The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/17/2010 - STAFF REPORTS - 5.C. James & Ginger Pigott P.O. Box 712755 Los Angeles, California 90071 jpigott@ kernow partners.com gpigott@reedsmith.com 15 November 2010 Via Email Palm Springs City Council c/o Jay Thompson City of Palm Springs 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 Re: Case No. 3.3333 MAJ, 7.1320 AMM, TTM 36185—3130 N. Indian Canyon Drive— Request for Removal of Agenda Item 5c Dear Mayor Pougnet and Councilmembers: We write to request item 5c be removed from the agenda for the City Council meeting of November 17, 2010. We believe the proposed item is not procedurally appropriate. This agenda item, to discuss establishing a Council sub committee to work with ComDyn, is a direct consequence of ComDyn's April 26, 2010 appeal and the subsequent May 19, 2010 City Council public hearing which was continued. As such, agenda item 5c should have been subject to the notice requirements to those of us in the immediate vicinity pursuant to applicable California law as it is directly connected to the original hearing for this project. For some reason notification did not take place, and only by scrutinizing the main agenda did we even realize the project was set to be discussed. Further reasons for removing item 5c from the agenda include: 1. The purpose of the agenda item is not clearly explained, although the term "work with ComDyn" implies the developer will receive further private assistance from the City. 2. The Housing subcommittee previously held a ComDyn project specific meeting on October 13, 2010, where approximately 20 members of the public who are opposed to the project took time to attend and participate. 3. The findings from the October 13 meeting have not yet been published. 4. ComDyn have advised the City it will cost$126,500 to undertake a redesign. 5. At the public hearing of May 19, 2010, two members of the City Council voted against the original subcommittee meeting. 6. The forming of yet another subcommittee would probably necessitate a fourth extension of the Exclusive Agreement to Negotiate. 7. The implication that this is being arranged as a result of ComDyn's retention of a lobbyist reimbursed by the City through the recoverable grant. During the last two years we have attended multiple meetings organized by ComDyn, requested, purchased and reviewed thousands of pages of public records, prepared detailed factual communications with the City, and spoken at various Planning Commission and City Council hearings. Our correspondence with City officials often goes without reply as we Page 2 of 2 continue to highlight the significant flaws in ComDyn's application that we believe have serious consequences for many. In other words, we continue to respect the process no matter how protracted or biased toward the developer we find it. Therefore, to find this item lurking on the sixth page of an agenda is an insult to us and the many people who have invested considerable personal time and money into fighting for a more suitable project. We feel this is yet another "kick in the teeth" for those who are opposed to the ComDyn project, added to Mr. Mills observed behavior at the subcommittee hearing and the fact that we still do not receive all documents from certain City departments when we make a public records request. Interestingly, this incident is strikingly similar to the January 2010 attempt to put this application onto the Planning Commission agenda without the correct public notification. On that day the Commission refused to discuss the project, with one Commissioner describing the episode as "disingenuous." We support the City in the proposed use of this site for sustainable and progressive affordable housing, but are struggling to understand the City's policy of using any means necessary to continually stand by a developer who failed to design a conforming project and has acknowledged project financing issues. The City is aware of the September 2011 deadline of the RDA's ownership of the site and to further jeopardize the viability of eventual suitable development, by prolonging the farce that is ComDyn's application, is comic at best and downright negligent at worst. We respectfully request that item 5c be removed from the agenda. Regards, Electronically Signed James and Ginger Pigott Cc: Mayor Pougnet Donna Chaban Planning Commission Rick Vila David Ready Peter Moruzzi John Raymond Patrick McGrew Doug Holland Gary Wexler Tom Wilson Brian Wexler Dale Cook Joy Smith Craig Ewing Ron and Barbara Marshall Ken Lyon Gary Johns Jim Isermann Jim Jennings Tom Carnase and Claire Victor Victor Otero and Tricia Porter Brian McGuire Scott Kennedy Mary Ann Webster and Doug Keeve Jim Moore November 13, 2010 David Ready, Esq., Ph.D. John S. Raymond City Manager Director City of Palm Springs Community and Economic 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Development Department Palm Springs, CA 92263 City of Palm Springs 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way Palm Springs, CA 92263 Re: Case No. 3.3333 MAJ, 7.1320 AMM, TTM 36185 — 3130 N. Indian Canyon Drive —Additional Questions Re Agreement With ComDyn Dear Dr. Ready and Mr. Raymond: Why? New Business: 5C: APPOINTMENT OF A CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK WITH COMMUNITY DYNAMICS REGARDING THE COMDYN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ON INDIAN CANYON DRIVE: RECOMMENDATION: Appoint two members of the City Council to a City Council Subcommittee to work with Community Dynamics regarding the ComDyn Affordable Housing Project on Indian Canyon Drive. I'm extremely confused and disappointed to see this as an agenda item for next week's City Council Meeting. Concerned citizens and Community Dynamics were told at the May 19, 2010 City Council Meeting that the Housing Subcommittee, made up of two City Council Members (Mayor Pro Tern Hutcheson & Mr. Mills) was being called into action regarding this project. Furthermore this subcommittee meeting would be open to the public. We contacted City Hall many times to find out when this meeting was to take place. When it was finally scheduled 5 months later on October 13th, concerned citizens arrived, some prepared with comments, • • but all prepared to hear how this disastrous project would be fixed. Instead what we got was one elected official refusing to attend and Community Dynamics stating that changes it would cost an additional $126,500. Why was the EAN renewed again, for a third time? The developer has reiterated many times his position regarding his plan, which includes his refusal to meet certain criteria, expected exemptions and his inflexibility to meet standard building codes. Why are grant funds being used to pay ComDyn's legal costs and outside consultant fees (totally nearly $20,000) as outlined in the Pigott's recent letter of November 8t"? The Pigott's pose those and many other important questions in their correspondence, yet we receive no response from the City. Why are you still considering this proposal when market rate properties are now equally priced and below that which are being proposed by Community Dynamics? I'm no financial wizard, but common sense tells me that's not a wise decision. I still believe there is an equitable solution for the City and the Community but it will not be with the current developer. Thank you for listening. Claire Victor 300 E Molino Road Palm Springs, CA 92262 Cindy Berardi From: Thomas Carnase [carnase@carnase.com] Sent: Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:51 PM To: David Ready; John Raymond; Jay Thompson Cc: Steve Pougnet; Tom Wilson; Dale Cook; Craig Ewing; Chris Mills; Rick Hutcheson; Ken Lyon; Ginny Foat; Citymanager- Mail Login; Lee Weigel; James Pigott; Ginger Heyman Pigott; PalmSpringsJoy@aol.com; Donna Chaban; Claire Victor; Cindy Berardi; bmcguire98443@roadrunner.com; Jim Moore; Jim Isermann; mawebster; Doug Keeve; gary wexler design; rick@rickvila.com; pmaa@sbcglobal.net Subject: Questions Regarding ComDyn's Behavior 1/11/10 )avid Ready, Esq. Ph.D. John S. Raymond, Director :ity Manager Community and Economic Development Dept. ,ity of Palm Springs City of Palm Springs 200 Tahquitz Canyon Way 3200 Tahquitz Canyon Way 'alm Springs, CA 92263 Palm Springs, CA 92263 ;ase No. 3.3333 MAJ, 7.1320 AMM, TTM 36185 - 3130 N. Indian Canyon Drive 2uestions Regarding ComDyn's Behavior 1 Unit Moderate Income Housing )ear Dr. Ready and Mr. Raymond: Vhy does the RDA not share our concern over ComDyn's use of grant money to pay leir legal costs for work associated with disputing a City action, when instead, they should ave been focused on solutions for delivering a feasible, affordable project, and not resting conflict with the community and various City officials? hank you, bomas Carnase 00 East Molino Road 'alm Springs, CA 92262 ,c: Mayor Pougnet City Council Planning Commission `" " Tom Wilson Dale Cook Craig Ewing Ken Lyon �;.. Jim Isermann Claire Victor Brian McGuire Mary Ann Webster and Doug Keeve Jim Moore James and Ginger Pigott � ii ci�n�n Donna Chaban • mm Rick Vila, Racquet Club Estates Neighborhood Association Peter Moruzzi, The Palm Springs Modern Committee Patrick McGrew Gary Wexler Joy Smith 5.C. APPOINTMENT OF A CITY COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE TO WORK WITH COMMUNITY DYNAMICS REGARDING THE COM DYN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT ON INDIAN AVENUE: RECOMMENDATION: Appoint two members of the City Council to a City Council Subcommittee to work with Community Dynamics regarding the Com Dyn Affordable Housing Project on Indian Avenue. Item No. 50ce