HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/3/2018 - STAFF REPORTS - 4.B. a0�P A LM sp4
� a
u n
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
c0A I F O10AN
DATE: January 3, 2018 UNFINISHED BUSINESS
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC PDD
COMMITTEE REGARDING CHANGES TO THE PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT PROCESS AND PROPOSED
IMPLEMENTATION WORK PLAN.
FROM: David H. Ready, City Manager
BY: Department of Planning Services
SUMMARY
This is a request for the City Council to review and provide direction to staff regarding the
recommendations of the Ad Hoc PDD Committee, and to provide input on the proposed
work plan for implementation of the recommendations. At the previous Council
discussion of this item on September 6, 2017, the councilmembers were directed to
provide comments to staff on the proposed recommendations of the Ad Hoc PDD
Committee for discussion at a future Council meeting. Comments on the
recommendations and the proposed work plan to implement the recommendations are
included in this report.
RECOMMENDATION:
Discuss the recommendations of the Ad Hoc PDD Committee and associated work plan,
and provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND:
The Ad Hoc PDD Committee ("Committee") was formed through a settlement agreement
("Agreement") that arose from a lawsuit regarding the Dakota development (Case
5.1310/PD-365). A copy of the Agreement is included with this staff report as Attachment
#4. The Agreement established a seven-member Committee to study the existing
Planned Development District (PDD) process, and to make recommendations as to
whether modifications should be made to the process. The Agreement requires that the
recommendations of the Committee be considered in good faith by the Planning
ITEM NO. q°6•
City Council Staff Report
January 3, 2018 -- Page 2
Work Plan—Ad Hoc PDD Committee Recommendations
Commission, and states that the Planning Commission may forward any or all of the
recommendations to the City Council.
The Agreement established a Base Committee consisting of the following individuals: Jim
Harlan, representing the plaintiff in the lawsuit; Marvin Roos, representing the builder and
developer; and Kathy Weremiuk, representing the Planning Commission. The Agreement
required the Base Committee to appoint up to four additional individuals to serve on the
Committee, with the additional members having expertise in the following areas: (1) a
local contractor or engineer; (2) a person with expertise in the field of affordable housing;
(3) a local architect; and (4) a person with expertise in the field of planning in the local
area. The Base Committee selected the following members to fill the remaining four
positions: Lyn Calerdine, Tracy Conrad, Michael Johnston, and Scott Bigbie.
The Committee met 15 times between July 2016 and March 2017 to discuss revisions to
the PDD regulations and process. The Committee finalized the recommendations at their
meeting of March 2, 2017, and requested that their recommendations be forwarded to the
Planning Commission in accordance with the Agreement. The Planning Commission
reviewed the recommendations over the course of two regular meetings and one study
session, and took action on May 10, 2017 to forward the recommendations to the City
Council with minor modifications and comments.
RECOMMENDATIONS — COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS:
At the discussion of the work plan on September 6, 2017, councilmembers were
encouraged to share any comments on the recommendations with staff. Former
Councilmember Mills was the only member to share comments on the recommendations.
He requested that the Council further discuss the following recommendations:
• Recommendation #15 — Discuss further with other councilmembers regarding
adherence to the height limitation of the underlying zoning district.
• Recommendation #19 — Modify the statement as follows: "Preserve the existing
street grid, and require streets or driveways of a PDD project to align with streets
at the perimeter of the project where deemed appropriate."
• Recommendation #21 — Modify the statement as follows: "Amend the PDD
ordinance to require the provision of public benefit; define what constitutes public
benefit, and preclude the project itself from being defined as the major public
benefit except where replacing blight."
• Recommendation #23 — Discuss further with other councilmembers regarding
modifications to development standards.
• Recommendation #30 — Discuss further with other councilmembers regarding
projects with "excessive" exceptions to development standards.
• Recommendation #38 — Allow the additional comment period at City Council
meetings (limited to discussion of the motion as made).
• Recommendation #53 — Consider how the 5,000 square-foot lot requirement may
impact affordable housing developments.
02
City Council Staff Report
January 3, 2018 -- Page 3
Work Plan—Ad Hoc PDD Committee Recommendations
• Recommendation #61 — Reject the recommendation, and maintain City Council
authority to waive development standards as part of the PDD approval process
where warranted.
• Recommendation #67 — Reject the recommendation, and utilize the architectural
review process to require a higher level of design.
It is requested that councilmembers review the recommendations above and provide
further input to staff.
PROPOSED WORK PLAN:
At the meeting of July 20, 2017, the City Council reviewed the recommendations of the
Ad Hoc PDD Committee and generally supported the implementation of all of the
recommendations of the Committee. Council directed staff to identify recommendations
which could be implemented relatively quickly over the next several months, versus
recommendations which would require greater staff time or were less critical for
immediate implementation. Based on those recommendations, a work plan for
implementation of the recommendations has been divided into "Immediate Tasks" and
"Future Tasks." A discussion of each of the tasks is listed in the following section of this
report.
Immediate Tasks: Immediate Tasks are those that can be implemented by staff, generally
without the assistance of outside consultants, and can be initiated within the next six
months. Completion of the items listed as Immediate Tasks would result in the
implementation of over two-thirds of the 67 recommendations of the Committee. The
Immediate Tasks are listed as items A through D as follows:
A. Task: PDD Ordinance Amendment
Description: Amend PSZC Section 94.03.00 to incorporate revised PDD
development standards, public benefit requirements, findings, and procedures.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#1-19, #21-26, #33-37, #56, #67 Zoning Text Amendment S rin 2018
B. Task: Modify Procedures for Processing PDD Applications
Description: Revise PDD application forms and administrative processes to align
with new PDD regulations and review ra uirements.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#27-32, #38 Administrative Spring 2018
Y V 1J
City Council Staff Report
January 3, 2018-- Page 4
Work Plan—Ad Hoc PDD Committee Recommendations
C. Task: Small-Lot Development Regulations
Description: Amend the Zoning Code to include small-lot development standards
as an alternative to the PDD application process.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#20, #52-54, #60 Zoning Text Amendment Spring 2018
D. Task: Mixed-Use Development Regulations
Description: Amend the Zoning Code to include mixed use development
standards and're ulations as an alternative to the PDD applicationprocess.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#58, #60 Zoning Text Amendment Summer 2018
Future Tasks: Future Tasks are those implementation items that will either require
significant funding and staff time (such as the update to the General Plan), or those items
which are less critical to resolving the immediate issues of the PDD process. No start
date has been proposed for these tasks; it is recommended that the work plan be
reassessed once the Immediate Tasks have been completed. The Future Tasks are
identified as items E through J as follows below.
E. Task: General Plan Update
Description: Initiate an update of the General Plan, and coordinate changes to
the Zoning Code to align with the General Plan.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#39-50, #57, #59, #61, #63, #64 General Plan Amendment, TBD
Zoning Text Amendment
F. Task: Golf Course Redevelopment Standards
Description: Initiate an update of the General Plan, and coordinate changes to
the Zoning Code to align with the General Plan.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#51, #55 General Plan Amendment, TBD
Zoning Text Amendment
04
City Council Staff Report
January 3, 2018-- Page 5
Work Plan-Ad Hoc PDD Committee Recommendations
G. Task: Entitlement Process Changes
Qescription Investigate modifications to the entitlement process to send
applications to the Planning Commission;prior to review by the Architectural
Advisory Committee.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#37 Zoning Text Amendment TBD
H. Task: Development Regulations for Institutional Uses
Description: Amend the Zoning Code to include development standards for
institutional uses as an alternative to the PDD application process.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#62 Zoning Text Amendment TBD
I. Task: Hillside Development Regulations
Description: Revise the development standards for hillside areas to restrict mass
grading and refine the site development standards.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#65 Zoning Text Amendment TBD
J. Task: Solar Design Standards
Description: Develop design standards to address shading and to support active
and passive solar use.
Recommendations Implemented: Process: Start Date:
#66 Zonin Text Amendment I TBD
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) DETERMINATION:
The recommendations of the Committee are not subject to the California Environmental
Quality Act ("CEQA") under CEQA Guidelines (14 Cal. Code Regs.) section 15060(c)(2),
15060(c)(3), and 15061(b)(3). The activity is not subject to CEQA because it will not
result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment;
and the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to activities that
have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be
seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity may have a significant effect
on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.
05
City Council Staff Report
January 3, 2018-- Page 6
Work Plan—Ad Hoc PDD Committee Recommendations
FISCAL IMPACT:
Should the City Council choose to begin implementation of the recommendations of the
Committee, additional funding may be necessary to hire consultants to assist in the
preparation of Zoning Code and General Plan amendments, and to prepare the
associated environmental review documentation.
Flinn Fagg, AICP Marcus L. Fuller, MPA, P.E., P.L.S.
Director of Planning Services Assistant City Manager/City Engineer
David H. Ready,
City Manager
Attachments:
1. Recommendations of the Ad Hoc PDD Committee
2. City Council Minutes Excerpt— 07/20/17
3. City Council Minutes Excerpt— 09/06/17
4. Settlement Agreement and General Release of Claims
06
ATTACHMENT # 1
07
Recommendations — Ad Hoc PDD Committee
Suggested Changes to the PDD Ordinance (Section 94.03.00)
Purpose of Planned Deveiopment00s r cts Disse in PlcnniCo"mmis"' rimen a ion 0 inioh(t):
P
1. Allow development of multiple land parcels under a single development plan. Forward to the City Council.
-2. Allow a mixture of land uses or zones in a single project. Forward to the City Council.
3. Allow flexibility in development standards, where contextually appropriate. Forward to the City Council.
4. Provide community benefits not required under the applicable zoning district or other land Forward to the City Council.
development codes.
5. Promote innovation and excellence in site and urban design, resulting in projects of significantly Forward to the City Council.
higher quality than would be achieved through conventional design practices and standards.
6. Promote design variety within a development. Forward to the City Council.
7. Promote open space preservation through municipal dedication or community association ownership. Forward to the City Council.
8. Promote more efficient traffic and pedestrian circulation. Forward to the City Council.
9. Promote preservation of natural or significant historic architectural features. Forward to the City Council.
POD Project Justification ....... :' --- '__ - _ -1 ll ' - ''
Dissenting Planning Commission K on ocommendation/CoMm4nts
pinion(s).
10. Specify why and how the project is better than by right-of-zone, and why the PDD process is Forward to the City Council.
desirable for the project.
11. Specify exactly which exceptions are being requesting from the underlying zoning regulations and Forward to the City Council.
why those departures are necessary.
12. A PDD application shall specify the objectives of the project and how they relate to the PDD Forward to the City Council.
application.
13. Provide recreational facilities for residents of the development not otherwise required under the Forward to the City Council.
zoning district or other land development codes.
POD General Requirements Dissenting Planning Commission Reto�mrnendation/Commenlls
Opinion(s):
14. The project shall comply with the land use map and policies as specified by the General Plan. A Forward to the City Council.
General Plan amendment shall be filed in conjunction with the PDD application where the proposed
-project is inconsistent with the existing land use designation of the General Plan.
15. The project shall comply with the height of the underlying zoning district, unless otherwise Forward to the City Council.
authorized by a specific plan or the General Plan.
16. Open space shall meet or exceed the open space requirements of the underlying zoning district. Forward to the City Council.
20 July 2017
C)G_' Page 1
Suggested Changes to the PDD • (Section • 1 1 1
17. The project shall respect the setback requirements of the underlying zoning at the perimeter of the Forward to the City Council.
development site.
18. Exceptions to setback requirements or other development standards shall be mitigated by Forward to the City Council.
increased open space.
19. Preserve the existing street grid, and require streets or driveways of a PDD project to align with Forward to the City Council; objection to the phrase
streets at the perimeter of the project unless rzentextually h9appreffiate. "unless contextually inappropriate."
20. Refine the definition of "open space" and coordinate with definitions for `lot coverage" and Forward to the City Council.
"common open space." Clearly identify where "common open space" is required, versus a percentage
of open space that includes the landscaped areas of individual units.
Public Benefit Dissenting Planning Commission Recommendation/Comments
Opinion(s):
21. Amend the PDD ordinance to require the provision of public benefit; define what constitutes public Forward to the City Council.
benefit, and preclude the project itself from being defined as the major public benefit.
22. A PDD application shall list the public benefits proposed with the project, including additional Forward to the City Council.
public open space, affordable housing units, additional public amenities, additional off-site
improvements, or similar benefits that are not required as standard development conditions. Items such
as roadways, required traffic signals, payment of impact fees, landscape materials, or similar items
that are required for all standard developments cannot be counted towards satisfying the public
benefit requirement.
23. Modifications to development standards shall not be thought of as "waivers," but as minor Forward to the City Council; the recommendation should
modifications to development standards. Any modification shall be in exchange for desired public be moved to the "PDD General Requirements" section.
benefits specified by the zoning ordinance or General Plan policies.
Other Standards/Requirements Dissenting Planning Commission Recommendation/Comments
Opinion(s):
24. Allow density bonuses in accordance with State law through the PDD process for affordable Forward to the City Council.
housing units and senior housing units.
25. Use the PDD process for environmentally sensitive parcels to allow for clustering of housing and Forward to the City Council, with the notation that this
preservation of open space. recommendation is included to the extent that the issue is
not covered by other ordinances. In addition, the
Planning Commission has noted that this recommendation
should be included under the "Purpose of Planned
Developments" section.
Cno 20 July 2017
UJ
Page 2
Suggested Changes to the Processing of . . Applications
Process Changes Dissenting Planning Commission Recommendation/Comments
Opinion(s):
26. Require PDD projects to be reviewed by the Planning Commission in a study session prior to formal Forward to the City Council.
submittal.
27. Planning staff shall identify compliance with the General Plan, development standards for the Forward to the City Council.
underlying zoning district, and other land use requirements.
28. Staff reports shall detail specifically how proposed projects comply with the General Plan land Forward to the City Council.
use designation, policies, and other provisions.
29. Staff reports shall detail specifically how proposed projects comply with the underlying zoning Forward to the City Council.
district.
30. PDD applications that require excessive exceptions to development standards shall be Forward to the City Council.
recommended for denial or shall be revised and resubmitted.
31. The City Council and Planning Commission need to acknowledge the role of staff as the regulatory Forward to the City Council.
gatekeeper, and give staff the authority to enforce the General Plan and development standards.
32. PDD applications that do not conform to the General Plan land use designation and policies in Forward to the City Council.
terms of use or density shall require the submittal of a General Plan amendment or a Change of Zone
application.
33. Revise the findings required for a PDD to include: a) general consistency with development Combine the recommendations regarding findings
standards; b) conformance to the General Plan; c) public benefit; d) major architectural standards with (Recommendations #33 and #34), and forward to the
enhanced design requirements; and e) specific development standards. City Council.
34. Prior to approving a PDD, the Planning Commission and the City Council shall make findings that Combine the recommendations regarding findings
the PDD is consistent with the General Plan, that the use is consistent with the proposed underlying (Recommendations #33 and #34), and forward to the
zoning, and that any modifications to development standards are offset by the public benefits of the City Council.
project.
35. Coordinate the expiration of PDD entitlements with any mapping action associated with the Forward to the City Council.
project so that both actions expire at the same time.
36. LC Do not forward to City Council; the recommendation
should reflect the same timeframe as the recent Extension
of Time ordinance (Case 5.1405 ZTA).
fr 20 July 2017
p Page 3
Suggested Changes to the Processing of . . Applications
Changes to Meeting Format Dissenting Planning Commission Recommendation/Comments
Opinion(s):
37. Modify the entitlement process to send applications to the Planning Commission first for land use Forward to the City Council, with the comment that
approval, and then to the Architectural Advisory Committee for architectural review. Planning Commission should review development
standards and conceptual architectural design first, and
then forward to the AAC for architectural review. The
application would then be returned to the Planning
Commission for final architectural review.
38. Keep the public comment period open until after a motion by the Planning Commission; allow a 1- LC Forward to the City Council, with a comment that the
minute public comment period after the motion is made, with comments limited solely to the motion as additional public comment period shall be limited to
made. comments on the motion, and cannot include additional
comments on CEQA issues.
Suggested Changes to the General Plan
General Plan Changes Dissenting Planning Commission Recommendation/Comments
Opinion(s):
39. Identify areas suitable for small-lot development. Forward to the City Council.
40. Study the addition of multifamily housing in areas zoned for shopping centers as a means to Forward to the City Council.
encourage affordable housing, and study incentives for density/height and reduced parking for
affordable or senior-assisted living facilities within or adjacent to commercial areas.
41. Schedule an update to the General Plan. Forward to the City Council.
42. Bring the zoning code into conformance and alignment with the General Plan. Clarify that Forward to the City Council.
consistency with the General Plan (while not required for Charter Cities) is to be encouraged for
adopted General Plan policies.
43. Review all sections of the General Plan that mention the PDD process and determine if a zoning Forward to the City Council.
ordinance update to a CUP or other permit can handle the issue.
44. Language in the General Plan that mandates the use of the PDD process as the entitlement Forward to the City Council.
application for certain land uses (such as Mixed Use) should be modified to allow the PDD for new and
emerging concepts, but also mandate that the zoning ordinance be updated to cover these new
development concepts as quickly as possible.
45. Gates around developments should be precluded where it interrupts the grid pattern. Geting e€ LC, KW Forward to the City Council, with the elimination of the
priyate reads fmay be censidered en a ease by ease basis upen Fmaking findings. second sentence. The presumption should be against
- gates, unless there is a compelling argument to provide
gates.
F-+ 20 July 2017
F„r Page 4
Suggested Changes to the General Plan
General Plan Changes Dissenting Planning Commission Recommendation/Comments
O inion(s):
46. Study the lower threshold of the higher density residential General Plan categories. Forward to the City Council.
47. Carefully define "mixed-use and multi-use," and specify if it must include commercial and Forward to the City Council.
residential uses on the development site. Establish a residential bonus for true mixed-use development.
48. Determine which development standards in zoning cannot be modified with a PDD application, Forward to the City Council.
and move such standards to the General Plan.
49. Prepare a zoning/General Plan consistency map that could point to rezoning of inconsistent Forward to the City Council.
properties.
50. Establish where bonuses may be appropriate for affordable housing, provision of public parking, Forward to the City Council.
provision of additional open space, etc.
51. Establish goals and policies for the reuse or redevelopment of existing golf course facilities. Forward to the City Council.
Suggested Changes to the Zoning Ordinance
Zoning Code Changes Dissenting Planning Commission Recommendation/Comments
Opinion(s):
52. Establish standards for small-lot development in place of utilizing the PDD process. Consider Forward to the City Council.
small-lot development in the R-2 and R-3 zones as may be appropriate, based on density.
53. For small-lot development, require an average of 5,000 SF lot area or provide common open Forward to the City Council; clarify that the intent is to
space. maintain an effective lot size of 5,000 square feet and
provide common open space.
54. In the RGA-6/8 and R-2 zones, change the default single-family standards from R-1-C to the Forward to the City Council.
proposed small-lot standards.
55. Establish development standards for the reuse of existing golf courses facilities that incorporate Forward to the City Council.
best practices from other jurisdictions.
56. Refine the definition of "open space" and coordinate with definitions for "lot coverage" and Forward to the City Council.
"common open space." Clearly identify where "common open space" is required, versus a percentage
of open space that includes the landscaped areas of individual units.
57. Establish a maximum height limit by zoning district; consider the elimination or modification of the Forward to the City Council.
High-Rise Ordinance after review of permitted heights in all zoning districts. If the High-Rise
Ordinance is retained, consider different standards for different areas of the city, based on context.
58. Modify the zoning code to allow mixed-use development by right, and establish development Forward to the City Council.
standards for mixed-use projects.
20 July 2017
Page 5
Suggested Changes to the Zoning Ordinance
Zoning Code Changes Dissenting Planning Commission Recommendation/Comments
O inion(s): r
59. Rezone land not currently zoned for residential use (such as unbuilt or underutilized commercial Forward to the City Council.
land) to include cluster or multifamily uses to make up for increasing small-lot development.
60. Create new zones to accommodate the types of development actually being built (example: Forward to the City Council, with the comment that the
small-lot residential zone). zoning code should be amended to accommodate new
development types, instead of relying on the PDD
process.
61. Remove language in the zoning code that specifically allows the City Council to approve Forward to the City Council, with the direction to first
modifications of development standards. identify the citations in the zoning code which grant the
City Council authority to waive development standards.
62. Add appropriate development standards in the zoning code for institutional uses, religious uses, Forward to the City Council.
properties split by zoning, and mixed-use development, so that these uses can be built by right rather
than relying on the PDD process.
63. Review all sections of the General Plan that mention the PDD process and determine if a zoning Forward to the City Council.
ordinance update to a CUP or other permit can handle the issue.
64. Consider more/other ways to create flexibility in standards (such as the CUP process) to achieve Forward to the City Council.
better design, etc.
65. Consider standards to address grading of hillside parcels or parcels with significant slopes. Forward to the City Council, with the comment to remove
the term "significant" and to recommend that grading
standards be adopted for hillside development.
66. Develop standards to address shading and mitigation of solar impacts. Forward to the City Council.
67. Develop increased design standards/requirements for PDD projects. Forward to the City Council; the recommendation should
be added under the "PDD General Requirements" section.
Legend: Text in red font reflects the recommendations of the Planning Commission.
Dissenting Opinion: SB - Scott Bigbie
LC = Lyn Colerdine
TC = Tracy Conrad
JH = lames Harlan
MJ = Michael Johnston
MR = Marvin Roos
KW = Kathy Weremiuk
t-`
W 20 July 2017
Page 6
ATTACHMENT # 2
�?ALM Sp
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
* C�PPORATEO`Q " (760) 323-8204
cQ< P
EXCERPTS OF MINUTES
At the City Council meeting of the City of Palm Springs held July 20, 2017, the
City Council took the following action:
REVIEW OF THE ACTIONS OF THE AD HOC PLANNED DEVELOPMENT
DISTRICT (PDD) SUBCOMMITTEE REGARDING MODIFICATIONS TO THE
PDD PROCESS:
1. Staff Report.
Director of Planning Services Fagg presented the staff report.
2. Public Comments:
Robert Stone, Palm Springs, suggested implementing the Planning
Commission's actions, consider Ms. Deertrack's longitudinal study, and work
to stop lawsuits over the projects.
Frank Tysen, Palm Springs, stated opposition to PDDs, suggested adherence
to the General Plan and Zoning Code, expressed his concern with pending
PDD projects.
Judy Deertrack, Palm Springs, commended the subcommittee and People for
Proper Planning, and suggested consideration of using PDDs as an exception
versus rule.
Marvin Roos, Palm Springs, discussed his experience in processing PDDs.
3. Discuss the recommendations of the Ad Hoc PDD Committee
The City Council and Planning Commission discussion ensued including the
following:
• Reforming the Code
• Paying more attention to the General Plan and modify the plan to
obtain a better mix of projects
• The community development process and issue with public benefits
15
• A standardized approach to provide a percentage of affordable
housing or fee charge against the value of the construction permit that
would be used to support non-profit organizations building affordable
housing in Palm Springs
• Density versus open space
• PDDs involving small lots and the need for standards so as not to
require a PDD
• A General Plan update and coordination of Zoning Code with the
General Plan
• PDD is a good tool but it should not be overused
• Recommended staff determine items that could be instituted
immediately with a second list of standards and actions on how to
complete the standards
• The necessity to gain affordable housing when losing density
• The ideology of public benefit
• The Zoning Ordinance and General Plan needed to be consistent with
each other and meet modern needs
• Suggested Director of Planning Services Fagg list the 'low hanging
fruit" then figure out a work program
• Suggested determining high value, low effort item and low value, high
effort items
By consensus, the City Council directed Director of Planning Services
Fagg to work with the City Council Planned Development District Ad Hoc
Subcommittee prior returning this item to the City Council.
I, CYNTHIA A. BERARDI, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby
certify that the above action took place at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the 20th day of July, 2017.
Cynthia A. erardi, CIVIC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
16
ATTACHMENT # 3
�QAAMSA
A.° -ti CITY OF PALM SPRINGS
OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK
3200 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, CA 92262
x RA10 " (760) 323-8204
cg41FOR�,P
EXCERPTS OF MINUTES
At the City Council meeting of the City of Palm Springs held September 6, 2017, the
City Council took the following action:
4.A. REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED WORK PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION
OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE AD HOC PLANNED
DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT (PDD) SUBCOMMITTEE:
Director of Planning Services Fagg provided the background info as
outlined in the staff report.
Council discussion ensued.
ACTION: Continue item to a date uncertain.
Motion by Councilmember Mills, seconded by Mayor Pro Tern Foat,
and carried (4-0-1, Councilmember Roberts absent) on a roll call
vote.
I, CYNTHIA A. BERARDI, Chief Deputy City Clerk of the City of Palm Springs, hereby
certify that the above action took place at a regular meeting of the City Council held on
the 6th day of September, 2017.
e,A
Cynthia A. 6erardi, CMC
Chief Deputy City Clerk
18
ATTACHMENT # 4
, 4
SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND
GENERAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS
This SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND GENERAL RELEASE OF CLAIMS
("Agreement") is entered into as of this _ day of July, 2014 (the "Effective Date"), by
and between the City of Palm Springs, a California municipal corporation, and the Palm
Springs City Council (collectively, "Palm Springs"), Wessman Holdings, LLC, a
California limited liability company ("Developer"), Dakota PS, LLC, a California limited
liability company ("Builder") and People for Proper Planning, a California ad hoc non-
profit membership organization ("People") with respect to the facts set forth in the
Recitals below. Palm Springs, Developer and People shall hereinafter be referred to,
collectively, as the "Parties" and, each, a "Party."
RECITALS
A. On February 19, 2014, Palm Springs approved a resolution approving a
Mitigated Negative Declaration for a Planned Development District ("PDD") allowing 39
two-story detached single family homes and approving a Tentative Tract Map to
subdivide 6.37 acres into 30 residential lots located at the base of the San Jacinto
Mountains, fronting Belardo Road in the City of Palm Springs (the "Dakota Project" or
the "Project"). On March 5, 2014, Palm Springs adopted Ordinance No. 1846,
approving the PDD.
B. On or about March 21, 2014, People filed a Petition for Preemptory Writ of
Mandate and Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief ("Petition") against Palm
Springs in the Riverside County Superior Court, Palm Springs Branch, entitled People
for Proper Planning v. City of Palm Springs, et at., Case No. PSC1401656 ("Action").
Developer was named in the Action as a Real-Party-In-Interest. People's Petition
alleges that Palm Springs, as lead agency with respect to approval of the Dakota
Project, violated the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code
§§21000 et seq. - "CEQA") when it issued certain Approvals for the Project. The
Petition further alleges that Palm Springs violated its Municipal Zoning Code and further
violated the City General Plan in approving the Project. Palm Springs and Developer
deny all of these claims, and contest People's allegations in the Petition.
C. The Parties, in their shared interest, to avoid any further litigation between
them, and to settle and resolve, fairly, fully and finally, all matters in dispute between
them, wish to compromise and settle the Action and the disputes between them
regarding the Project (and certain proposed modifications thereto) on the terms and
conditions set forth herein. Accordingly, this Agreement is a compromise of disputed
claims, and the execution of this Agreement shall not be considered or treated at any
time or for any purpose as an admission that the other side's positions had merit, or as
an admission of liability, or wrongful conduct, by any of the Parties to this Agreement.
No past or present wrongdoing on the part of any of the Parties shall be implied from
the negotiation or the consummation of this Agreement.
20
-1-
L r
AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants set forth in this
Agreement, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and adequacy of
which are hereby acknowledged, the Parties to this Agreement covenant and agree as
follows:
1. Ad Hoc PDD Committee. A seven-member ad hoc committee
("Committee") shall be formed to study the existing PDD process, and to make
recommendations to both the Planning Commission as to whether modifications should
be made to the PDD process, and if so, what type of modifications. Margo Wheeler, the
City's Director of Planning Services, will serve as staff to the Committee. If Ms. Wheeler
no longer works for the City, the City Manager shall appoint an alternative staff member
to serve as the staff to the Committee. The Committee membership and formation shall
be as follows:. The City, Builder/Developer, and People hereby form a three-person
base committee ("Base Committee"). The City's Mayor Pro Tern shall appoint a
member of Palm Springs Planning Commissioner as the City's representative on the
Base Committee. Builder and Developer jointly appoint Rich Meaney as their
representative on the Base Committee. People hereby appoint Jim Harlan as People's
representative on the Base Committee. The Parties may replace their representatives
on the Base Committee as necessary. The Base Committee shall be responsible for
selecting up to four additional Committee members from the following categories: (1) a
local contractor or engineer; (2) a person with expertise in the field of affordable
housing; (3) a local architect; and (4) a person with expertise in the field of planning in
the local area. The Base Committee will work cooperatively to fill positions (1) through
(4) with persons who will bring local knowledge, expertise, and differing viewpoints to
the Committee. Except as provided in the next sentence, the decisions shall be made
by a majority of the Base Committee members. The Base Committee may by
unanimous decision select members who do not fit within the criteria specified above.
The persons selected shall have demonstrated the ability to work collaboratively. If the
Base Committee is unable to fill one or more of the four positions, the Base Committee
and any additional members selected by the Base Committee shall serve as the
Committee. The Committee shall have its kickoff meeting within 45 days of the
Effective Date. The Committee shall hold no fewer than three meetings. After receiving
the information it deems appropriate, the Committee shall formulate its
recommendations regarding the PDD process. The Committee shall complete the
formulation of its recommendations within six month if the Effective Date unless the
Committee votes to grant itself a reasonable extension of time to complete the process.
The Committee's recommendations shall be considered in good faith by the Planning
Commission at a duly noticed regular or special meeting. The recommendations shall
not be binding. The recommendations of all members of the Committee will be
presented, even if the recommendation is not adopted as the majority position of the
members. The Planning Commission will consider whether or not to make any or all of
the recommendations to the City Council.
2. Enhanced Notice of PDD Applications/Hearings Pending Completion of
the Ad Hoc PDD Committee. Between the Effective Date and the date that the Ad Hoc
-2- 21
PDD Committee completes its task and delivers its recommendations to the City
Council, the City will provide enhanced public notice relating to PDD applications and
hearings as follows.
(a). Complete Applications. Counsel for People will prepare a listing of
e-mail addresses of persons who wish to be notified of the filing of PDD
applications. The list may be updated as desired by People. Once such
applications are deemed complete, the City will provide a notice to the persons
on the list that includes the name of the applicant, the location and type of
project, a brief description of the project, and a description of any deviations in
property development standards from the Palm Springs Municipal Code
requested by the Applicant. Application documentations will be available for
inspection at City Hall during normal business hours.
(b). Hearing Notices. On all public hearing notices related to projects
involving a PDD application, the notice shall include a description of any
deviations in property development standards from the Palm Springs Municipal
Code requested by the Applicant.
3. Compromise of Claims and Dismissal of Action. The Parties hereby agree
to compromise and settle People's claims arising from or related to the facts alleged in
the Petition pursuant to the terms and conditions set forth herein, including the general
release set forth below in Paragraph 5. Concurrently with the mutual execution of this
Agreement, People shall execute and transmit to counsel for Palm Springs and
Developer a fully executed Request for Dismissal of the Petition, with prejudice, in a
form suitable for filing with the Court, which such Request for Dismissal shall be filed
with the Court by counsel for Palm Springs or Developer. Except as otherwise agreed
to by the Parties in writing, each Party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs
incurred in the Petition proceeding.
4. No Admission of Liability. The Parties enter this Agreement and release
for the purpose of terminating the dispute between them. By entering into and carrying
out this Agreement, no Party to this Agreement admits any liability to any other Party on
any theory for any claim or cause of action. This Agreement shall not be used or
construed as an admission of liability by any Party hereto for any purpose.
5. General Releases.
(a) This release is intended as a full and complete release by People in
relation to the Petition, the Action and the Project. No part of this release shall release
any rights or obligations of the Parties created by this Agreement. People, for itself, and
on behalf of its members, associates, predecessors, successors, assigns, parents,
subsidiaries, alter egos and affiliates (collectively, the "Releasing Parties"), fully release
and discharge Palm Springs, the Builder, the Developer, the Developer's affiliated
entities (including, without limitation, Wessman Holdings, LLC), and its respective
present and former officers, directors, employees, partners, attorneys, independent
contractors, agents, insurers, accountants, heirs, and successors and assigns
-3- 22
(collectively, the "Released Parties"), from all rights, claims, demands, actions or
causes of action of every nature whatsoever which any of the Releasing Parties now
has or may have against any of the Released Parties arising from or related to the
above recited facts, the Petition, the Action and/or the Project (collectively, the
"Released Claims"), except those rights and obligations arising out of this Agreement.
People, on behalf of itself and each of the Releasing Parties, covenants not to threaten,
bring, commence, initiate, institute, file, join, maintain, prosecute, support, or threaten
any action(s) based in whole or part upon any of the Released Claims, except as
necessary to enforce this Agreement and the obligations set forth herein. People
understands and agrees that this Agreement may be pled as a full and complete
defense and bar to, and may be used as the basis to dismiss with prejudice or enjoin,
any action(s) based in whole or in part upon a Released Claim.
(b) This release is intended as a full and complete release and
discharge of any and all Released Claims that the Releasing Parties may have arising
from or related to the Project or proceedings on the Petition. In making this release,
People, on behalf of itself and each of the Releasing Parties, intends to release the
Released Parties from any liability of any nature whatsoever for any claim of damages
or injury or for equitable or declaratory relief of any kind, whether the claim, or any facts
on which such claim might be based, is known or unknown to the party possessing the
claim. People has read and has otherwise been informed of the meaning of Section
1542 of the California Civil Code, and has consulted with,its counsel, and-understands
the provisions of Section 1542., People, on hehalf of itself and each,of the ,Releasing
Parties, expressly waive all rights under Section,.1542 of the Civil Code of the State of
California and any successor statute, which the Parties,understand provides as follows:
A GENERAL RELEASE DOES NOT EXTEND TO CLAIMS
WHICH THE CREDITOR DOES NOT KNOW OR SUSPECT
TO EXIST IN HIS OR HER FAVOR AT THE TIME OF
EXECUTING THE RELEASE, WHICH IF KNOWN BY HIM
OR HER MUST HAVE MATERIALLY AFFECTED HIS OR
HER SETTLEMENT WITH THE DEBTOR.
People's Initials: U
(c) People, on behalf of itself arfd each of the Releasing Parties,
acknowledges that it may hereafter discover facts different from or in addition to those
which they now believe to be true with respect to the Released Claims. People, on
behalf of itself and each of the Releasing Parties, agrees that the foregoing releases
shall be and remain effective in all respects notwithstanding such different or additional
facts or any discovery thereof.
(d) No Released Party nor any related entities have made any
statement or representation to any of the.Releasing Parties regarding any fact relied
upon in entering;into this Agreement, and People, on behalf of,itself and each of.the
Releasing Parties, expressly.,states it does not rely upon any statement, representation
or promise of any.Released Party.or related entities in executing this Agreement, or in
-4- 23
making the settlement provided for herein, except as is expressly stated in this
Agreement.
(e) Each Party to this Agreement has made such investigation of the
facts pertaining to this settlement and this Agreement, and of all other matters
pertaining thereto, as it deems necessary. In entering into this Agreement, each Party
assumes the risk of any misrepresentation, concealment or mistake. If any Party should
subsequently discover that any fact relied upon by the Party in entering into this
Agreement was untrue, or that any fact was concealed from that Party, or that the
Party's understanding of the facts or of the law was incorrect, such Party shall not be
entitled to any relief in connection therewith, including without limitation upon the
generality of the foregoing, any alleged right or claim to set aside or rescind this
Agreement. This Agreement is intended to be, and is, final and binding among the
Parties.
(f) If it is within the contemplation of the Parties to this Agreement that
each of them may have claims for relief or causes of action for malicious prosecution or
abuse of process or other claims in connection with the Petition proceeding described
above, and matters undertaken in connection therewith, it is the intention of the Parties
to this Agreement to fully, finally and forever release any and all such claims.
6. Representations. Warranties and Covenants. Each Party to this
Agreement (each, the "Representing Party") hereby represents and warrants to the
other Parties as follows:
(a) The Representing Party has the right, power, legal capacity and
authority to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement, and no
approvals or consents of any person or entity other than the Representing Party is
necessary in connection with it. The execution and delivery of this Agreement and the
documents related hereto by the Representing Party have been duly authorized by it,
and this Agreement and the documents related hereto, when executed and delivered,
shall constitute a legal, valid and binding obligation of the Representing Party
enforceable against it in accordance with their terms.
(b) Each person executing this Agreement on behalf of an entity, other
than an individual executing this Agreement on his or her own behalf, represents that he
or she is authorized to execute this Agreement on behalf of said entity.
(c) The Representing Party has not assigned or transferred to any third
party any of the rights, claims, causes of action or items to be released or transferred
which it is obligated to transfer or to release as part of this Agreement. If a
Representing Party breaches the foregoing representation and warranty, such
Representing Party shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the non-breaching
Parties, of, from and against all liabilities, claims, demands, damages, costs, expenses,
and attorneys' fees incurred by such non-breaching Parties as a result of any person or
entity asserting any such assignment or transfer in violation of this paragraph's
24
-5-
representation and warranty. It is the intention of the Parties, and each of them, that
this indemnity does not require payment as a condition precedent to recovery.
7. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the
Parties, and supersedes any prior written or oral agreements between them concerning
the subject matter of this Agreement. This Agreement may only be waived, modified or
amended by the written agreement of all Parties to this Agreement.
8. Partial Invalidity. In the event that any term, covenant, condition or
provision of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be
invalid or against public policy, the remaining provisions shall continue in full force and
effect.
9. No Waiver. The waiver by one Party of the performance of any covenant,
condition or promise shall not invalidate this Agreement, nor shall it be considered as a
waiver by such Party of any other (or the enforcement for subsequent breaches or
failures of the same) covenant, condition or promise. The delay in pursuing any remedy
or in insisting upon full performance for any breach or failure of any covenant, condition
or promise shall not prevent a Party from later pursuing remedies or insisting upon full
performance for the same or similar breaches or failures.
10. Headings. The headings, subheadings and numbering of the different
paragraphs of this Agreement are inserted for convenience and reference only and are
not to be taken as part of this Agreement or to control or affect the meaning,
construction or effect of the same.
11. Governinq Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted and enforced in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
12. Successors In Interest. Subject to any restrictions against assignment
contained herein, and to any legal limitations on the power of the signatories to bind
non-signatories to this Agreement, this Agreement shall inure to the benefit of, and shall
be binding upon, the assigns, successors in interest, agents and related entities of each
of the Parties hereto.
13. Time Is Of The Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of all
obligations under this Agreement.
14. Necessary Acts. Each Party to this Agreement agrees to perform any
further acts and execute and deliver any further documents that may be reasonably
necessary to carry out the provisions of this Agreement.
15. Advice of Counsel. Each Party hereto, by its due execution of this
Agreement, represents to every other Party that it has reviewed each term of this
Agreement with its counsel in the above-referenced litigation, and that hereafter no
Party shall deny the validity of this Agreement on the ground that the Party did not have
advice of counsel generally or advice of its counsel in the aforementioned litigation.
Each Party has had the opportunity to receive independent legal advice with respect to
-6- 25
the advisability of making the compromise and settlement provided for herein, and with
respect to the meaning of California Civil Code §1542.
16. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Except as otherwise may be agreed to in a
writing executed by the one or more of the Parties hereto, each Party shall bear its own
attorneys' fees and costs in connection with the Action and the preparation and
execution of the Agreement.
17. Construction. Each Party has cooperated in the drafting and preparation
of this Agreement. In any construction to be made to this Agreement, or of any of its
terms and provisions, the same shall not be construed against any Party.
18. Notices. Any notice or demand which by any provision of this Agreement
is required or permitted to be given or served shall be deemed so given or served if sent
by United States mail, certified or registered mail, postage prepaid, with return receipt
requested. Such notices or demands shall be effective upon the earlier of (a) three (3)
business days after mailing, or (b) actual receipt as evidenced by the return receipt, and
shall be addressed as follows:
To: People
With a Copy To: Law Office of Babak Naficy
1504 Marsh Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To: City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
Palm Springs, California 92262
With a Copy To: Douglas C. Holland, Esq.
Woodruff, Spradlin & Smart
555 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
To: Wessman Holdings, LLC
555 S. Sunrise Way, Suite 200
Palm Springs, CA 92264
With a Copy To: Emily Hemphill, Esq.
Post Office Box 1008
Rancho Mirage, CA 92270
-7- 26
To: Rich Meaney
Dakota Partners, LLC
700 E. Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite A
Palm Springs, CA 92262
With a Copy To: M. Katherine Jenson, Esq.
Rutan & Tucker, LLP
611 Anton Boulevard, Suite 1400
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Either Party may change its address for service of notices by giving written notice
to the other Party of the new address.
19. No Third Parties Benefited. This Agreement is made for the sole benefit
and protection of Palm Springs, the Developer (and its successors, if any) and People.
No other person shall have any right of action or right to rely thereon, and the Parties
hereto hereby agree that nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed to vest
in any other person or entity any interest in or claim upon the funds that may be
advanced pursuant to this Agreement or any rights under this Agreement.
20. Execution. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts and by
facsimile signature; provided, however, that any Party executing this Agreement by
facsimile signature shall provide the original of his signature to every other Party within
one (1) business day. When each Party has signed and delivered at least one such
counterpart to each Party's counsel, each counterpart shall be deemed an original, and,
when taken together with other signed counterparts, shall constitute one Agreement,
which shall be binding upon and effective as to all Parties. One fully executed original is
to be delivered to counsel for each Party hereto.
[Remainder of Page Intentionally Left Blank]
-8- 27
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written above.
PEOPLE FOR PROPER PLANNING
By: ,/ r By:
Name, Name:
Title: An lriWidual and on Behalf of Title: An Individual and on Behalf of
People for Proper Planning People for Proper Planning
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Name: Babak Naficy
Title: Attorney for Petitioners
CITY OF PALM SPRINGS; PALM
SPRINGS CITY COUNCIL
By:
Nam .
Title: c..-�v /ynr,✓.ssgc��2
ATTESTED:
Y.
N ;i-�c�r-tom
i City Clerk, City of Palm Springs
APPROVED AS O FORM:
By:
Name: Do gas Holland
Title: City Attorney, City of Palm Springs
[Continued on Next Page]
-9- 28
I
WESSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC
By: k zl' L
Nam A. _
Title* +' G44'11�1
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
Name: Emily Hemphill
Title: Attorney for Real-Parties-In-Interest
DAKOTA PS, LLC
By.
Name: 0#-ALW FWD A�YA '
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By. . l f�--
Name: M. Katherine J son
Title: Attorney for Dakota PS, LLC
[Signature Page to Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release]
29
-10-
WESSMAN HOLDINGS, LLC
By: �R:
Nam
Title UiL'Flht�
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
AName: E i Hemphill
Title: A or y for Real-Parties-In-Interest
DAKOTA PS, LLC
By. l/Lf ---
Name: W5�W �
Title:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By- . ,� .
Name: M. Katherine J son
Title: Attorney for Dakota PS, LLC
[Signature Page to Settlement Agreement and Mutual General Release]
-10- 39
Cindy Berardi
From: Christina Chartier
Sent: Wednesday, December 27, 2017 1:54 PM
To: 'MCLEConsul@aol.com';Anthony Mejia
Cc: Cindy Berardi;Terri Milton
Subject: RE: Saving Oswit Canyon from Developers
From: MCLEConsulCEDaol.com
To: robert.moon(aDpalmsprings-ca.gov, ir.roberts(ftalmsprings-ca.gov, geoff.kors(c palmsprings-ca.aov,
lisa.middletona()palmsprings-ca.gov, christy.holstege(o).palmsprings-ca.00v
Sent: 12/25/2017 4:58:32 P.M. Pacific Standard Time
Subj: Saving Oswit Canyon from Developers
Dear Mayor Moon, and Council Members Roberts, Kors, Middleton and Holstege:
This messsage is VERY important to me, as this directly impacts everyone's goal to save Oswit Canyon.
I understand that In January, the City Council will be making changes to the PDD and the Specific Plan
guidelines (this is following a request by the Planning Commission to clarify the process).
In summary, an approved PDD/Specific plan gives permission to developers to exceed the zoning on a
parcel of land. For example, if a parcel of land is zoned for 1 house per acre, a developer can ask for
permission to put 10, 20, 30, etc houses per acre.
Although this may be suitable for some pieces of land, it should NOT be allowed on Environmentally
Sensitive Areas (ESA) such as Oswit Canyon, Chino Cone and others. Sadly, a PDD was already granted
in an ESA area so you can just drive through Desert Palisades and see what can happen to an
environmentally Sensitive area if a PDD or a Specific Plan is approved.
ESA zoning (which is what the land in Oswit Canyon is zoned...thanks to our initiative!) allows for 1 house
per 40 acres. This should NOT be changed with a PDD or a Specific Plan...EVER.
I further understand that City Council is going to be clarifying the PDD/Specific Plan guidelines in January
and we need you to include language that does NOT allow an increase in density on land zoned ESA. ESA
is zoned 1 house per 40 acres and needs to remain that way.
I am asking, as I believe we all are, that you and each City Council Member include that language in the
changes.
PLEASE - Not one shovel in Oswit Canyon! We can and WILL save Oswit Canyon! Thank you for reading
and for listening.
Donna Chaban
Palm Springs, CA
(760) 449-0021 should you have questions.
t
3l
Cindy Berardi
From: Terri Milton
Sent: Tuesday,January 2,2018 7:1 S PM
To: Anthony Mejia
Cc: Cindy Berardi
Subject: FW: From Committee to Save Oswit Canyon
From: Jane Garrison [mailto:jane.garrison66@gmail.com]
Sent:Tuesday,January 02, 2018 7:07 PM
To: Robert Moon; Geoff Kors; JR Roberts; Lisa Middleton; Christy Holstege
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: From Committee to Save Oswit Canyon
January 2, 2018
Dear Mayor Moon and City Council Members:
I am writing on behalf of the Committee to Save Oswit Canyon. We are a group of over 2,000 Palm Springs
residents committed to preserving Oswit Canyon and other environmentally sensitive areas.
We are thrilled that the the City Council is reviewing and revising the process for PDD's and Specific Plans.
We ask that you include the following language:
"No Specific Plan or PDD can increase density on any land zoned Environmentally Sensitive Area
(ESA)"
In addition, we feel it is imperative that the city reviews all Specific Plans that are currently in effect and ensure
none of them are increasing density on any environmentally sensitive land. We are happy to assist in any
research that needs to be completed.
Lastly, there are so few untouched canyons left in Palm Springs. We urge the City Council to help secure ESA
zoning on any that currently do not have that protection.
Thank you for your hard work for our city! Feel free to reach out with any questions you may have.
Sincerely,
Jane Garrison, Coordinator
Committee to Save Oswit Canyon
Cc: City Clerk
t
/)311
Terri Milton
From: Jill Vega<kenyaecho@gmail.com>
Sent: Wednesday,January 03, 2018 4:06 AM
To: Robert Moon; Geoff Kors;JR Roberts;Christy Holstege;Lisa Middleton
Cc: CityClerk
Subject: Upcoming changes to PDD/Specific Plan guidelines
Dear Mayor Moon, and Council Members Roberts, Kors, Middleton and Holstege:
This message is VERY important to me, as this directly impacts everyone's goal to save Oswit Canyon.
I understand that In January, the City Council will be making changes to the PDD and the Specific Plan
guidelines (this is following a request by the Planning Commission to clarify the process).
In summary, an approved PDD/Specific plan gives permission to developers to exceed the zoning on a parcel of
land. For example, if a parcel of land is zoned for 1 house per acre, a developer can ask for permission to put
101 20, 30, etc houses per acre.
Although this may be suitable for some pieces of land, it should NOT be allowed on Environmentally Sensitive
Areas (ESA) such as Oswit Canyon, Chino Cone and others. Sadly, a PDD was already granted in an ESA area
so you can just drive through Desert Palisades and see what can happen to an environmentally Sensitive area if
a PDD or a Specific Plan is approved.
ESA zoning(which is what the land in Oswit Canyon is zoned...thanks to our initiative!) allows for 1 house per
40 acres. This should NOT be changed with a PDD or a Specific Plan...EVER.
I further understand that City Council is going to be clarifying the PDD/Specific Plan guidelines in January and
we need you to include language that does NOT allow an increase in density on land zoned ESA. ESA is zoned
1 house per 40 acres and needs to remain that way.
I am asking, as I believe we all are, that you and each City Council Member include that language in the
changes.
PLEASE - Not one shovel in Oswit Canyon! We can and WILL save Oswit Canyon! Thank you for reading
and for listening.
Sincerely,
Jill Vega
Adjvkoy�J 1"lcz-�-trtal i Ol- o3- zol$'
Cindy Berardi
From: Anthony Mejia
Sent: Wednesday,January 3, 2018 11:38 AM
To: Cindy Berardi
Subject: FW:Ad Hoc Ctee-- Sierra Club support for issue 65
From:Joan Taylor[mailto:palmcanvon@mac.comj
Sent:Wednesday,January 3, 2018 10:53 AM
To: Robert Moon<Robert.Moon@palmspringsca.gov>;Geoff Kors<Geoff.Kors @ palms pringsca.gov>;JR Roberts
<JR.Roberts@palmspringsca.gov>; Lisa Middleton<Lisa.Middleton@palmspringsca.gov>;Christy Holstege
<Ch risty.Holstege@palmspringsca.gov>
Cc:Christina Chartier<Christina.Chartier@palmspringsca.gov>;Anthony Mejia<Anthony.Meiia@palmspringsca.gov>
Subject:Ad Hoc Ctee--Sierra Club support for issue 65
Attached please find a communique re the Ad Hoc Committee recommendations,thank you.
i
SAN GORGONIO CHAPTER
Nrk«rmtr rimyn 4trr pRrr+rk grYf%Jn brnurd,m+4 nurtk+ fear.4rrvmr,r.
SI E R RA 7syuU- We 9ohnd a thwnranu ihyaw tr"'.l yilev HIT Bear
CLUB
1011.11t 11 1t+1
January 2,2018
City Ctw of
City of Palm Springs
3200 h'fahguite
Palm Springs,CA 92262
BY FS1AI1.TRANSMISSION
Re: Item a R Recommendations of the Ad.floc Committee—Support for number 65 as amended by the
Planning Commission
Mayor and Members of the Cswncil:
I ant writing for the"fahguiv Oroup of the Sierra Cluh which has appnraimalcly 10W members in the
Coachella Walley. We urge the adoption of the Ad Hoc Comminec recommendation number 6$(as amended
by the Planning Commission)to"address grading of hillside parcels or parcels with slopes."
tt is essential to prowl all%toyed area from mass grading to preserve natural areas€ot ecological and water
percolation issues. Moreover,Palm Springs is the one"cove"city that has not plastered houses all over its
alluvial fans. And,as the batik over Chino Cone attests,this makes our town unique.with its unparaltcd
setting- Please preservr it for residents and visitors alike.
'frank ym for your consideration of this important issuc.
very truly ours.
Joan Taylor
Conwr%atitm Chair
2