistent with or in violation of plans as
approved by the City pursuant to this Section or as otherwise provided in any
agreement as provided in Subsection J of this Section, shall be deemed a public
nuisance which may be abated pursuant to the City's nuisance abatement
procedures provided in Chapter 11.72 of the Municipal Cade.
SECTION 2 Section 91.21.1.07 of the City of Palm Springs Zoning Code is amended to
rename existing Subsection C as Subsection D and add a new Subsection C, as follows:
C. Transfer Outside Planning Areas
From any Planning Area, allowed residential density may be transferred to any
lot within the City with a bonus of 1.2 units at the receiving site for every unit
from the sending site, subject to approval of a Specific Plan for the sending
Planning Area and an appropriate entitlement for the receiving site, including'
but not limited to a specific plan, conditional use permit, or a planned
development permit. Density transfers shall be reviewed for the effect of such
1
D R A F T
transfers on increasing open space, preserving views, minimizing grading or
other land disturbance and reducing the expenditures for public services to the
development and to the impacts on the receiving site or vicinity.
SECTION 3. CEQA Finding. The City Council hereby finds that there is no evidence, in
light of the whole record before the City, that the adoption of this Ordinance may have a
significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that this Ordinance
establishes densities and intensities of use that are less intense or dense than those
provided in the adopted General Plan for the City and which were covered adequately by
the prior environmental impact report prepared in conjunction with the adoption of the
General Plan. In addition, the regulatory processes as provided in this Ordinance involve
procedures for the protection of the environment and will assure the maintenance,
restoration, enhancement, and protection of the environment which exceed the processes
and procedures provided in the current General Plan and the City's Zoning Code
consistent with the requirements of the California Code of Regulations Section 15308. In
addition, this Ordinance requires detailed environmental analysis to be prepared when or
if specific plans are proposed for Planning Areas and such deferral of environmental
review to the time a specific plan is proposed is consistent with the requirements of 14
California Code of Regulations Section 15183.
SECTION 4. Publication. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same, or the summary
thereof, to be published and posted pursuant to the provisions of law and this Ordinance
shall take effect thirty (30) days after passage.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this_day of December, 2006
AYES:
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
ABSENT:
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
City Clerk Mayor
Reviewed and Approved as to Form:
Douglas Holland
City Attorney
2
RESOLUTION NO. 6044
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA,
RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL
AMENDMENT OF THE PALM SPRINGS ZONING
CODE SECTIONS 91.21.1.05 AND 94.21.1.07
RELATED TO THE ENVIRONMENTALLY
SENSITIVE AREAS — SPECIFIC PLAN (ESA-SP)
ZONE.
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2006, the City Council enacted Ordinance No.
1600 which established the Environmental Sensitive Areas — Specific Plan (ESA-
SP) Zone which established policies and standards for the Chino Cone and
related areas; and
WHEREAS, Section 94.07.01 of the Zoning Ordinance sets forth procedures for
modifying text within the Zoning Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, on September 13, 2006, the City Council initiated a Zone Text
Amendment to amend the ESA-SP zone to address several issues that were not
included in Ordinance No. 1700, including completion bands, enforcement
policies, and transfer of density outside the ESA-SP zone; and
WHEREAS, on October 4, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a Study
Session, at which session the Commission considered language,related to the
proposed amendment and provided comment to staff; and
WHEREAS, on October 11, 2006, the Planning Commission conducted a duly
noticed public hearing on said project at which hearing the Commission carefully
reviewed and considered all of the evidence presented in connection with the
proposed Zone Text Amendment, including but not limited to the staff report and
all written and oral testimony presented, and
WHEREAS, this project has been declared Categorically Exempt from from the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section
15308 "Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment" of the
State CEQA Guidelines.
NOW THEREFORE, THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS;
Section 1: The Planning Commission hereby finds that adoption of the
proposed Zoning Text Amendment would provide greater protection to
t it1!r1Ff1
environmentally sensitive lands by strengthening procedures for enforcement
and providing opportunities for transferring development densities from these
areas to other parts of the community.
Section 2-1The adoption of the proposed Zone Text Amendment would be
consistent with the intent of the Zoning Ordinance and the City's General Plan
because it supports and strengthens the standards and policies of the Zoning
Ordinance and General Plan for preserving hillsides and minimizing
environmental degradation of sensitive lands.
Section 3: Based upon the foregoing, the Planning Commission does hereby
recommend to the City Council that the Palm Springs Zoning Code be amended
as follows:
a. Amend Section 91.21.1.05 to add Subsections J and K, as follows:
J. Performance Agreement.
Prior to the issuance of any permit for grading or construction of any
improvement on any property within an ESA-SP zone, the Developer shall
enter into an agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City
Attorney, ensuring should the improvement not be completed as
permitted, the land will be renaturalized, ensuring compliance with the
provisions of this Section. The obligations of the Developer pursuant to
such agreement shall be secured in amounts required by the City
Engineer necessary to complete such renaturalization consistent with the
provisions of Chapter 9.65 of the Municipal Code; however, such security
shall be in the form of cash, irrevocable letter of credit, assignment of a
certificate of deposit, or similar form of security approved by the City
Manager and the City Attorney.
K. Enforcement.
In addition to any remedy otherwise available to the City pursuant to this
Code or the Municipal Code, the failure to protect the natural terrain or the
defacement, grading, grubbing, scaring, or any other act disturbing the
natural terrain of any property within the ESAP-SP zone without prior City
approval of plans for such work, or in a manner inconsistent with or in
violation of plans as approved by the City pursuant to this Section or as
otherwise provided in any agreement as provided in Subsection J of this
Section, shall be deemed a public nuisance which may be abated
pursuant to the City's nuisance abatement procedures provided in Chapter
11.72 of the Municipal Code.
b. Amend Section 94.21.1.07 to rename existing Subsection C as
Subsection D and add a new Subsection C, as follows:
C. Transfer Outside Planning Areas
From any Planning Area, allowed residential density may be transferred to
any lot within the City with a bonus of 1.2 units at the receiving site for
every unit from the sending site, subject to approval of a Specific Plan for
the sending Planning Area and an appropriate entitlement for the receiving
site, including but not limited to a specific plan, conditional use permit, or a
planned development permit. ,Density transfers shall be reviewed for the
effect of such transfers on increasing open space, preserving views,
minimizing grading or other land disturbance and reducing the
expenditures for public services to the development and to the impacts on
the receiving site or vicinity.
ADOPTED this 8" day of November, 2006.
AYES: 5 / Hutcheson/Ringlein/Marantz/Caffery/Scott
NOES: None
ABSENT: 1 / Cohen
ABSTAIN: 1 ! Hochanadel
ATTEST: CITY OF PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA
g wi g?A]
Direc r Iaervices
�DppP�MSp�r CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING SERVICES
MEMORANDUM
Date: October 4, 2006
To: Planning Commission
From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Subject: Discussion of Environmentally Sensitive Areas—Specific Plan (ESA-SP) Zone /
Potential Amendments
At its meeting of September 13, 2006, the City Council initiated a Zone Text Amendment to
consider certain amendments to the recently-adopted Environmentally Sensitive Areas —
Specific Plan (ESA-SP) Zone for the Chino Cone (Ord. No. 1700), The Council directed the
Commission to consider three possible changes-
1. Requiring the posting of bonds to assure completion of work;
2. Identifying unauthorized grading or other activity as a public nuisance, subject to
restoration; and
3. Allowing the transfer of density from within the ESA-SP zone to other areas of
the City.
Potential language for each of these issues is attached, as is a copy of the approved ordinance.
Based on direction from the Commission, a draft resolution will be prepared for the
Commission's consideration at a public hearing scheduled for October 11, 2006.
City of Palm Springs Planning Division
October 4, 2006
Potential Amendment Language to the ESA-SP Zone
Page 12— 94.21.1.05.D.24. Posting of bond. The developer shall post bond or other security in
an amount approved by the City Engineer and in a form approved by the City Attorney to assure
that grading and grubbing activities will be undertaken in conformity with these provisions. The
amount of the security shall be no less than fifty percent (50%) of the cost of the grading work.
Page 12 — 94.21.1.05.D.25. Enforcement. Any person who fails to protect the natural terrain,
defaces, grades, grubs, scars or otherwise disrupts the natural terrain without prior City
approval of plans for such work, or fails to carry out work consistent with such plans, subject to
this Chapter, shall have created a public nuisance which shall be abated. Abatement may
include the property owner undertaking the restoration (under City supervision and monitoring),
or that failing, City-contracted restoration of the disrupted area. The property owner shall be
charged the full cost of the restoration.
Page 21 — 94.21.1.07,C Transfer Outside Planning Areas
From any Planning Area, allowed development density — residential units and
commercial may be transferred to any lot within the City of Palm Springs Palm Springs
with a bonus of 1.2 units at the receiving site for every unit from the sending site, subject
to approval of a Specific Plan for the Sending Planning Area and for the Receiving site.
Density transfers shall be reviewed for the effect of such transfers on increasing open
space, preserving views, minimizing grading or other land disturbance and reducing the
expenditures for public services to the development and to the impacts on the receiving
site.
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PLANNING COMMISSION STUDY SESSION
AGENDA
OCTOBER 4, 2006
Large Conference Room — City Hall
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California
2:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER:
The meeting was called to order at 2:04 p.m.
REPORT OF POSTING OF AGENDA — Craig A. Ewing reported that le October 4, 2006
agenda was available for public access at the City Hall exterior bulletin board (west side of
Council Chamber) and the Planning Services Department counter by 5:00 p.m. on Friday,
September 29, 2006.
9. PUBLIC COMMENTS: (Three minute time I nYit.)
Chair Marantz opened the Public Commen portion of the meeting.
Jono Hildner, Palm Springs, com ted that they are in favor of the 3 Items of discussion on
today's agenda.
Frank Tyson, Palm Sprigs, suggested that Public Benefits also the include impact on
neighborhood properti ; limit deviation from zoning standards and responsible planning.
Dennis Cunningham Palm Springs, spoke about the requirements of bonding in the Chino
Cone area. '
Ernie Vincent, Palm Springs, gave additional information regarding bonds on projects.
Vic Gamer, Palm Springs, stated that the density transfer is critical to keeping the Cone open.
Therbeigg-roeuftlier eorr}rxaerrts-Pul�Iio 6vmrnenwas c
2. DISCUSSION — ESA-SP Zone -
*Transferring density outside of the Chino Cone
*Requiring completion bonds on projects
*Enforcement provisions
Craig A. Ewing gave background information relating to the ESA — SP Zone. The
Commission discussed the above 3 items.
The Commission discussed grading and completion bonds and the re-naturalized state of the
project site.
Planning Commission Study Session Notes
of October 4, 2006
The Commission discussed the Transfer of Density from within the ESA-Sp zone to other
areas of the City. The transfer from a residential to a mixed use was discussed.
3 --DISEUS•S1eN--PUB•L-IC—BENEFI-F AND--PEA- NEED-DEVEL-OPME-NTS 7atits
from September 6, 2006 Planning Commission Study Session
Craig A. Ewing gave an overview of the discussion the Planning Commission Id
Study Session of September 11, 2006.
Craig will develop this into a Resolution and will be placed on the Conse Agenda.
4. COMMISSION/STAFF REPORTS AND REQUESTS —
Dianne Marantz commented that the Ethics Training w,as
t invaluable.
Bill Scott reported that the Convention Cens filled to capacity and the streets are full.
He's concern with all the new developments•and there not being sufficient parking.
Rick Hutcheson commented that a median near the Visitors center is very dirty. He
requested it be referred to Co e Enforcement.
Leo Cohen stated that th rchitectural Advisory meetings are going very late.
Larry Hochanad�), requested that the Engineering Dept. follow-up on a huge hole on Indian
Avenue near the Pilot Gas Station-
AD C6 NT - There being no further comments, the meeting was adjourned at 4:06
Pm
iy
(.J N
x`C, 00ux• w'.o`Px
9`'F°%�� PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
Date: October 25, 2006
To: Planning Commission
From: Craig A. Ewing, AICP, Director of Planning Services
Subject: Zoning Ordinance Amendment of the Environmentally
Sensitive Areas — Specific Plan (ESA-SP) Zone / Chino
Cone and Adjacent Areas
At the Commission's study session of October 4, 2006, you discussed three potential
amendments to the recently-enacted ESA-SP Zone for the Chino Cane and surrounding
areas. Staff has reviewed the language with the City Attorney, who has offered the
attached revisions. Staff recommends that the Commission conduct a public hearing,
take any testimony, amend the revisions as it deems appropriate and adopt a
recommendation to the City Council (draft resolution to be provided at the meeting).
Please note staff recommends that draft amendments be classified as Categorically
Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Class 8 — Actions
by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment (Section 15308 -- State
Guidelines for the Implementation of CEQA). Staff believes that each proposed
amendment will provide enhanced environmental protection of the designated areas by
establishing greater control over grading and development activities, or by encouraging
the relocation of development density out of the zone entirely.
Craig A. Ewing AICP
Director of Planning Services
Attachments
1. Proposed draft amendments — ESA-SP Zone
2. Planning Commission Staff Report (October 4, 2006)
City of Palm Springs
Proposed Amendments to
Environmentally Sensitive Areas — Specific Plan (ESA-SP) Zone
New Subsection J to Section 91.21.1.05:
J. Performance Agreement.
Prior to the issuance of any permit for grading or construction of any
improvement on any property within an ESA-SP zone, the Developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City, in a form approved by the City Attorney, ensuring compliance
with the provisions of this Section. The obligations of the Developer pursuant to such
agreement shall be secured in amounts required by the City Engineer consistent with
the provisions of Chapter 9.65 of the Municipal Code; however, such security shall be in
the form of cash, letter of credit, assignment of a certificate of deposit, or similar form of
security approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney.
New Subsection K to Section 91.21.1.05:
K. Enforcement.
In addition to any remedy otherwise available to the City pursuant to this Code or
the Municipal Code, the failure to protect the natural terrain or the defacement, grading,
grubbing, scaring, or any other act disturbing the natural terrain of any property within
the ESAP-SP zone without prior City approval of plans for such work, or in a manner
inconsistent with or in violation of plans as approved by the City pursuant to this Section
or as otherwise provided in any agreement as provided in Subsection J of this Section,
shall be deemed a public nuisance which may be abated pursuant to the City's
nuisance abatement procedures provided in Chapter 11.72 of the Municipal Code.
New Subsection D to Section 94.21.1.07:
C. Transfer Outside Planning Areas
From any Planning Area, allowed residential density may be transferred to any
lot within the City with a bonus of 1.2 units at the receiving site for every unit from the
sending site, subject to approval of a Specific Plan for the sending Planning Area and
an appropriate entitlement for the receiving site, including but not limited to a specific
plan, conditional use permit, or a planned development permit. Density transfers shall
be reviewed for the effect of such transfers on increasing open space, preserving views, ,
minimizing grading or other land disturbance and reducing the expenditures for public
services to the development and to the impacts on the receiving site or Vicinity.
T
City of Palm Springs
Planning Commission Minutes
of October 25, 2006
Chair-Marantz-reported-that-this-Item---has-beerrrequested-•to--be-continued-urxtii-
November 8, 2006.
Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing. Here-b le ng no appearances, the Public
Hearing was closed.
M/S/C Coheti Ringlein�40, 2 absent/Vice Chair Hoch anadel/Caffery, 1 abstained/
`Htien)-� e lnq of Newii,,rnbe I I)nnc
9. Zoning Ordinance Amendment for Chino Cone and Adjacent Areas - To
consider an amendment to the Environmentally Sensitive Area-Specific Plan
(ESA-SP) Zone. (Project Planner: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning
Services / Continued from the meeting of October 11, 2006.)
Director of Planning Services, Craig A. Ewing, provided background Information as
outlined in the staff report dated October 25, 2006.
Chair Marantz opened the Public Hearing.
- Jono Hildner, Palm Springs, suggested additional language be added to
the amendment pertaining to the Performance Agreement and Enforcement sections.
- Jeff Balinger, Best, Best & Krieger, representing Century Vintage, stated that the off-
s�te density transfer being proposed will not be effective and suggested an amendment
of the General Plan and Zoning Code.
There being no further appearances, the Public Hearing was closed.
Commissioner Scott commented that he had no objections to the changes Mr. Hildner
suggested, and voiced his concern with the receiving site of the density transfer.
Commissioner Ringlein was in agreement with Mr. Hildner's suggested changes.
The Commission discussed performance bonds in detail_
Craig A. Ewing provided additional information relating to Transfer Outside Planning
Areas.
M/S/C (Hutcheson/Cohen, 5-0, 2 absent/Vice Chair Hoch anadel/Caffery)
To continue; with direction to planning staff to amend the draft policy and resolution,
n^1nC1 q
SICST BEST & KRIEGER a
AtroRNEYS A'r LAW
INDIAN WELLS SACRAMENTO
(730)5$8.2311 3%60 university Avenue (916)325-4000
Post Office Box 1028
IRNNE Rverside,California 92502-1028 SAN OIEGO
(9d9)263.2cc0 (951)G66-145 (C19)525-1200
_ 0 _
LOS ANGELES (951)586-30M Fax WALNUT CREEK
(213)617.8100 BBKIaw.oUm X25)977-3300
ONTAAIO
poe)969 a584
Michael Grant
(951)826.8311
Michael,Granl9bbklaW cum
File No. 14322.00208
October 25, 2006
VIA E-MAIL,
Honorable Chairman and
Members of the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission
City of Palm Springs
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
Re: Chino Cone: ESA-SP Ordinance Amendment
Dear Ladies and Gentlemen:
During its recent deliberations regarding amendment of the ESA-SP Ordinance, the
Planning Commission discussed a number of concepts that might be considered for inclusion in
an amendment to the Ordinance. As legal counsel for Century Vintage Homes, the owner of
significant property within the Chino Cone, we would like to provide input regarding certain of
these matters. We realize that Planning Commission discussions, panicularly in study sessions,
may involve "thinking out loud" as a way to try ro deal with the difficult issues presented by the
Ordinance, and we appreciate the opportunity to provide comments.
1. Gradine Completion Bonds. Concern has been expressed that a developer might
begin grading activities within the Chino Cone and then abandon the project, leaving behind an
unsightly and partially graded area. it has been suggested that some type of surety (bond or set
aside letter) be required in order to be sure that any such partial grading be returned as fully as
possible to its original condition (i.e., re-naturalization).
We believe that such a requirement duplicates the protection already available by bonds
currently required by the City for completion of grading activities. Moreover, a bond for re-
naturalization is not available in the marketplace. Therefore, we believe that current security
posted with the City for completion of grading activities is adequate to assure proper completion.
Additionally, once final maps have been recorded, construction loans have funded and
grading has begun, complere abandonment of projects of the size contemplated by the specific
10,M)..YMORANT'7g4672.2 ),,f�
BEST BEST & KIUEGER
erront EYS AT r.+w
Honorable Chairman and
Members of the City of Palm Springs Planning Commission
October 25, 2006
Page 2
plans required for the Chino Code would be extremely rare. A project may be delayed and if the
initial developer has problems, it may be completed by a different developer, but ultimately,
projects that reach this stage are completed. This will particularly be the case in the Chino Cone,
since it will generally take a knowledgeable and financially stable developer to get through the
very challenging entitlement process.
With respect to completion of grading, it has also been suggested that the City require
commencement of home construction within a specified time — including the requirement that
additional phases be constructed within specific periods. These timing issues are dictated by the
real estate market and (in response to that market) by construction lenders. It would be futile for
the City to attempt to impose arbitrary construction time requirements on developers. When the
real estate market is strong, all developers and their lenders will build and sell residences just as
quickly as residential sales will allow. When the real estate market is soft, lenders and
developers wilt proceed cautiously. In summary, we believe that the realities of real estate
construction lending and real estate market dynamics will far more realistically regulate the
timing of construction than would be the case with arbitrary timeftames imposed by the City,
We would also note that, in addition to the problems associated with a re-naturalization
bond discussed above, as a drafting matter, the language proposed by the draft ordinance is
written too broadly_ As drafted, it requires an agreement securing the performance of the all of
the design standards for the Chino Cone. The City Council was interested in obtaining security
for the re-naturalization of projects; not in security for all of the design standards.
2. Density Transfers Off the Chino Cone. Transfers from one planning area to
another within the Chino Cone do not adequately deal with the density restrictions imposed by
the Ordinance. If the City really wants to achieve densities within the China Cone that preserve
its natural appearance, it must allow density transfers from the Cone to other areas of the City.
We agree with staff that in order for this to be effective, attention must be given to those sites
that would receive these increased densities.
However, it is disingenuous to decry the fact that density transfers off the Cone would
increase densities elsewhere in the City. That is the whole point of such transfers. If the City
imposes restrictions on receiving sites, that will be tantamount to not allowing density transfers
off the Cone. Without the safety valve of density transfers off the Chino Cone, the Ordinance is
susceptible to challenge as an unlawful taking, Unreasonable restrictions on receiving sites for
these density transfer raise the same issue. Therefore, rather than making such transfers "subject
to an appropriate entitlement", we believe that the City's general plan and its zoning ordinance
should be amended at this time to expressly allow for the increased density at sites that receive
density from the Chino Cone. To do otherwise would subject density transfers to a case-by-case
determination as to whether such transfers could occur, thus effectively eliminating the density
transfer provision.
RVE;Util411i2.1N I\70{672 2
BEST BEST & XWEGEB
ATrOQNEn AT I.AW
Honorable Chairman and
Members ofthe City of Palm Springs Planning Commission
October 25, 2006
Page 3
We appreciate the fact that the Planning Commission and the City Council are dealing
with novel concepts as you attempt to refine and implement the Ordinance. On behalf of one of
the largest landholders in the Chino Cone, we ask you to give serious coasidetation to the issues
discussed to this letter.
Vc truly yo s,
Nbchacl r t
of BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP
MG JO
6 'p'1fl "7
RV f31JS\MGRAN 1\70672.2
Su�mifla_� rc�
New Subsection Ito Section 9121.1-05: Glannina Comnu2s'O5'
J. Performance Agreement r.
Prior to the issuance of any permit for grading or construction of any
improvement on an roe p
p y property rty within an ESA-SP zone,the Developer shall enter into an
agreement with the City,in a form approved by the City Attorney,ensuring that,,shovid f h r
the imnrov_ement not be comnleled as permitted, the Pand will be re5tpred to its original _
condition The obligations of the Aeveloper_pursuant to such agreement shall be secured Deleted:conm um o th a,.
in amounts required by the City Engineer necessary to complete such restoratinq pmvisiom°ftbis secdoo
however,such security shall be in the form of cash ted:w u, irrevocable letter of credit, oelena:t-61 feutwi h mc� s+ons
Dele the MwrcipA C«lo
assignment of a certificate of deposit,or similar form of security approved by the City
Manager and the City Attorney.
r
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT
AMENDING THE ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS-SPECIFIC PLAN
(ESA-SP) ZONE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Palm Springs will hold a public
hearing at its meeting of December 6, 2006. The City Council meeting begins at 6:00 p-m- in the
Council Chamber at City Hall, 3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Palm Springs.
The purpose of the hearing is to consider an amendment to the Environmentally Sensitive Area-
Specific Plan (ESA-SP) Zone. The ESA-SP Zone was recently enacted for the Chino Cone and
certain lands along the Highway 111 north entry corridor. The Chino Cone is a large, vacant alluvial
fan located northwest of the urbanized portion of the City of Palm Springs. It is southwest of Highway
111 and generally bisected by Tram Way. Adjacent areas also affected by the proposed project
include lands north of the Chino Cone area along the southwesterly edge of Highway 111.
This amendment will address three issues related to the ESA-SP Zone, as follows:
1. Transfer of density outside the ESA-SP Zone;
2. Use of completion bonds for projects within the ESA-SP Zone; and
3. Enforcement actions against unauthorized work within the ESA-SP Zone.
Public testimony on the project will be accepted at the public hearing.
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Palm Springs, in its capacity as the lead agency
for this project, has determined that the project is Categorically Exempt from the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15308 "Actions by Regulatory Agencies
for Protection of the Environment" of the State CEQA Guidelines.
REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION: The staff report and other supporting documents regarding
this project are available for public review at City Hall between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p-m-,
Monday through Friday. Please contact the Office of the City Clerk at (760) 323-8204 if you would
like to schedule an appointment to review these documents.
COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION: Response to this notice may be made verbally at the Public
Hearing and/or in writing before the hearing. Written comments may be made to the City Council by
letter (for mail or hand delivery) to:
James Thompson, City Clerk
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
If any group challenges the action in court, issues raised may be limited to only those issues raised at
the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence at, or prior to,-the City Council
hearing. An opportunity will be given at said hearing for all interested persons to be heard.--Questions
regarding this case may be directed to Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services;-(760) 323-8245.
Si necesita ayuda con esta carta, porfavor flame a la Ciudad de Palm Springs-y puede hablar con
Nadine Fiegertelefono (760) 323-8245. -
es Thompson, City Clerk
N
Department of Planning Services 1N+E
i Vicinity Map 5
r o�Ht qq
TL I_10 -7"—5_ �,�,. - - r -I I DILLON RD t
; — VE' 8H A Nam 15�
rRb RN�rA
H- fH14
1s �
I PgLM,o *'�•
.._.. ._._ .t AS(gAV� Z - --
�I:
All
� r +
�-
I � r
I -
.
O r
T
LegendMM
q n
[3ulhr 400 Foot
Proloct Arco(chino Cone) I Ifn—F.
i_.._..i Clry Boundary
I
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
PROJECT: Zoning Ordinance Amendment for DESCRIPTION. The purpose of the meetings is to
Chino Cone and Adjacent Areas consider an amendment to the Environmentally
Sensitive Area-Specific Plan (ESA-SP) Zone.
APPLICANT: City of Palm Springs
�ppL1W
City ®f Palm Springs
°
U - 0
+ Office of the City Clerk
* HOOR ORATEVT9 �200 E.IF lahqurcr.Caip'un Way • Palm Springs, Cxhrorma 92262
C �P Tel-(760) 323-820 i • Fix (760) 322-8332 • Wc•b: wwwa.palm-springs ca us
q�
November 21, 2006
Ms. Claudia Salgado
Bureau of Indian Affairs
P. O. Box 2245
Palm Springs, CA 92263
Dear Ms. Salgado:
RE: City Council Meeting — December 6, 2006
Amendment to the Palm Springs Zoning Code
Environmentally Sensitive Area Specific Plan Zone (ESA-SP)
The City Council of the City of Palm Springs will be conducting a public hearing relating to the
above referenced subject on December 6, 2006. Enclosed are four (4) copies of the public
hearing notice to be forwarded to the appropriate Indian landowner(s) within the 400 ft. radius of
the project location, labels identifying each parcel.
The following are Indian owned property within the 400 ft. radius of the subject property:
556-380-012 522-170-006
504-020-009 556-380-001
Please feel free to contact me if there are any questions or concerns, 323-8206.
Sincerely,
Kathie Hart, CIVIC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
(kdh
PPIN to SIA•ChlnoCone ESA-SP CUF.do[
Encl: Public Hearing Notice (4 copies)
Postage Paid Envelopes (4 each)
Post Office Box 2743 9 Palm Springs, California 92263-2743
F?ALA' a
City of halm Springs
c
V n
Office of the City Clerk
" ~cOp'ORAtc�N 3700 E,7rhquin.C¢nyun Way • Palm Springs, California 92262
C NP w.Tel, (760) 323-820,i • Pax: (760) 322-8332 • Web: wwci palm-cpringa ca.us
q��FpR
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, to consider an amendment to
the Palm Springs Zoning Ordinance amending the Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA-SP), was mailed to each and every person set forth on the attached
list on the 215t day of November, 2006, in a sealed envelope, with postage prepaid,
and depositing same in the U.S. Mail at Palm Springs, California.
(106 notices mailed)
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct-
Dated at Palm Springs, California, this 215t day of November, 2006.
J ESTHOMPSON
ity Clerk
/kdh
Affidavit-Chino Cone Ord 12 06 06.doc
Post Office Box 2743 • Palm Spriggs, California 92263 2743
NEIGHBORHOOD COALITION REPS MS APRIL HILDNER
Zoning Ordinance Amendment (TAHQUITZ RIVERS ESTATES) MR TIM HOHMEIER
CC Meeting- 12.06.06 241 EAST MESQUITE AVENUE (DEEPWELL ESTATES)
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264 1387 CALLE DE MARIA
PALM SPRINGS CA 92264
MS ROXANN PLOSS MR JOHN HANSEN MS MALLIKA ALBERT
(BEL DESIERTO NEIGHBORHOOD ) (WARM SANDS NEIGHBORHOOD) (CHINO CANYON ORGANIZATION)
930 CHIA ROAD PO BOX 252 2241 NORTH LEONARD ROAD
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92263 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MS DIANE AHLSTROM MR BOB MAHLOWITZ MS PAULA AUBURN
(MOVIE COLONY NEIGHBORHOOD) (SUNMOR NEIGHBORHOOD GROUP) (SUNRISEIVISTA CHINO AREA)
475 VALMONTE SUR 246 NORTH SYBIL ROAD 1369 CAMPEON CIRCLE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MR BOB DICKINSON MR BILL SCOTT MR SEIMA MOLOI
VISTA LAS PALMAS HOMEOWNERS (OLD LAS PALMAS NEIGHBORHOOD) (DESERT HIGHLAND GATEWAY EST)
755 WEST CRESCENT DRIVE 540 VIA LOLA 359 WEST SUNVIEW AVENUE
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS CA 92262-2459
MR PETE MORUZZI
MS LAURI AYLAIAN PALM SPRINGS MODERN COMMITTEE
HISTORIC TENNIS CLUB ORG MODCOM AND PO BOX 4738
377 WEST BARISTO ROAD HISTORIC SITE REP 1 I I PALM SPRINGS CA 92263-438
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS CASE: Chino Cone
VERIFICATION NOTICE I I I PLANNING SERVICES DEPARTMENT MRS. JOANNE BRUGGEMANS
ATTN SECRETARY 506 W. SANTA CATALINA ROAD
PO BOX 2743 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2743
MS MARGARET PARK
AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA
INDIANS 1 1 I I 1 1 INDIANS
650 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY
PALM SPRINGS CA 92262
MR MARVIN ROOS,AICP
- - - MSA CONSULTING, INC. MR VIC GAINER
INTERESTED PARTIES I 1 1 34200 BOB HOPE DRIVE 58 PORTOLA DRIVE
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264
MR DAVE BARON,ATTORNEY
1800 EAST TAHQUITZ CANYON WAY (�� r
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
P,
e
1�
r
co
• 522030009 504040001
AGUA CALIENTE 13AND OF 504161006
CAFRALLA INDIANS ALVIN ANENBERG MIC L ARCARO
600 E TAHQUITZ CANYON WY 3410 E FOOTTIILL BLV
PALM SPRINGS CA, 92262 PASADENA CA,91107
504201010 50416201 522040002
SARAII BERSpS ROBERT BEYLIK
1812 LADBRA VISTA DR D BERTOIA 3000 W MACARTHUR BLV 660
FULLERTON CA 92931,0 SANTA ANA CA,92704
504201009 504051 JOHN BOCCARDO 50 TE 41610
LY BREWER BRICKER
1 SAN CARLOS AVE 0
SAUSALITO CA,94965
504053D05 BROOKS 669371002 669372001
MICH STANLEYBROXMEYER STANLEYBROXMEYER
0 7200 RADICE CT 7200 RADICE CT APT 503
LAUDERDALE FL,33319 LAUDERHILL FL,33319
669290002 504161008 504162006
WILLIAM BURGESS DALLAS CARTRIG14T LALITH CHANDRASENA
P 0 BOX 4158 1379 CREST DR 2245 JOYCE DR
PALM SPRINGS CA, 92263 ENCINITAS CA,92024 PALM SPRINGS CA,92262
505020022 522190001 CITY OF PALM SPRINGS COACHELLA VALLEY MOUNTAINS 669320011
CO320011 A VALLEY WATER DIST
P 0 BOX 2743 CONSERVANCY 1058
BOX 0 P
PALM SPRINGS CA, 92263 45 480 PORTOLA AVE P 0 BOX LLA CA,9223G
PALM DESERT CA,92260
504161005 669230012
JAMES COOK SD4201 CVCWD
5902 MONTEREY RD BOX 114 COETO P 0 BOX 1058
LOS ANGELES CA,90042 COACHBLLA CA,92236
669365005 504150009 669320006
JANICE DAUPHINE DESERT WATER AGENCY DOWNEY RADIOLOGY MEDICAL
P 0 BOX 260 P 0 BOX 1710 AVEGROUP INC
VIEW
3840 MOUND VI VI
PALM SPRBVGS CA, 92263 PALM SPRINGS CA,92263 STUDIO CY A
04
504162002 I 522030010 522030017
ROGER CHOWNY P1 l GEORGE FLEMING ZEMULA FLEMING
P 0 B , IM2 35 EMERALD 925 EMERALD BAY
C -T PARK CA, 92326 IRVINE CA,92714 LAGUNA BEACH CA, 92651
522070017 504150008 522060022
FORTY FIVE PALM PARTNERSHIP CHRISTO R FOSTER FRIENDS OF THE DESERT
219 AVENIDA 13ARCELONA 1276 N LM CANYON DR MOUNTAINS
SAN CLEMENTE CA,92672 PAL SPRINGS CA,92262 45480 PORTOLA AVE
PALM DESERT CA, 92260
17
522070010 522100003
FRIENDS OF THE DESERT 50416201 SANDRA GXBI ER
MOUNTAINS HM_ P 0 BOX 4926
18829 KEYS DR �/ SCOTTSDALE AZ,85261
BANNING CA,92220
50053504 504053003 504161012
002 L EN MICHAEL GOMES ROBERT HAM . 1
P 0 BOX 2107 2431 ERMO
PALM SPRINGS CA,92263 P M SPRINGS CA,92262
504161001 522070001
MO93L6100GRAY SIMEON Y JOYCE GROSCH
0 32112 ON CREST CT 1070 COLONL4L MEADOWS WAY
W LAKE VILLAGE CA,91361 VIRGINIA BEACH VA,23454
504162003 522070009 504201
DENT HAND ANNIE RY hq PAT CIA HOPFMAN
672 TYNER WAY 1712 ACKSON ST
INCLINE VILLAGE NV, 89451 P ESTINE TX,75801
504053018 504051002 504030001
SANDRA NES ANNIE JOSEPH RICHARD KLUSZCZYNSKI
0 2784 BOTTICELLI DR 1090 CMLO DR
HENDERSON NV,89052 PALM SPRINGS CA,92262
504161009 504162005
gt�%
504054009FRANCES OWLES N08 Da USE
D CA,90069
522060015 504162020 50420101
CLIFTON LAMB JAMES LENNY PLAN . SLIE
P 0 BOX 1787 9454 WILSHIRE BLV NO 600 0
CANYON COUNTRY CA,91386 BEVERLY HILLS CA,90212
504202011 504053004 50420101
R 82 BA SIWOOb ST EUGENE JOSBP YON
NEWPORT BEACH CA,92660 0 0
504162011
504201007 504201005
CHARLBS LAUGHLIN
EVAN 1VL4 NER MITCH MILLETT
0 1729E M CANYON 210 0
P SPRINGS CA,92264
G69230010 M 669230011 505020025
MT SAN JACINTO WINTER PARK
MI S MMUNICATIONS CORD MORRIS COMMUNICATIONS CORP AUTHORITY
73101 GHWAY 111 STE 1 713 BROAD ST ONE TRAMWAY RD
P bHSERT CA, 92260 AUGUSTA GA,30901 PALM SPRINGS CA,92262
03
504162009 504040048 504053017
MURBAU CHAS A LIVING TRUST STEPHENNICHOLS 1EFFREYNOBLE
24774 W MUREAU RD 879 N PALM CANYON DR P 0 BOX 622
CALABASAS CA,91302 PALM SPRINGS CA,92262 REDLANDS CA,92373
504161003 504201036 5041620
MAX PALEVSKY
DONALD PET PALM
0 924 WESTWpOD BLV STE 700
LOS ANGBLBS CA,90024
669340C101 669379037 504041082
PALM SPRINGS RV RESORT PALM SPRINGS VILLAS 11 MONA PHILIP GUIDE
7200 RADICE CT 729 EUGENE RD 1424 25TH ST
FT LAUDERDALE FL,33319 PALM SPRINGS CA,92262 SANTA MONICA CA, 90404
504162001 504162007 EL 50416100
DPBKAI4 PURN
70HIJ P Gl0/Vl6lNf RAEOLINI
0 68320 BAHAAA RD 0
CATHEDRAL CITY CA,92234
669230001 504201OW 669290004
ELETCFIER RANSOM LYDIA RTNGWALD
86 N COUNTRY CLUB RD MA F.iNECKE P 0 SOX 2364
DECAT[JR IL,62521 LAGUNA HILLS CA,92654
504162019 505029016
LYNN RIVARD RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONT 504161011
1800 S SUNRISE WAY 1995 MARKET STREET KELLY BINSON
PALM SPRINGS CA,92264 RIVERSIDE CA,92501 '0
504201006 669310007 669310008
ROBIN RO JUDITH RUBIN RONE
UBIN IZM
85D M CANYON AR 22807 VALLEY VISTA C1R 9911O BLV NO 660
PA SPRINGS CA,92262 WILDOMAR CA,92595 L LES CA,90035
504201035 669320004 5041620
jr
STANFORD RUBIN SAMSON FUNDING CORP ItICI SCHULLER
3029 WILSHIRE BLV 9777 QUEENS BLV NO 710
SANTA MONICA CA,90403 REGO PARK NY, 11374
504201008 522070008 505020005
MARTHA SCOTT SF PACIFIC PROP INC SILADOWROCK
450 N ROSSMORE AVE 201 MISSION ST 64515 VIA FERMATO
LOS ANGELES CA,90004 SAN FRANCISCO CA,94105 PALM SPRINGS CA,92264
504030007 669290010 669365004
SFLADOWROCK DEV CORP LORRAINE SHEINBERG ERNE SIMMONS
801 E TAHQUITZ CYN WAY 101 1475 S CALLE MARCUS 0
PALM SPRINGS CA,92262 PALM SPRINGS CA,92264
522070023 522100025
50416201�f' SOUTHERN PACIFIC STATE OF CALIF
CLfjl���jjE SMITHERN TRANSPORTATION CO
y B� 1700 FARNAM ST I0T14 FL S 400 R ST STE O C
OMA14A NE,68102 SACRAMENT CA,95814
669230005 5041620 669M5001 pm
SUGAR 7OSEPH M ESTATE OF JOE L4YER NADYN OMAS
1475 S CALLE MARCUS P 0 1061
PALM SPRINGS CA,92264 P M SPRINGS CA,9'2263
504081001 556380012 504020009
DAMIAN TOPOLIZIDES U S GOVT AGENCY 556 USA 504
1033 4TH ST UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
SANTA MOM CA CA, 90403 ?,0 ,0
505030009 522170006 556380001
USA 505 USA 522 USA 556
US DEPT OF INTERIOR UNKNOWN UNKNOWN
WASHINGTON DC,21401 *,0 10
669290011 522110002 522040007
USA 669 USA 13L VC I Nry
US DEPT OF INTERIOR 6221 SPRINGS BLV 5225 VIA BRUMOSA
WASHINGTON DC,21401 R RSIDE CA,92507 YORBA LINDA CA,92886
504161011Y 504162004 50416201
KRIS N V1LAS GERAL TTED FRED CK WOLFE
,0 10 0
504053001
SD42p1002 504051001
/OUGS YAGALOFF
RO BERT ORSWICK f�M NOAT YARNALL
1901
PRINGS CA,92263
i
504 1G1-006 504-162-012 504-051-003
ARCARO MICHAEL BERTOIA RAYMOND LUIGI BREWER LYLE J
2277 N MILO DR 2233 N JANIS DR 2775 N GIRASOL AVE
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
504-161-004 504-053-005 504-201-004
KAY RICHARD BROOKS MICHAEL S CUETO JUAN E
2233 N MILO DR 2770 N GIRASOL AVE PO BOX 92
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263
504-162-015 504-053-002 669-361-005
FUNDIN JIM A GLADDEN F E GRAY MOLLIE M
2313 N JANIS DR 2786 N GIRASOL AVE 898 W GATEWAY DR
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
504-201-001 504-053-018 504-161-009
RICCI RUGGIERO RUEDA BOBBY J & GRISELDA KNOWLES MARY ELLEN
1099 CHINO CANYON RD 2797 N CARDILLO AVE 3004 HYPERION AVE
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92264 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 LOS ANGELES,CA 90027
504-054-009 504-201-011 504-053-004
KRAUSE DONNA ELIZABETH LESLIE ALAN LUBE EUGENE M
2796 N CARDILLO AVE 1060 W CIELO DR 2780 N GIRASOL AVE
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
504-201-012 504-201-007 504-201-005
LYON DIANA MATZNER EVAN C MILLE17 MITCHELL W
1080 W CIELO DR 931 W PANORAMA RD 1025 W CHINO CANYON RD
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS,CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
504-161-003 504-162-013 504-162-001
OSMAN DONALD F CAPEL ARLETTE PIRO JOHN J
' 2223 N MILO DR 2267 N JANIS DR 2498 N MILO DR
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
504-161-007 504-201-003 504-161-011
PHILLIPS DENNIS C &NANCY B REINECKE MARK ROBINSON KELLY D
934 INVERNESS DR 1047 W CHINO CANYON RD 2425 N MILO DR
RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
504-162-018 669-365-004 504-162-014
BAUTZER CRAIG STEVEN SIMMONS ERNEST C SMITHERN CLAUDE H
2405 N JANIS DR 4 JUAN CIR 2285 N JANIS DR
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
504-162-017 504-161-010 504-162-004
THAYER JOEL PRATHER JOSEPH A& SHIRLEY A WHITTED GERALD W
2363 N JANIS DR 7415 E CALICO TRL 2366 N MILO DR
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 ORANGE, CA 92869 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
Smooth,FeEoftetsT%/-"- oc-�a4) Use template For 516�`�J
504-162-016 604-201-002 504-051-001
CHADWICK TRUST WORSWICK SANDRA B YARNALL NATALIE E
11835 W OLYMPIC BLVD 775 1055 W CHINO CANYON RD 2800 N VISTA GRANDE AVE
LOS ANGELES, CA 90064 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262 PALM SPRINGS, CA 92262
504-201-005
MILLETT MITCHELL W
PO BOX 2811
PALM SPRINGS, CA 92263-2811
I
i
i
PROOF OF PUBLICATION I his is space for County Clerk's Filing Stamp
(2015.5.C.C.P)
No. 3740 .,-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
Ciry OF PALM SPHINOS
AMENS NQ THE ENWE V PONMENTALIY
SENSITIVE AREAS+SPEClrlc PLAN
(ESA-SP) ZONE
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN rhat t',e City Councll
STATE OF e the city of Palm spring:, wru hold a Oro
CALIFORNIAORN1A Qty at as meatmg Of December E 20d�. The
Count of Riverside city CpoPnco meat,, begins at o:oo 'ppan, In the Y Councll Ch,imbar a CAA, Hall, 2 00 E, ran the Canyon Way palm Spr,ngs.
The purppae of 1110 h4adnq Is to cgnsldor an
amandment to the Env,ronmenlully SonslUve Ar-
ea-Specific plan (FSA-SP) Zone. The ESq-SP
lone was recently r•nactcd fpr tnc Chrno one
antl Certain Ihnds •+Icng tne�Hlnhway 7l9 nc,1h entry corridor, The Chllta Cone c,a Jorge vacant
'Jluvin fan located northwest o/t1, urbanized
f am:i citizen of the United States and a resident of' PonfOnfof-N,e Clryr of palm spdnpp.:. It Is south_tip Highway 7t7 end Qanr,raiNfy 6lsocted by the County aforesaid;f am over the age of eighteen ' Tram Wsy, palacent erwa also attoctcd byy the
preposed prg1'n-ct Inclupe lands nprth of the C V years,and net a party to Or Interested in the CAY a along tl,e coulhweg}arty edge or HIghW°y
above-entitled matter,I am the principal cleric of a
printer of the,DESERT SUN PLBLIS111NC
COMPANY a newspaper or general circulation, �ti,� •r or�k
printed And published in the city of Palm Springs, ..
Countyof Riverside,and which newspaper has been
adjudged a newspaper Of general circulation by the i'�', '`..( •w;-s� _
Superior Court of the County of Riverside,State of
California under the date of March 24, 198&Case
Number 191236:that the notice,of which the q'
onnexed is a printed copy(set in Type not smaller I— •`
than non pariel,has been published in each regular
and entire issue of said newspaper and not in any -
; r
supplement thereof on the following dates,to wit;
November 25 ,2006 u.�dment c ,'+,
I. Trar star
- to Phitno ESA- II nUdr ..1_
-•--.-�...`.,..._________.....-•_---•.•.,.-.__— w, t cU relined
3P Zanv a: fgl,QWE:
i of density outflds the p8A-Sp Zone;
.--.--..-..._______— 2. (Jae Of Compleoun bphde for
the ESA-Sp Zon protects W,thln
3 Enforcement uo}load agnmsr ,nauthor,ed work
All in the year 2006 wlthm the ESA-811
Zone
Pobfle tastlinony on the project Will
I certify(or declare)under penalty of•perjury that the 'It Inc PubOc hearing, be srcepu:d
ENVIRONMENTAL OBTERMINATtONt The Cnv
foregoing is true and Correct. ,OY'oaTmhSpringa,in Hs C9paclty as :he Iced Phan-
ja nfoiect haa--determinpd that thn pro._ of the Ca ifohni, ,}y FY•ampt 7rpm the,provls,pns
Rated at Falm Springs,California this--Z7 -day under Sectrone Fnvlronmcntal..Qu tlity ewt.(CEQ
75308 Acirq n—by Renulptory Agencies inr Prolucrlon Oi the Environment" of
the State CEQA Guidelines.
rrf----------November --- - ----- 2000
REVIEW OF PROJECT INFORMATION;The stag report and otter sgppporhng documents regardlhg this protect are Ovalrable for public roviev,at qty
n mI„ Monday throu h Fnda/yyy7B PIIE•+ e contc01 gab
Woultl IJte Ito ac d erkaa rt 0e to 020 rev_yy
-.�.. .--..-....,..-_.. PP m
Sio fature these documettts.
COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION;RcsppOnse
to thin holies may be made verbally at the pubhp
��•J ��- ';t_ en He�comm comment ma w�dert the e-Un g Whit_
by!altar(For maul or hand delivery) to, ry C°end!
C\; Jaimeg Thompson C,y Clerk
3200 E, Tahqultz t;arlyen Way
Pcdm SPnngs, CA 327_02 -
L - - ff any group challangs.the act,on I;^ raLOd may bn Ilmaod Fd only Thom In court, ,.uss
L;ues rat,'d
_ ,4^ at the public hearing descr,betl In thlr netioo or In
wntren corresppndence it. Or prior to the Cny
�+ Council hoaring An opportunely well be 01vpn at
old he rin fur all Interested persons la ba
heard. Queg ion; reg9rdrnp this cage m q be dl-
reclud to CIa, A. Ewing, ❑ireetor Of IahNnO
(7OO)-e23-5245.
SI hcces,ta ayuda can eats.cgrta,port;vor Ilame a
la Ciudud do Palm Sp'
angg' y puetle nobler con
Nadine Flsger lelefgnc (780) 323-82a,.
J'O'orn M Gty Glelk
Publiancdt 1i/25120ne