Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
12/14/2005 - STAFF REPORTS (3)
Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization Response to the Palm Springs Citizens Task Force on Foothill and Mountain Preservation Palm Springs, October 29, 2005 Recommendations: 1. The guiding principals in the Task Force plan are excellent. 2. The Task Force Plan for Chino Cone and the Chino Canyon Urgency Ordinance should be expanded to include the present site for the proposed Crescendo development and all undeveloped land between Highway 111, Tramway Road, The National Monument and existing housing on N. Milo Drive, E Racquet Club Road, Girasol Avenue, Vista Grande Avenue and San Marco Way. 3. The City of Palm Springs should pursue public and private resources (including but not limited to a public bond initiative)for purchase of all the undeveloped land in Chino Cone for preservation as natural desert open space. 4. The Plan for Chino Cone should rezone it as open desert and limit development to one single family home per ten acres. This is the Riverside County zoning standard for open desert in. 5. Residential construction should fit into and enhance the natural desert landscape with height limitations that match the existing residential neighborhood. 6. There should be no mass grading, rock crushing or imported fill allowed in any construction. 7. 95 % of the unbuilt landscape on each housing parcel should be preserved as natural desert open space. 8. No golf courses should be built. 9. Al 1 proposed construction must begin with an E1R. Greg Day Chairman Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization Response to the Patin Springs Citizens Task Force on Foothill and Mountain Preservation Pahn Springs, October 29, 2005 Recommendations: 1. The guiding principals in the Task Force plan are excellent. 2. The Task Force Plan for Chino Cone and the Chino Canyon Urgency Ordinance should be expanded to include the present site for the proposed Crescendo development and all undeveloped land between Highway 111, Tramway Road,The National Monument and existing housing on N. Milo Drive, E Racquet Club Road, Girasol Avenue, Vista Grande Avenue and San Marco Way. 3. The City of Palm Springs should pursue public and private resources (including but not limited to a public bond initiative) for purchase of all the undeveloped land in Chino Cone for preservation as natural desert open space. 4. The Plan for Chino Cone should rezone it as open desert and limit development to one single family home per ten acres. This is the Riverside County zoning standard for open desert in. 5. Residential construction should fit into and enhance the natural desert landscape with height limitations that match the existing residential neighborhood. 6. There should be no mass grading, rock crushing or imported fill allowed in any construction. 7. 95 % of the unbuilt landscape on each housing parcel should be preserved as natural desert open space. 8. No golf courses should be built. 9. Al 1 proposed construction must begin with an E1R. Greg Day Chairman i December 14, 2005 Palm Springs City Council Attached is a copy of the comments and recommendations I submitted to the Citizens' Task Force for Mountain and Foothill Preservation and Planning on November 16, 2005. This document was not included in the record that you were given by the Task Force and I am asking that you include it in your record. I have been concerned about the accuracy of the public record regarding the response to the initial recommendations since the beginning of the process to make the recommendations public. As you can see from the record of the first meeting held at the Convention Center on September 17, 2005,1 raised the question of whether there would be a record of public input available for review. It appears that my concern that the record might be edited with bias was justified. Again,please accept these comments and include them in your record, even if they haven't been included in the record of the Task Force. Sincerely, Jo o Hildner 241 E. Mesquite Ave. Palm Springs COMMENTS REGARDING THE INITIAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE CITIZENS' TASK FORCE FOR MOUNTAIN AND FOOTHILL PRESERVATION AND PLANNING I recognize that the Task Force is faced with a bit of a dilemma. In order to prevent continuing discord in the community, you have charged yourselves with the job of trying to serve two masters. You want to make recommendations that will garner four votes on the City Council and, at the same time, serve the electorate of the City to prevent any more referenda or initiatives on these issues. I'm not at all sure that these two are compatible. Therefore, I am going to avoid any discussion of how to get four positive votes for an amended Urgency Ordinance from the current Council and focus on what I believe is in the best interest of current and future residents of our City and what I believe is fair to all the parties involved in these issues. I believe my views represent a majority of the electorate, based on the vote last March and on the conversations and input I've heard since. The vast majority of the of the land in question was easily recognized by the Task Force as being essentially undevelopable and therefore it would be appropriate to use the Measure B standard of one unit per 40 acres as appropriate. I agree with your recommendations for these areas, but believe you should recommend that, in addition to the 1:40 zoning, these lands be targeted for public acquisition to be left undeveloped in perpetuity. The real issue is the remaining 2%. Starting with Palm Hills. You have made no zoning recommendations regarding the area of 1200 acres that were included in the Measure C referendum. The public made it clear that they did not want some massive development on that part of the Santa Rosas, currently criss-crossed by a trail network known as the goat trails. It would be appropriate to zone the area of the "vested 91 homes" as one per five acres and all the rest as one per 10 acres. There is a serious question about what rights are truly conveyed with this "vestment," and therefore it is imperative that you recommend zoning for the entire area, including any allottee lands. Next is Chino Alluvial Fan. The Task Force and the general public recognize this as one of the most valuable assets of our City. Unfortunately, the Task Force failed to protect it in their recommendations. The CTF recommendations are all about how to develop this incredible entrance to our City and not at all about protecting it. Your recommendations, if accepted by the City Council in an amended Urgency Ordinance, would invoke an immediate response of another referendum. There are far too many Task Force members who represent owners, builders, developers, speculators and other private interests on the Task Force that you seem blinded to the interest of the general public; the voters. I would ask that you make two changes in the Development Standards for Mountains: 1. Change "Encourage habitat protection" to "Assure habitat protection." 2. Change "Sewer connections, if practical" to "Require sewer connections." Your recommended standards for Chino Cone Residential development are excellent and I have only two suggested changes: 1. Change the 20% custom development standard to 40%. 2. Require that open spaces be landscaped using only native desert plants As to zoning, I believe you have been way too generous to the property owners and with your recommendations; the Alluvial Fan will not even appear to be protected. As I indicated in my oral comments on Saturday, October 29, you need to make zoning recommendations for all of the planning areas in the Cone, including the area known as Crescendo. Changes should be made in the reservation land, regardless of ownership, and in Shadow Rock. As I'm sure you are aware, the City has the authority and responsibility to zone allottee land and there is a current agreement with the Agua Caliente that the City will be the land use planning agency for them. Likewise,just because there is some level of"vestment" in Shadowrock, it doesn't mean that it shouldn't be zoned in a way that will afford it some protection should their "vestment" turn out to not be all that you have assumed. Community values change over time and I think that the Task Force should understand that current voters in this City have strong feelings favoring preservation. Actually, you need look no further than remembering that the pro-development forces in the campaign last winter called themselves, "Save Our Hillsides." PA #1 Let your recommendations stand as in the draft. PA #2 One unit per 10 acres. PA #3 One unit per 10 acres. PA #4 One unit per 10 acres. Crescendo One unit per acre. PA #5A Commercial as proposed, but with no allowed expansion into 5B. PA #5B One unit per acre. You have made an exception to your Residential Development Standards in this area. Is that because the property owner is on the Task Force? Height limit of 18 feet should be the same as every other area, not 24 feet. PA #6 One unit per 5 acres with density transfer bonus of 50% to PA #8. PA #7 Open space with only water channel maintenance. PA #8 Two units per acre. Ship Rock area to be protected. Again, I believe that it is imperative in both the Palm Hills and Chino Alluvial Fan areas that you have restrictive zoning in ALL areas. Forget about vesting and Indian lands. Put the zoning in place and then begin an aggressive effort to purchase all this land from the private parties involved. Palm Springs City Council Meeting, December 14. 2005: three-minute statement Last year, on a break during the televised debates on Measures B and C, Mayor Oden told me he was upset that drafters of the Measures had not expressed to him and the City Council their frustration with the city's response to Mountain preservation. "Instead,"the mayor said, "they went straight to the process of referendum and initiative." Tonight, with ample notice, we are here to express our frustration that the Citizens' Task Force has failed in its mission to "overcome divisiveness in our community and seek common ground."Three major actions stand out: (1) For the most controversial mountain areas—Chino Cone and Palm Hills—the Citizens' Task Force failed to forge new zoning and land-use standards to allow only low-density hillside development. These standard, for the majority of our citizens, would represent a genuine compromise. Very low density zoning would substantially protect the resources of these areas while providing the opportunity for much less intrusive development. (2) Since it failed to respect and codify the March 2005 vote overturning the approval of Palm Hills, the Citizens' Task Force failed to represent a majority of our community. Ignoring that vote as though it had not occurred was a `slap in the face' to our citizens who trust in the democratic process. (3) In the Chino Cone, the overall product of the Task Force is only marginally different from the zoning and land-use standards disputed a year ago—a difference of about fifty homes...a one-percent change! Tonight,Save Our Mountains asks the City Council to reject the Task Force report and instead, to select one of two options: (a) adopt our compromise--to respect the March 2005 citizen vote on Palm Hills and to down-zone the Chino Cone area to one unit per ten acres which allows very low- density hillside development or (b)pass a two-year moratorium on project approvals in the Palm Hills and Chino Cone areas. In the absence of these actions by the City Council, we believe our citizens have no alternative but to return to the ballot box a second time because, it appears, the will of the public was not loud enough or clear enough the first time. I sincerely hope you will spare us another costly, unnecessary process. We still have time to forge a genuine compromise. We are here to offer our assistance. Others whose voices were not heard by the Citizens' Task Force will come forth to do the same-- efficiently and in good faith. Thank you. Chuck Nisbet Board Member,Save Our Mountains 2439 South Calle Palo Fierro Palm Springs, CA 9226 N epp W 1D_ 0 1 ;OQ Q ALMS.* . iy c+ u a i4°''° '9</FORN�P CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT PUBLIC MEETING OF DECEMBER 14, 2005 Presentation of the Final Report and Recommendations to the City Council by the Citizens Task Force for Mountain and Foothill Preservation From: David H. Ready, City Manager By: Craig A. Ewing, Director of Planning Services DISCUSSION: On September 14, 2005, the Citizens Task Force presented a report to the City Council on their recommendations regarding land use policies for the mountains, Chino Cone and Palm Hills areas of the City. Since then, the Task Force has conducted several community meetings to receive comments on their report, and the Task Force is returning to present its final recommendations to the Council. Attached to this memo are a variety of notes and comments the Task Force has assembled since their September 14� presentation. No Council action is required; however, the Council may wish to direct staff regarding the related work program of the Urgency Ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact Craig,.-Ewing, AI P David H. Ready, City M�? Director of Pl6nnirt Services Attachments: 1. Notes of the Citizens Task Force ITEM NO. 1 .13. a$� SSi r ;,r t r y�� r3�}✓� I yr . 31, 'i ice, i' r—L) II III rff II Fi ,,j 1 j 41 _ 4 { I, II [I / I` '9{.�"� { l } 11•-!'� -- City of Palm Springs ° The cu rain.,5� urgency uI F9��` arcsDLParlmont of Planning Services G c-i OPY l4 �/ �.1 1 tl 41` Y Lil L a nto p PI (vices. yC �9 CPS I ➢C�¢ € stagni ]cmd £�a��dCC "*C+ fi�°0 dt 0• 06 h��o ordinances LO rep Lace 11,ha �94�ge h0"� a � r 3 ` ordinance: the iklb n"M� ii OiFd�nance -md z`Ca u`doajajrds ^V�CC require a Ci�O�i��iy�i Vrg C rog i`�1�� , � `+.4t�`\��,�� lQQY NHr4e con Mm"L,s ad l provr�uu4, co,UM da'Jaen as Conn as a veer' I�]inOC ;; *� ' +��rF„ . L enE;OUvacgOd M connpCy @�,vO�.h sh0 CTF v . b C�.s C P F noes not u'000mh�i�end December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations :Findings 12 Citizen's Task Force-Public Presentation Palm Springs Convention Center Saturday, September 17, 2005 [Attendees 1351 Name Comments 1. Bill Scott Professional Architect. Likes bond issue and likes density transfer. Concerned that Frey station be protected. 18' height is too much. Requires that house be set too low. The berm is too high and will create too much disturbance. 2. Gladys Krenik Wants Chino Cone preserved. Development is "barbaric." Present The desert is delicate. Supports open space bond. Cone should be National monument. 3. Jim Hayton Thought CTF approach nicely balanced open space Present preservation with the need for growth 4. Greg Day Concern about the Visitor Center historic preservation and Present growth. Wants open space. What would happen if the developer comes back with a plan for Palm Hills? 5. Geraldine Wants open space more clearly defined. Concern that PA5 Present will ruin the intent of the highway buffer. Too much development around Visitor Center. Does not want development on Pahn Hills. 6. Tim O'Bayley Concern about Shadowrock/expiration of approval. Boulders Present and Cresendo should be included in PA4. Likes density transfer concept and idea of an open space bond. Concern about density around Visitor's Center. 18' residential building heights too high/too visible. Does like the berm idea— wants open and natural buffers. 0 1 0 03/0 002/4 1 609.02 S*ber 17, 2005 Page 2 of 5 Name Comments 7. Dennis Cunningham Good effort to investigate and fairly present issues. Especially Present pleased that if we are going to preserve open space we're talking about buying it, not a scheme to take value out through regulation. 8. Paula Auburn SOM Supporter. We do need compromise. Supports bond Present measure. Wants heights lowered in PA5 and strict prescriptions for how this area should develop with the propose of preserving visitor center. Wants to ensure that PDD cannot bypass conditions of development. Architectural review process important. Wants early notification of intention to develop so that neighbors/citizens have full opportunity to work with developer before money is invested in planning process. Tie trails and development to promote ecotourism opportunities. 9. Jono Hildner What record will be kept of public input? Will it be Present reviewable. Open space acquisition through a bond measure is a priority. 10. Jeff Morgan Read a prepared statement from the Executive Committee of Present Save Our Mountains. Urges full open space preservation. 11. Robert Phillipson Why have we rot investigated solar or included with Present development standards. Concerned about downtown development and "loss of charm." Supports bond measure for open space acquisition. 01003/0002/416W02 Sewer 17, 2005 Page 3 of 5 Name Comments 12. Scott Kennedy SOM supporter/MODCOM member. Would like to see Present comparison of what Measure B would have permitted on the Cone vs CTF recommendations. Square foot limits. Unclear on what and how of berming/buffer. 13. Arlene Smith Confused about what is open space. Afraid that houses will be Present clustered too close together with insufficient setbacks. 14. Dana Stewart SOM supporter. Provided detailed comments on comment Present card. Suggested a transfer tax on real estate transactions that would be dedicated to open space acquisition. Request card for"team presentation." 15. Unknown 1 Question's density transfer concerned that after density Present transferred that later PA6 would still be developed. Wants to preserve open space. 16. Unknown 2 Concern about Hwy 111 traffic if Palm Hills developed Present IT Unknown 3 No Palm Hills project. We don't need a golf course. Traffic is Present a concern 18. Unknown 4 Whatever we do should go to voters Present 19. Abby We need more hand outs. (760) 325-8084 Comment Card 20. Grant Wilson Please provide a slide presentation (electronic is fine) if you Comment Card 2003 N. Acacia Rd. W can. PS, CA 92262 grantoid@yahoo.com NOTE: (presentation emailed by Sam on 9121) (760) 272-1658 0100310002/41609.02 Sewber 17, 2005 Page 4 of 5 Name Comments 21. Unknown Save the Mountains! Stop the Greed! Create a wild-life park Comment Card that can bring city revenue! Destroy nature and the views you will destroy tourist visitation. Preservation can also make $ money! Lets figure out how to do this PLEASE! 22. Denis Hoetker 1. We want density reduced. 2) Ht. restrictions kept to 12% 3) Comment Card 2368 Pacermo Drive when density is reduced it should also mean the size of a home Palm Springs on a lot. An example — 2000 2400 sq. ft home should be (760)320-4091 placed on a lot no smaller than 12-15,000 sq. ft. The idea not is to see how large a property we can build on a smaller lot. This idea makes for excessive density especially in your "clusters". This is not aesthetically pleasing and appears as overcrowding which psychologically isn't even good for people. 23. Florence Klasen Priority #1: Bond issues for a) Chino Cone; b) Palm Hills. Comment Card 1027 San Lucas This should put an end to the endless controversy of Palm Springs, CA preservation vs. development. (760)327-3161 Caflogo@aol.com Solar energy was mentioned as an issue that has never been addressed here. Just as important or even more so. 24. Terry Arnett Good Presentation. Keep Area 6 undeveloped. Propose bond Comment Card 2,197 Caliente Drive So. measure to buy most important areas. Acquire Palm Hills—all Palm Springs, CA 92264 of it at $20M; keep 1 story houses @ 15' lower height limit in (760)416-6666; 5B (760) 774-4054 terryarnett@msn.com 01003/0002/41609.02 Scober 17,2005 Page 5 of 5 Name Comments 25. Allen Keeney The Shadowrock development area is an environmentally Comment Card. 639 N. Avenida Caballeros sensitive areas that should be preserved as part of the Santa Palm Springs, CA Rosa, San Jacinto National Monument. The Chino Cone and (760)320-4467 Canyon need to be preserved in its natural form. The only akeeney@teleport.com development should be interpretive pullouts and a maintained trail system as part of the National Monument. The Task Force proposed for the Chino Cone would be an esthetic and environmental disaster. This area must be preserved in an natural state with no resorts or residents. SAVE CHINO CONE AS A NATURAL AREA 01003/0002/41609.02 Citizen's Task Force - ublic Presentation Building Industry Association (BIA) 2005 [Attendees_] 4 ki >� 5�� flcic2 G 2-&0r Comments/Notes 1. Gainer opened the presentation by explaining Palm Hills Development in total. Vic then explained that a portion of this property (91 homes)were entitled in I believe 1984. Essentially these homes are still entitled. He fully explained the Palm Hills Project as it was presented to the City. Ingress and egress were questioned and Vic explained the traffic impact. There was a full color presentation with notes on the stand. 2. Pougnet fully explained his position on the Citizens Task Force. Steve said that he became concerned and involved when Measures B & C turned so bitter. He met with both sides as a Councilman and tried to bring everyone together. It wasn't until after the vote that some members from each side agreed to meet and that's how the Citizens Task Force was formed. 3. Pougnet presented full agenda of boards showing and explaining The Chino Cone issue. 4. The biggest question was "density transfer" and the effect it would if any, have on the property. The Shadow Rock (Mark Bragg and his donation of land earmarked for"open s ace") project was discussed as was the Tribal Parcel. 5. Pougnet answered the few questions posed by the Board and Ed Kibbey. 6. Betty Williams of-Century Vintage Homes was in attendance to hear and see the presentation. Betty explained that Century was concerned mainly because they felt they should have personally been invited to attend any meetings that had to do with PA# 6 (owned by Century Homes) and PA# 8 (owned by the Hillinger Group) to be bought and developed by Century Homes. Mrs. Williams had some question as to the PA#5B Steve Nichols property and the fact that he is a member of the CTF. 7. There were no questions asked of Mrs. Williams from the Board Members in attendance. 0100310092/42229.01 4P3 Citizen's Task Force - Public Presentation Office of Neighborhood Involvement Saturday, October 8, 2005 Comments 1. Now that you have kissed and made up, why do we have to pay for it? (Obviously not supportive of a bond measure). 2. Question about takings in the case of the density transfer. 3. Question about why not densities are not further lowered. 4. One suggestion is that we consider the State Park System and create a new state park. 5. Concern about PA 5-5A. How to protect an iconic landmark? ATTACHMENT: Steve Feld Emails. 01003/0092/42220.01 Page 1 of 2 Samantha Fridrich From: Ed Torres [ed@edwardtorres.com] �^ Sent: Wednesday, October 26, 2005 1:32 PM To: Vicgainer@aol.com; spougnet@earthlink.net Cc: Dave Aleshire; Samantha Fridrich; sherylhamlin@earthlink.net; csm@csmarchitect.com; steve.nichols@earthlink.net; SSaund4292@aol.com; april@hildner.com; ed@edwardtorres.com Subject: Meeting with the Mayor and BIA Executive Directors Importance: High Great meeting John Wessman, Vic: Here are the few items that Ed Kibby and Fred Bell would like addressed by the CTF. 1) Density Transfer- is it feasible to obtain the number of units, recommends that we lay out the site that we are proposing to Century Homes for verification for PA 8. 2) Bond measure- is this real to present to the community, have we done our research on current apprised values and the cost of purchasing the land? a. Palm Hills- We need to make sure that we correct the total acreage to the 900 number and remove the Tribe land. b. Infrastructure will be a big issue (Water and Sewer) any project and if you prevent the 91 Homes, you will have serious issues with the Allottee's that own land in the Palm Hills areas that were relaying on the developer to provide those services. c. Chino Cone-It is going to be a hard sell to the community, but should give it a good shot and try. 3) Berming- It is too costly and is it worth the cost, may be just let the housing development be visible. Would like facts on cost of creating a berm. 5) The annexation of the County property is a MUST per Ed Kibby and Fred Bell. It is the right thing for the City of Palm Springs to do as quickly as possible. 4) What is Joan Taylor (Save the Mountains) looking for and what is their list. (Saturday 10/29/05) we will find out. 5) Ed K would like an updated outline with the changes that have taken place (in bold) to present to BIA Board of Directors for review and an endorsement. Ed and Fred would like to see the CTF move forward in a successful manner and understands the need for the four votes. They have some concern if the CTF has the current three votes and hopes we can obtain the fourth vote once we have made our final suggestions. They feel it is important to have the public suggestion available and addressed in the revised tline for everyone to see what was proposed vs. the new recommendations outlining the anges. 11/2/2005 Page 1 of 1 Samantha Fridrich From: Lee A. Husfeldt[LeeH@ci.palm-springs.ca.us] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:24 AM To: 'Vicgainer@aol.com'; Dave Aleshire; sherylhamlin@earthlink.net; csm@csmarchitect.com; steve.nichols@earthlink.net; spougnet@earthlink.net; SSaund4292@aol.com; ed@edwardtorres.com; april@hildner.com Subject: FW: Letter to Citizens's Task Force- IMPORTANT From: Stevefeldl@aol.com [mailto:Stevefeldl@aol.com] Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 11:23 AM To: LeeH@ci.palm-springs.ca.us Subject: Letter to Citizens's Task Force- IMPORTANT Lee- Please forward this letter to the Task Force. I promised them that I would e-mail a letter on the bond act which they were not aware of its existence as a potential source of possible revenue. It could solve all our problems if available. Since I developed this letter with a lot of details, I have also sent this letter to a number of other people who requested the information, ut the important group is the Task Force. They should include this funding source as a potential avenue which I elieve, if available, will be far superior to a local bond issue which would require parcel taxes. This is a state bond. Thank you so much for your assistance. I will be leaving this Friday for two weeks plus in Costa Rica so I will not be available until I return. However, before that time, or afterwards, please feel free to contact me if you have any questions or would like further clarification on any issue(s). Best wishes, Steve Feld October 30, 2005 To: Citizens' Task Force for Mountain and Foothill Preservation and Planning I was in attendance a few weeks ago (I own a 2"d home in Palm Springs) at your presentation at the Mizell Center and mentioned the new STATE PARKS BOND ACT (Not sure of exact name) which voters may be voting on in the spring or fall of next year. None of your committee was familiar with this potential source of funding and I promised to send the committee some information. This would be far superior than floating your own bond measure. In 2002, we had Proposition 40 which passed by a 56.8 % allowing the state to issue bonds, and eventually spend its money on property and programs worth $2.6 billion dollars under the 'California Clean Water, Clean Air, Safe Neighborhood Parks, and Coastal Protection Act of 2002'. http://www.parks.ca.gov/?page id=21876 This site should be helpful in understanding the scope of the initiative and how far reaching it is. Another site which shows all the past conservation acts is: http://resources.ca.gov/bonds.htmi Once again, this is being proposed in Sacramento by our Legislature. NOW IS THE TIME TO GET YOUR ASSEMBLY PERSON INVOLVED. As with all legislation, the earlier one gets involved the better chances they are for inclusion. By having a Republican offer Alegislation (inclusion of project(s)), ie: Bonnie Garcia, may even lend more weight than if a Democrat put forth a project. Understand that I am not an expert in this but I know people who are. They might be available for consulting should the Task Force or any other agency want to pursue this valuable source of funding to purchase land, create parks, and save our hills and cone. I aim on the Board of Directors, since 1994, of the Puente-Chino Hills Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority (WCCA), and a past Chairman which extends for over 30 miles from the Whittier Narrows area to the Cleveland National Forest in Orange County. It provides a vital linkage that permits native plants and animals to survive and prosper in our local hills, surrounded by the LA and Orange county basin. Our lead agency is the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy who handles all our administrative duties. The bond act is designed to cover areas of significant importance, not only for plants and animals, but for recreational use (hiking, horseback riding, and biking). But basically, the land would need to be documented as valuable habitat, or be included in a kind of conservation overlay, or independently (there are sources available to do this if the area qualifies) analysis. The Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy, is probably the best source since they probably would be the lead agency if anything were to happen. I believe the Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan group would be an excellent source to pursue and get involved http://www.cvmshcp.org/about.htm since they have studied the area. Then, there are other groups, some activist, but have special talented people to lend to the process such as the Sierra Club, the Save our Mountains people, Friends of Palm Springs Mountains, and others I may not be familiar with. Interesting with conservation groups, many people are involved with more than one group so there are many interactions between groups. Putting forth plans for the state usually require a- 10 large base of interest and that is what moves the legislature! Because much of the land is next to or near the San Jacinto State Park, there might be potential to tie into the park giving it an agency to manage the new land. That always is a major consideration in any of these inclusionary projects. In our area, we have added to Chino Hills State Park when surrounding parcels have been preserved. Another very important part of this pursuit is to be able to assess the value of the land for inclusion in the bond act. Estimated dollars are not acceptable, so an accurate documented appraisal must be performed. It is also always nice to have a willing seller. I believe the act is created in the Assembly and then goes to the Senate, so I am not sure how much initial involvement Jim Battin needs to have, but you definitely want him in your court, and probably from the beginning. If this bond act makes it to the voters and we can demonstrate the importance of saving our hills and get the areas included, it would be a marvelous way of preserving our area for not only generations to follow, but forever! It would eliminate any local bond parcel taxes which I am sure are/could be controversial or other means of acquisitions. Speaking of other means, there are a number of other agencies and grants available for conservation purchases, so there are many avenues available for us. In that, I think the task force must expand their scope. Upon request, I can get supply names and even a couple of books that provide ways to save land. Our work has only begun. Unfortunately, time is not on our side, but there are means. We just have to have the will to pursue them. I hope that with this short letter, I have been able to open some eyes as to alternatives and most importantly, getting Bonnie Garcia involved, NOW, to provide information on what needs to take place in getting our land included with the bond act. If you have any questions, below is my contact information. Sincerely, Steve Feld Steve Feld 1604 S. t-ancewood Ave. 2300 Janis Drive Hacienda Heights CA 91745 Palm Springs, CA 92262 (626) 968-2264 (h) 968-4656 Ext 5202 (w-Tues, Wed, Thurs) Stevefeld I C@aol.com Page 1 of 1 Samantha Fridrich From: Stevefeld1@aol.com Sent: Monday, October 31, 2005 2:00 PM To: Vicgainer@aol.com Subject: Re: FW: Letter to Citizens's Task Force- IMPORTANT Best wishes- I am sorry that I could not get it to you sooner, but I have so many things going on right now, it just had to wait. Hopefully the group will take it seriously. It is a major undertaking and having the assistance of Garcia would be of tremendous help. You seem to have many great people in the community who can 'carry the banner'. Hopefully, we will strike a balance that everyone is pleased with. Thank you for your dedication and support and please thank the committee for me. Steve 11/1/2005 ® Citizen's Task ForceOPublic Presentation General Plan Steering Committing Comments Thursday, October 13, 2005 [attendees Name Comments 1. Will Scott Limit height to 15'; 75-125 set back good; object to berm; lower density and create view corridors 2. Marshall Roath , Berm blocks view of Cone; parking for Tram is a good idea; no curbs (see attached e-mail) good; asked about 50% dedication. 3. Tony Natural berm; no mass grading 4. Chuck Nesbit(sp?) Wants open space view; there is a contradiction you are looking for "sensitive development" but acknowledge that you must hide it; questioned that Indians will develop resort if City sets a good example. 5. Joan Taylor Confirm Oct. 29 h meeting; there is no money for acquisition; multi- species plan is a funding source but City hasn't supported. 6. 1 unit per 2 acres could be a standard; limit developable area on lot (1/2 acre); nothing should be around Frey building. 7. Ruhl Measure B did not provide compensation; developer impact fees should be paid by all — not just new development; buffers too small; commercial may not work at Visitor Center. 8. Jeff Morgan General comments about open space preservation. Should use environmental process to determine constraints on specific parcels; utility costs are a great constraint; when will Shadowrock expire; maybe density should be transferred the other way (from PA8 to 6); access from HWY 111 will be an issue with Cal-Trans. ATTACIIiWNT: 01003/0002142023.01 Citizen's Task Force- Public Presentation Hotel & Hospitality Association Wednesday, October 19, 2005 [attendees —1 Question Answer 1. How many acres involved in this plan? 55.5 sq. miles including the Chino Cone. 2. Please elaborate on P142B? PH 2B, 3, 4—change in General Plan to 1:40 3. When will 91 homes be built? More explanation about relationship of 91 homes to PH plan that was part of Measure C 4. PS City Limit?What does that sign mean? Sign at Snow Creek, then county,then PS. 5. What is the density of Mountain Gate?How many 4:1 on small (7,000 sq. ft. lots). xx acres. acres? 6. How can you take kids in cribs on walks without Explanation about natural streetscape and high-end developments. sidewalks? Is this a gate community? 7. In the 1:40 mountain, is there clustering? Yes, (but I question that answer. I don't believe we have clustering in the mountains???). 8. How to walk in this area? Explained trail system linkage. 9. Berm, give examples Portola up to Big Horn and 74 up to the Reserve. 10. Will Indian be a main access point to PS? Yes. 0100310092142216.01 Citizen's Task Force- Public Presentation 'P6 PSEDC Thursday, October 20, 2005 [attendees Question Answer 1. 1:40 is the same spec as for Open Space. Why designate Pougnet: Needed to identify because it was an issue in the or differentiate? Measure B initiative. City has had 1:20 standard but 1:40 was in B and more politically acceptable. 2. Where is the map showing the toe of the slope? Need Aleshire: An accurate map will be drawn when we make the contour map. ordinance. 3. CTF has done one thing very important: Acknowledges (no answer, comment only) that open space should not be acquired through down- zoning but through acquisition. 4. Will MSHCP settle all the acquisition development Aleshire: City hasn't agreed with MHSCP because of how issues, for example Shadowrock, so the project can certain properties are treated. Acquisition of some of the Chino Cone proceed? areas is not included. MSHCP solving Shadowrock issues is possible, but not probable because of debate over Bighorn corridors. 5. If PHC comes back with a plan, does the CTF Pougnet: They won't do a GP amendment because that was the recommendation pave the way for approval? cause of their defeat. They would have to do a major selling job. However, we haven't tried to tell them what to do. 6. Why are you ignoring the PHC Project? Not Aleshire: CTF looked at alternatives. No consensus reached on misinformation, but missing information. exactly what, if any, development we want to see in PH. Most difficult discussion point. In a way we ran out of time. Projects are being proposed in Chino Cone. If we didn't come forward now, these might go too far. There was concern about lack of public input in our process. We decided to vet the whole thing now. 7. In discussion the acquisition, why are there no costs for Pougnet: You make a recommendation. That is why we are putting lost economic benefit? this out here. 01003/0092142189.01 Awresentation: PSEDC • October 20, 2005 Page 2 of 3 Question Answer 8. There is a sense of misinformation now and in campaign. Gainer: Some discussion of the campaigns and"misinformation." There is a PH proposal that would comply with the general plan. "Yes" meant "no" so many were confused. Not really a community voice against PH. Liked the CTF methodology but you are perpetuating some of this. 9. $$ in CTF proposal might lead people to believe it is You're right on acreage. Some of the numbers are conceptual. No realistic. 1200 acres is really 904 owned by PHC and definitive appraisals or negotiations. 300 Indian land. Need to revise drawing and show ownership. 10. Shouldn't perpetuate misinformation about Palm Hills. (no answer, comment only) Need better definition of these Palm Hills suggestions 11. Get the latest map from the PHC - CTF map doesn't show CTF got map used from PHC. changes. 12. Missing PH, Tribe, CC landowners today at PSEDC. Hamlin: We did downzone PH 2,3,4 so that traffic count would Questions the graviias of the committee; should have not be in next EIR for PH. made a recommendation for PH; missing too many Aleshire: We are trying to forge a community consensus. Will players; took a pass at PH. Mike M. not get agreement from all. Trying to go from a 55/45 community split, as it was after Measure B&C, to a 70/30 or 90/20 split in the community. Why not take the 2 out of the 3 areas (Mountains, Chino) where we have reached agreement, and build on those successes and that consensus? If this succeeds, it could start us down a path which may eventually also resolve PH. You need to decide if everything else is worthless because we have not yet figured out an answer on a controversial project rejected by the voters. 0100310D92/42189.01 Citizen's Task Forcip- Public Presentation Chino Canyon Leadership Group Wednesday, October 20, 2005 [attendees_] (Goodrich, Linsky,Albert, Drew,Krenik) Question Answer 1. Would PA6 be deeded to the city? Yes 2. How can CTF counter the Century attack and their Use good numbers; suggest Ziva raise her price. attempt to confuse Ziva? 3. Is bond issue only way to acquire PA 8? There are other funds but PA 8 has not been a priority acquisition area for the conservation groups. The public appetite may not be willing to finance all the property people are talking about. Too much down zoning can be a taking. 4. $300K not realistic assessed value for a home $300K is a City-wide average. Obviously someone with a more expensive because of turnover. How much is PA 8 in escrow house recently acquired pays more. We don't know Century/Hillenger for? price. 5. Reality of council? How to get 4 votes? Discussion ensured. 6. Slide 10. 18' from natural grade. How to define Building pad can move with contour. Principles outlined only now. Need a "natural grade"? detailed ordinance 7. 18' height. WHY? Why projections on top of I T? Here we were simply building off of existing municipal code provisions. It all impacts the view. Rose example. S. How to get the standards into Boulders & Community pressure, EIR Crescendo? 9. Explain the density transfer further. The bottom of Explained incentives and bonus. Would preserve PA6 without having to pay the Cone is more important than PAS, but will it for it, but have to accept additional PAS density. PAS is still less than really work out? Century will proposes. Questionable whether public will pay for all of the land under discussion for acquisition. Need other creative ideas. 01003/0002/42212.01 PrOtation Minutes: Chino Canyon Leadership • October 20, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Question Answer 10. How do we notice the entire community when we To adopt ultimate ordinance there will be noticed public hearizngs, but CTF make the fmal recommendation? can recommend additional written notice to all attendees &media coverage. 11. Boulders & Crescendo. "Consensus Alternative Could. Meeting" Propose CTF standards be implemented for B &C. Would that help CTF? 12. LSA Report - 2 alternative "as-is" or consensus No one received notice of this meeting. alternatives. Sue Dyer. $13,000. SF consultant to mediate neat Thursday. Who was noticed? 13. CTF has done a lot of good work. Looks like things are now headed down the right track. 01003/0002/42212.01 0 It Citizen's Task Force - Public Presentation Tribal Planning Commission Monday, October 24, 2005 [attendees Question Answer 1. Why are we coming to the tribe later than earlier? Mills: We met with Margaret and Tom several months ago to coordinate the efforts, and exchanged information through e-mail. 2. Did you review tribal MSP? Mills: No. 3. Allottees -must be involved. Yes, we are aware. We don't have control of the Chino Cone land. 4. Are mountains above the toe of the slope zoned Mills: Yes. Change from 1:20 currently. 1:40? 5. Berm- what is the existing road width? Berm does not affect road width. 75-125' highway border on west of Highway 111. 6. What about THE COVE wall? Mills: Recommendation is to annex this land and impose our standards. 7. What about flood control? Mills: Under ground culvert under the highway. S. How do we get a natural berm? Hamlin: Look at Bighorn and the Reserve. 9. How do you monitor the developers to preserve the Would be a development standard. Average the distance. 75-125' border? 10. How is the entryway to the Century project west of Mills: Dig down and balance up to the natural grade. 111 going to work with the berm? 11. Transfer bonus? No homes in PA6? Mills: Yes. Reiterated the transfer plan. 20% extra density as incentive. 12. How does developer get more units? Mills: Explanation reiterated. 01003/0092/42209.01 PrOation Minutes: Tribal Planning Commission ! October 29, 2005 Page 2 of 3 Question Answer 13. Shadow Rock-vested- infrastructure. Mills: We would like to see the CTF aesthetic standards apply. Reiterated to 50' buffer up Tram and explained the trail system. 14. Asphalt streets for Tram? Mills: Yes. Infrastructure streets are asphalt. 15. How are they going to handle the water without Mills: V -shape, in use elsewhere. curbs and gutters? 16. You know you are driving up the development The CC has stayed empty because it is expensive to develop. Now the prices costs? of real estate are rising to meet the development costs. Everything is being built to higher standards now. 17. Do you prohibit rock crushing? Not specifically. EIR will flush that out. 18. Costs increase? Not prohibiting development in PA6. Recommending density transfer. 19. How serious is the bond option? Mills: Council can put it on the ballot, but the citizens must pass it. If they do not,we need the standards as a fallback. 20. Must present the loss of sales & property tax in the Yes. There are lost economic costs. bond issue cost. 21. Allottees might never be willing to sell. Yes. We are recommending reasonable standards and allottees can develop or sell. 22. Tribal development? Mills: We are confident CTF standards will overlap with tribe's standards. 23. Could you address the PH issue? Certainly the tribe See 31 is the most important to conservation groups. We left option open for allottees would be affected by the loss of PHC to resubmit. We also recommended acquisition for FMV. $20 million infrastructure needed to get to their property. may be low. Understand that if PHC doesn't develop, may affect cost of infrastructure for allottee parcels. 01003/0092/42209.01 Pr&ation Minutes: Tribal Planning Commission October 29, 2005 Page 3 of 3 Question Answer 24. What is the opposition to PH? Sheep, open space, visibility to valley,traffic. 25. Do you know the tribe's jurisdiction on the trails? (Cathy Marks) Even if the land is bought for open space, the trails aren't immediately open. Trails are subject to review & approval of designated trails by the tribe. Tribal Historic Preservation Office is taking over for State of California. Will make the final determination within the reservation boundaries. 26. Re, sec 31 purchase: How would allottees get their Mills: There would have to be an easement or Eagle Canyon Bridge (not in infrastructure. It would make costs prohibitive our lifetime). without infrastructure. 27. Is the purchase a"taking"? No, the property owner must want to sell it, and the price is FMV. 28. How do you get to section 32 if section 31 is open Easement-must be addressed in ballot measure. space? 29. This document is a work-in-progress. Must confer We felt we were bringing the tribe along during the process. with ACBCI. Should have been included in the process at the beginning. 30. How much Indian land is affected in CC? Tom Davis: Predominantly PA3; Section 4 is 160 acres Tribal trust; 200 acres allottees; 60 acres up hill of the dike. 31. Doe we have the tribal reservation property in the Mills: We have a map; also a memo. (Chris) Chino Cone? 6471 acres in Urgency Ordinance+PH(Kathy) • City owns about 3000; 70%protected (Chris) 32. Let's look at density transfer outside of the CC. Yes, we can use concept anywhere in the city. 01003/0092/42209.01 Citizen's Task Force - Public Presentation Snow Creek Thursday, October 27, 2005 Vic Gainer met w/Les Starks leader of the Snow Creek neighborhood. Pros: Good wall development standards, 1 per 40 in mountains, Palm Hills, especially liked the CTF annexation recommendations; really liked the density transfer; overall was very complementary about our recommendations and the fact that we were able to find common ground. Cons: None. 01003/0092/42203.01 Citizen's Task Forc*Public Presentation NO.4P Chino Canyon/Sierra Club Saturday, October 29, 2005 [attendees 301 Name Comments 1. Chuck Nisbitt (Hiking 1. How did the Task Force determine its recommendations? He will ask the committee Group) members who could vote,not Alesbire. 2. In the campaign you pointed out a list of problems (traffic, water, sheet, etc) with Palm Hills, now you seem to say the only problem is visibility. What specific standards have you recommend for Palm Hills? (directed to Vic) 3. Questions directed to those who made statements in CTF minutes. 4. "Fairness" not in legal definition of taking nor is how long someone owned property. Why did you say this? (directed to Steve Pougnet) Pougnet: I believe in what I said. It may not be a"legal" definition but it's my definition and I think the basic question is fairness. 5. CTF only reduced< 1% density from the Urgency Ordinance. Why did you not reduce it more? Mills: I don't think the number is right. PA6 was reduced from 2.0 to 1.5. Besides, it's not just a density issue. Very restrictive development standards. Gainer: Fallback position is the standards. Hamlin: Crescendo & Boulders couldn't be built in their current configurations with CTF standards. Nichols: Shadowrock&PA3 are already approved and we couldn't affect those areas. Aleshire: The key difference is density transfer. Our recommendation leaves the base of the Chino Cone undeveloped. 6. A property owner must not rely on current zoning, government need not guaranteed the highest value. Does that conform to your understanding? (Directed to Ed.) Torres: Yes. You don't have to allow the most profitable development, but we are trying to create some benefit for all of the community. We must bring the community together and find common ground. It must be something which we can also convince property owners is reasonable. 01003/0002/42158.02 CI*Canyon/Sierra Club October 29, 2005 Page 2 of 6 Name Comments 7. Where is the compromise for the 45% who voted in Measure B? Mills: The Urgency Ordinance cut the units in half (Chuck disputed this %). Torres: Its also more than units, standards, contours, setback— all our changes would enhance the area. Aleshire: This is not an inquisition. We're trying to get input. You're not telling us what you want. Tell us the density you would suggest or how you would change the standards. 8. Is a downzoning of 1:10 a"taking"? Committee responded: we are not legal scholars. 9. The CTF hasn't dealt with all of the mountains. Why wasn't the PH area designated "mountains"? Mills: Group agreed there is no difference between San Jacinto and Santa Rosa mountains. Came up with development standards. We spent most of our time on the Chino Cone. 10. 6 of the 12 CTF meetings were devoted to PH. How could you not come to a conclusion? Mills: It wasn't 6 of 12. Our work doesn't rise or fall on PH alone. 11. Land acquisition? You'll never get a 2/3 vote. Not realistic. Do you have evidence of other communities which have done this successfully? Aleshire: Santa Clara County created an open space assessment district. Pre- prop 218 district raising $4M per year revised in 2000 to raise $8M per yet. Public process with 51%-49% approval. Court of Appeals upheld against a challenge,now going to Supreme Court. Hamlin: Not only citizen approval, conservancy group could acquire. Saunders: We are all volunteers; not in best interest to dissect the CTF methodology. 12. Statement - draft with recommendations. Save our Mountains. Will get a copy to the CTF. The CTF did not live up to goals of compromise in its Mission Statement. You said that you are protecing 98% of the mountains (1:40) but that was already 1:20 and virtually undevelopable. Only the remaining 2% is really in question. CTF has brought us back where we were i year ago. Will force another referendum. Still time. Compromise would be: no PH 01003/0002/4215&02 CIDCanyon/Sierra Club October 29, 2005 Page 3 of 6 Name Comments in the mountains; down zone PH 1:40 (This is a glaring inconsistency). Majority would support 1:10 in Chino Cone and these lots would still be very valuable. Flat area around Rimrock should have been left out of Measure B and is ok to develop. CC must be developed in a less invasive and different manner. Suggest 1:10 with construction standards similar to Measure B. Torres: 300 of the 1200 PH acres are in Indian lands. 2. Joan Taylor. Sierra Club Gene House (Friends of the Desert) did not say he has $$ (they don't) and PH is not the top priority, although it is on the list. Need a backup plan. CTF should recommend CVMSHCP action to the City of PS. Give the Council our opinion. Gainer I said House was willing to work with major contributors to get $, not that he currently has it, and PH is a top priority. 3. Greg Day, CCNO Submitted 1. CTF standards & guiding principles are good. document m writing 2. Plan does not cover entire canyon. Should include land on both sides of Tram Way. Crescendo at least must be added. Brought photograph of Frey gas station and Raquet club to show view. 3. Must pursue acquisition to the extent possible and preserve as much as we can in its original state. 4. While getting money for acquisition, we will need standards. Hard to give up 1:40, but 1:10 ok. 5. Residential development; should fit into the natural desert. 6. No mass grading or rock crashing or cut/fill. 7. No golf course. Open space should be natural desert; no grass. 8. 95%open space on each parcel. Look at Smoketree as example. 9. Limit to SFR. 10. EIR required in all areas. 11. Tribe will be influenced by what City does. 12. Density transfer sounds good. Gainer: Golf course in flood plain not likely. Pougnet: Take golf course out of PA 7? Recommend we remove it? Saunders: Target golf, natural landscaping. 01003/0002/42158.02 CloCanyon/Sierra Club October 29, 2005 Pave 4 of 6 Name Comments 4. Jeff Morgan. Sierra Club 1. A lot missing from the CTF proposals. Appeared to be a planning process. Ch. 9 League Planning Handbook practices. Taking Clause. "Compensation will be required in a limited degree". "Vested Rights not vest until last permit is issued," "Zoning does not confer a right," "Initial approval does not lock in final approval." 2. Toe of slope is toe of slope so should include PH and 91 homes. The 91 homes are not vested per the doc from which he just read. 10 acre lot would sell for millions. 3. No final permit issued for Shadowrock, so we can rezone it. 4. If there has been an initiative, we have even more power. Read doc. We have the right to rezone. Recommendations: 1:40 in PH, 1:10 in Chino Cone with strict development standards. Adopt the development standards in Measure B. Aleshire: How do you like the CTF development standards? Density Transfer? Morgan: Contours, clustering ok. Density transfer ok. Aleshire: Nothing you read from pertains to Development Agreements. Have you considered how that affects vested rights?. Morgan: Thinks it is the same. 5. Paul, Mountain Biker. Everywhere they have been run off the mountains by owners. Dunn road, in particular. This Lives on Cardillo. (His problem is access to trails. Need stronger language. photo is in CTF large Aleshire: CTF recommends all current trails be retained and maintained. Problem with presentation.) conflicts by user groups. Welcome trail comments. 6. Frank Gaydos, Friends of 1. They forced EIR for Crescendo &Boulders Pahn Springs Mountains, 2. Tuscany Heights - above Milo- 15 homes. They are having a major excatation problem. 501(c3) 2 story rocks. 3. Rain caused massive erosion& flooding from new sewer line in Racquet Club. Building in this area is very very hard. 4. Excellent job by CTF. Good job in improving standards. Friends supports the standards. Recommendations: Make Crescendo area a part of the ordinance. Suggest downzone more if only i%. OK with Density Transfer. 01003/0002/42159.02 Cl*Canyon/Sierra Club • October 29, 2005 Page 5 of 6 Name Comments 7. Joan Taylor, Sierra Club Density transfer ok in general. Should be reduced density. 8. Roxanne Ploss Slide 1 revisit. Appreciative of building standards, and CTF efforts; Ecotourism is the fastest growing area of tourism; preserve area for these tourists. 9. Dana Stewart L When working with tribes and ecotourism, only way to protest is with EIR. Air in CV has gone down rapidly in last few years. 2. MSHCP - everyone must get behind it; CTF to recommend; 3. Vested projects must meet EIR. No exceptions. Even Indians. 4. Solar-need to add. 10. Jono Hildner Loves design standards; concerned with vested project & Indian properties. Must make recommendations if projects don't happen. We have no backup for Shadowrock and PH. Section 14 is zoned, so we can impose zoning standards on PA3, for example. 11. David Mathews, trails user. CTF p.12. "Existing trails will be maintained" Same wording in the PS GP and it has no teeth PS Property Owner when developers want to build. How to maintain the trails? Need language. If we don't make the language stronger, how will this play out? Access to trails? If you can't get to the trails, they are no good. Effectively we have eliminated the trails. Language is not strong enough. Saunders: Is the PH area the only one with access problem? David: No, also in the Southern area there are homeowners complaining about trails. Trail users are respectful. He li-es in the CC Cove area. 12. Charles Sachs, CC resident Does 1:10 deal with how big of a house? Where is this stated? 13. Jane Smith, PS Resident, Emerging infectious diseases. Disease vector: untouched piece of property. When it is research doctor. invaded, the diseases emerge - devirilized. EIR no longer sufficient. Windmills: regulations were lifted. Killed birds, now small animals that carry diseases are breeding out-of-control (mice, rabbits). Disturbed the eco-system. International Coalition (CDC & WHO & others) say the EIR is not enough. Development standards are not enough. Prevention & containment. Issue is survival. 01003/0002/42158.02 MALLIKA ALBERT 2241 N. Leonard Road, Palm Springs, CA 92262 home 760.322.7263 office 760.323.6034 fax 760.323.3282 mobile 760.409.0884 mallika@dc.rr.com October 30, 2005 To: Members of the Palm Springs Citizens Task Force Re: Recommendations for the CTF Summary Report I have attended two Citizen Task Force Presentations and I want to thank you for your initiative, hard work, and initial steps toward community consensus-building. Because of time constraints at your 10.29.05 presentation,please include my written recommendations in your summary report to the Palm Springs City Council. 1. That CTF continues with its consensus-building work towards diminishing community divisiveness and achieving community development. This is a top priority. 2. That CTF members examine, identify, and adopt a model process to expand citizen awareness and community involvement, to increase task force momentum, and to improve the effectiveness of your critically important work. Appreciative Inquiry (AI) is a cutting-edge, intervention model process, held in high regard within the organization development field. Al presents an alternative view of how we shape our future, and it has an impressive track record for strategic positive change. I highly recommend Appreciative Inquiry as a possible model for your review. Again, you have my support for continued success with this worthy community endeavor. Sincerely, Mallika Albert 9002 IP99L ON YH/YL1 99:ZT QaM S009/90/TT October 29,2005 Summary Critique of Citizens Task Force Work to Date and Save Our Mountains Recommendations by Chuck Nisbet The Citizens Task Force has failed to live up to its mission statement and guiding principles which included forging a compromise and a middle ground regarding the contested mountain areas. Instead, it opted for the status quo. True,the Task Force did down-zone 98 percent of the mountain areas to one unit per 40 acres,but the vast majority of that area was already zoned at one unit per 20 acres! However,this 98 percent of the mountains area is not a primary point of contention over development and has not divided our community. It is the other two percent of mountain area that divides this community. The Task Force recommendation for that two percent is no zoning or land use action or only marginal action. For example,the recommendation for Chino Cone results in less than one percent decrease in density from the Urgency Ordinance. In summary, Palm Hills gets the okay to resubmit the same massive--only visually altered-- project and the Chino Cone area will be allowed its high density development of 3 golf courses, 2 resort hotels and more than 1600 units. In effect, the Task Force recommendations put us back where we were a year ago. The threatened mountain areas in our community are not protected and will not be preserved. No compromise.No community healing. The recommendations of the Task Force, if left unchanged, will force the community into its last resort, another costly initiative and/or referendum campaign. The good news: there is still time to avoid this outcome. A real compromise can be framed by your Task Force. What would a compromise look like that would heal the community? We think it's not complicated. Palm Springs citizens do not want a Palm Hills hotel and golf course complex in their mountains. They made that abundantly clear last march. The contested Palm Hills area should be down-zoned to one in 40 just like the other mountain areas above the toe of the slope, but a majority of citizens would settle for and support a down-zone of one unitper 10 acres. In contrast to Measure 13, we are not proposing a down zone on flat land. The flat area around Rimrock should be developed according to General Plan guidelines. As for the Chino Cone, it must be developed in a less invasive and dense manner than you propose. We believe it must be zoned residential for one unit per 10 acres with constriction standards similar to that of Measure B. 14 Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization Response to the Pahn Springs Citizens Task Force on Foothill and Mountain Preservation Pahn Springs, October 29,2005 Recommendations: 1. The guiding principals in the Task Force plan are excellent. 2. The Task Force Plan for Chino Cone and the Chino Canyon Urgency Ordinance should be expanded to include the present site for the proposed Crescendo development and all undeveloped land between Highway 111,Tramway Road,The National Monument and existing housing on N. Milo Drive,E Racquet Club Road, Girasol Avenue, Vista Grande Avenue and San Marco Way. 3. The City of Palm Springs should pursue public and private resources (including but not limited to a public bond initiative)for purchase of all the undeveloped land in Chino Cone for preservation as natural desert open space. 4. The Plan for Chino Cone should limit all development to single family homess at a maximum density of 1 unit per ten acres. 5. Residential construction should fit into and enhance the natural desert landscape with height limitations that match the existing residential neighborhood. 6. There should be no mass grading, rock crushing or imported fill allowed in any construction. 7. 95% of the unbuilt landscape on each housing parcel should be preserved as natural desert open space. 8. No golf courses should be built. 9. Al 1 proposed construction must begin with an EIR. Greg Day Chairman Chino Canyon Neighborhoods Organization Citizens' Task Force ■� For Mountain and Foothill Preservation and Planning (CTF) ' 1 tW �r �._.;�.y�Lam:_�- _ - 1 /• x 'Iy y J ,.y. IZreg Day Photography December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations& Findings 1 Citizens' Task Force A A for Mountain and Foothill ® Preservation and Planning 3 i rl. _ -- - Tramway Gas SfaUan_KSPE#33 - Committee Members: Palm Sp=95 VL unsCenie, Phmu Or uaeay of Omar Ghulzim Vic Gainer, former chairman Save Our Mountains Sheryl Hamlin, Business Owner and Save Our Mountains supporter April Hildner, Save Our Mountains supporter Chris Mills, PS City Council Stephen Nichols, landowner and preservationist Steve Pougnet, PS City Council Shelly Saunders, PS Business Owner and member Save Our City Carole Sukman, Save Our Mountains Supporter Ed Torres, Developer Facilitator: David Aleshire, former Palm Springs City Attorney Made possible by the support of the City of Palm Springs, Ron Oden Mayor, and graciously hosted by the Palm Springs Hilton Hotel December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations & Findings 2 CTF Citizen and Business Group , Presentations two ER Veruail Arsal Pholay Ph odlh merAy oFAemN�d]'r[t VIP No.I>103 --- edmnn After developing preliminary concepts at weekly meetings over a period of several months, the CTF engaged in an extensive public process with virtually all community groups to elicit reactions to the concepts. The CTF believes that reactions were generally favorable, although there were criticisms, and adjustments were made to our recommendations Minutes from these meetings are on file Community Forum @ the PS Convention Center September 17, 2005 Building Industry Association October 6, 2005 ON11 and other groups Mizell Senior Center October 8, 2005 General Plan Steering Committee October 13, 2005 Hotel & hospitality Association October 19, 2005 PSE®C October 20, 2005 Chino Canyon Leadership Group October 20, 2005 Indian Planning Commission October 24, 2005 Snow Creek October 27, 2005 Chino Cone/Sierra Club October 29, 2005 December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations & Findings 3 Citizen Group Recommendations and J CTF Responses to Ke, Suregestions ■ Issue CTF Response Highway 111 berm will not be affected and area The berm will screen the view of buildings and should be left"natural" can be sensitively treated with natural materials as elsewhere exampled in Coachella Valley Zoning in Chino Cone should CTF concluded that the density transfer be reduced to 1 unit per 10 acres presented the least likely scenario to trigger takings issues and maintained an open space vista Building heights should be further reduced from Building heights measured from the natural CTF proposals grade should flow with topography PS should join MSHCP to get acquisition money Although Palm Hills is in the MSHCP Conservation, most of the Chino Cone area which CTF feels should be preserved is not. The MSHCP is too far down the road for the CTF to affect its recommendation. December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations &Findings 4 Citizen Group Recommendations and C_TF Responses �� �eY vu--es'Ll 2ons a Issue CTF Response Prohibit mass grading Standards will not permit "mass grading" in the proposed ordinance. Refine the CTF proposal to state that 1200 Done acres of PH is actually 904 owned by PH and 296 tribal land. CTF development standards should be applied The environmental impact review for each of to Boulders and Crescendo these two projects in near completion and it would be unfair to the developer and its opponents to start the process over again. Trail standards are too vague They are policies rather than standards and can be refined in the ordinance process. Palm Hills should be zoned 1:40 like the rest of CTF finds community disagreement about PH. the mountains to preclude the resort/hotel golf Indian owners do not want 1:40 and 1:40 could project lead to takings, so CTF recommends the city explore partial acquisition December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations " Findings 5 Citizen Group Recommendations and CTF Responses to Key Suggestions IN Issue CTF Response Density in Snow Creek area should be further Agreed reduced More detail should be added to some of the Agreed standards such as clustering, landscaping materials, trails, solar, etc. Must protect iconic landmarks such as Shiprock Agreed and Frey gas stations Density transfer is illusory because once The land must be prevented from development transferred, the City will let them develop anyway through dedication to the City or covenants All of this should go to the voters Will be the purview of the City Council A detailed record should be created of all CTF Agreed proceedings Need better diagrams, plans and visualizations to Agreed. This must be done in the next phase (see show how CTF standards would work Roadmap) The acquisition recommendation(s) should include CTF felt that this information would be a standard costs for economic loss of undeveloped land part of a ballot measure in the event an acquisition were proposed December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations & Findings 6 Mountain Area Measure B density standard of r • I Y 1 unit per 40 acres would apply in F if i y 14 � i f T r+i r, 98% of the mountain area. 4 S OF December 2005 a CTF Summary Recommendations & Findings 7 Chino Cone - the Gateway to Palm Springs 'j,' °fin-����7�-1�7 ® � j ! 1�17a 'i, City of Palm Springs r l �lt�It# ,1� ftu Department of Planning Services Chino Cane and Adjacent Areas Planning Areas F s �( - 'tg allL!"pTSSi w.{y-e o 2000 a,000 6000 12,00 tr,00c i3GiLzi yl ^{1p 9 'iH1 11 V g y 'ii.a" eth. � i711.l ii'� ceet i rG � ����.�� a �L!I`a�-2' (IT. ®alLll- t1 i ai ,_�e7i7a Frersipsr$�v .��0"� �. n im 'Eii14 ys/ I, - rGaLsd ty dal Ry LG'is-'f1 sfer Igo, C �Difllg �:'jrJagcl',s ds- adlovu »>i3 tJ 1 a "vverJ\" kP.ry darllsKy flx L'i Grp iM °6 8ogjMaay 111 zaLb-acGu 7157-US' AU , a ' ° G G�U� V��G y tell u'srs s WIC -4 S0 10 1 R 1P.26k1!`Ei ` + �O Jr G GG�7G G�� �©� �S �i ]c� fIiIF of uses o'�s'r�rfllgontr Co y %wie�.a December 2005F _ ;iG�`, -t �^ ��� jG � 8 Chin® Core Density `ran ■ �/ afar Bonus Planning Area #6 Chino Canyon Gateway 89 acres 134 units Planning Area #3 Highway 111 Corridor, 203 acres 246 units Adjacent to County Land A DENSITY TRANSFER FROMPA#6 TO PA#8 WOULD: Ng i�. ' i �:� • �_ �; fi give the developer a bonus allowing 406 units. PA-8 ®be more cost effective for the devWoper with only one area - } requiring infrastructure and nc� #�I . VA boulders to crush. BRA*t mot ,.> ► A: PA-6 -be good for the Comm unity �: F t. with PA #6, the Chino Cone Gateway permanent! ,{ / l r dedicated for opera space. - - December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations & Findings 9 Tho D�Ir" Wills Dianninri Aron � xAnl intain I IIG I QIIII 11111�7 I II II III Iy %I t+u IV IVuI IL 111 Standards ■ __ T m .�;r The CTF recommendation to zone the Planning Areas 2A, 2B & 3 I I FL"i - i .;;;K San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains Public Land: 13,054 acres 69% that are within the Palm Springs .•; Private Land: 4,722 acres 25% �, boundaries to one house per 40 acres Reservation: 1,119 acres 6°f° significantly reduces the likelihood that Total 18,895 acres 100% ' the 30 square mile planning areas below will realize the development described in Source: Mountain Preservation Initiative the Palm Springs General Plan. Planning Analysis, Director of Strategic Planning, 11/3/2004 PH-2A Resort Hotels, Golf Courses, _T_ Attached and Detached Residential and ,: City of Palm Springs t �. 1S'ir, Department of Strategic Planning Accessory Commercial/Service Uses " - - Target- 1840 Units (4600) population k Mountian Preservation Initiative Map By Goneral Plan Dasianation V'+ PH-2B Resort Hotels. Golf Courses, Legend Attached an Detached Residential and - - - -- Accessory Commercial/Service uses 1 Consrevation _ Palm Hills 1 1- } Target- 960 Units (2400) population Desert Palm Hills ' Residential-Lar:t Palm Hills 2a PH-3 Attached and Detached Residential-Lev 2 F Palm Hills 3 - -,�_ ` Residential and Accessory ry �j Residential-Watercourse Low 2 _IUVaterc°arse t Commercial/Service uses Residential-Low 6 F Watercourse Public Recreation t -- -- --, ,:._ Target- 1000 Units (2500) population Residential•Medium 15 ��C$y Limit , I ` Residential-High 43121 Mountain Preservation Initiative --- i Target Number of Units - 3800 �! General Commercial - - Streets .-, ; Target Population Range- 9500 December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations & Findings 10 Recommendations • The CTF recommends the creation of TWO ORDINANCES: the Mountain Ordinance and the Chino Canyon and Entry Corridor Ordinance A. Mountain Ordinance - Tightened definition of "mountain" areas - Reduced development to 1:40 in "mountain" areas - Specified standards of development which are sensitive to landform and habitat B. Chino Canyon and Entry Corridor Ordinance - Replaces the existing Urgency Ordinance for the Chino Cone - Incorporates the CTF Development Standards - Reduces density by 504� from that Permitted in the General Plan - Preserves portions of the Chino Cone in an undeveloped state with density transfer • ANNEXATION - The CTF recommends the City Council review the prospect of annexation land between Hwy 10 and Tramway and to incorporate this area into the new Chino Canyon and Entry Corridor Ordinance. • ACQUISITION - The CTF recommends the City Council consider establishing an acquisition sub-committee to establish a financing plan for acquisition of sensitive parcels in the Chino Cone as well as for portions of Palm Hills. The CTF have identified suggested Planning Areas #6, #8 and section 31 of Palm Hills December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations & Findings 11 Implementation R®ad Map • The current urgency ordinance p City of Palm Springs �E Department of Planning Services development standards will expire in Oct v CNlnoewaneantl AEpnnt Alnas-PlennlnB A,...Q6 and cannot be extended �'� e "� ' , , E� " • The CTF envisions the adoption of two , 1 ordinances to replace the urgency ordinance: the Mountain Ordinance and .�:� = — the Chino Canyon and Entry Corridor Ordinance • The preparation of these development standards will require a planning program, . h i_ ,, �,�, Q an environmental process, and preparation of the ordinances. sf� IV 1 44 • Hiring consultants and undertaking this R p long program could take as and .' :, g g as a year should be initiated immediately �r . 1 " �i it • In the interim all developers should be ;=e encouraged to comply with the CTF standards p Y • The CTF does not recommend grandfathering any projects December 2005 CTF Summary Recommendations & Findings 12