HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/14/2005 - STAFF REPORTS (3) PALM SPRINGS
CITIZENS TASK FORCE
ON FOOTHILL AND MOUNTAIN
PRESERVATION
1 ) Executive Summary
2) PowerPoint Presentation
3) Mountain Ordinance Summary
4) Chino Cone Ordinance Summary
5) Summary of General Plan and Zoning
Provisions
6) Task Force Meeting Minutes
7) Public Involvement Plan
8) Task Force Contact Sheet
01003/0092/41408 01
r dtw
Task Force for Mountain and Foothill
Preservation and Planning
Mission Statement
The purpose of the Citizens' Task Force (CTF) is to
overcome the divisiveness which has beset the
community by seeking common ground for the
development of land use policies for the areas subject to
Measures B and C which will protect the scenic values of
Palm Springs
a Laackgr oui d oa Process
4di
• CTF envisioned by council member
Pougnet & CTF member Gainer who jointly
selected the committee
• City approved funds to include the
facilitator, David Aleshire
• 20 meetings at the PS Hilton and site visits
approaching 70 hours
• Agendas and Minutes from meetings
available from the archives
Guiding Principles
• The unique natural environment of Palm Springs with its rugged mountains and
sweeping desert sands create stunning vistas with a sense of space and distance, and
is Palm Springs' most important asset
• This natural environment has historically drawn people to live here and made Palm
Springs a world class resort destination and the protection of this natural
environment is vital to the well being of its residents and to sustaining its tourism
based economy
• All land uses must respect the scenic values of the desert and mountain terrain and
protect this historical heritage
• The mountain region is an extraordinarily rich, though fragile, natural environment
which sustains a brilliant variety of wildlife and plant species, some of which species
are threatened or endangered, and the City's land, use policies must be understanding
of ecosystem interactions and protect and conserve sensitive habitat
• Development must be harmonious with, adapted to and respectful of the natural
features with minimal disturbance of terrain and vegetation, use of natural and
sympathetic materials, and be located in a manner sensitive to terrain, including
wildlife habitat, watercourses and steep slopes
• Open space is a limited and valuable resource which is a part of the City's historic
heritage and the City should identify sensitive open space areas for conservation and
should acquire and preserve such areas
• The City should continue its policies for open space acquisition by which some 3000
acres have been acquired, including mitigation of developer impacts through land
dedication and payment of in-lieu fees acceptance of gifts of land, obtaining federal
and state grants for conservation, working with regional conservation agencies, and
developing other funding sources
P { } Summary of Findings &
Accomplishments
• 1. The served.open mountain/desert entry to Palm Springs is vital to Palm Springs'future and must be
pre
— A 75-125' natural buffer zone should be created along Hwy 111 fully screening any development; and
County areas along the entry corridor should be annexed.
• 2. Development in the mountain areas should be discouraged.
— 98% of the mountain area would have its development density cut in half to 1 unit per 40 acres, and due
to restriction on development of slope areas and other grading and development restrictions, would be
unlikely to develop.
• 3. Preservation of substantial portions of the Chino Cone in an undeveloped state is a priority.
— Densities are limited to less than half what is permitted by current general plan;
Density transfer provision would keep the base of Chino Cone open;
In residentially developed areas, 50% of the land would be dedicated for open space;
Sensitive areas, such as around Ship Rock would be preserved;
— Large-scale resorts would be reduced to 1 on non-Indian land (Shadowrock); and
— Development around the Visitor Center will protect its historic character.
• 4. Special Development Standards are recommended.
For trails: encourage recreational trail use and linkages, relocating trails in sensitive areas;
— For open space: develop a priority list and acquire sensitive parcels, setting such parcels aside by deed
restriction;
For grading: minimize grading and vegetation disturbance, requiring grading bonds for security;
For design: harmonious with natural setting, blend with terrain, use of natural materials;
— For infrastructure: desert design without curbs, gutters, sidewalls; no black asphalt; minimal street
lighting.
Chino Cone SumAlry of Residential
Changes Per Task Force
Recommendations
CTF Recommendations
CHINO CONE PLANNING AREAS Developable General Plan WIDensi Transfer
Acres Densi nits 621
LOW DENSITY AREAS 1,4,7,8,6 1093 948 144
125 689
MEDNM DENSITY AREAS 5, 1218 1, 765
TOTAL ON RESORT
Developable General Plan CTF Recommendations Z
Acres Density' All Residential Residential+Hotel
1766 1406 300(600
RESORT AREAS (2,3) 703 2171-1065 (600)
TOTAL (ALL AREAS) 1921 3403
1 Computed as if assification is
reserve and density
2. Shadowrock wasl
lactually apprlovedtas a 270--unit hot ane.
d 145 s ngle faal single-famiy resdential at 3 units per acre. Actual lmily units, which is less than''/z units pera rexor 1
unit per 2 acres. Development on Indian land, f mixed resortproject, resumed to have similar density(2 hotel units to 1
is p
residential). T0ta1 develo ment woul rooms
d be 2171 SFR or 1065 SFR and 600 hotel
SUMMARY
• CTF Recommendations would result in a 47% density reduction in Chino Cone from General Plan density,
(disregarding the two remaining resort projects of Shadowrock and Indian Areas)
• In addition, density in mountain areas cut in half by reducing density from 1 unit per 20 acres to 1 unit per
40 acres
213 of the Chino Cone density is in the vested Shadowrock and Indian resort Project Areas
0 acres would apply in 98% of the mountain area
Measure B density standard of 1 unit per 4
Next Steps �
• CTF recommends the Chino Cone Urgency Legislation be
modified/updated with the CTF recommendations (estimated
October 2005)
• Second urgency ordinance incorporating the CTF mountain
standards adopted for the mountains (estimated November 2005)
• General Plan committee to review the CTF recommendations (next
30 days)
• Meet with Tribal representatives to review recommendations (next
30 days)
• Meet with citizen groups, property owners, developers and other
interested parties (next 30 days)
• Develop an ordinance with appropriate environmental documents to
be approved by the City or the voters and enacted prior to
expiration of urgency ordinances (in 2006)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 41
gY
Task Force for Mountain and Foothill
Preservation and Planning
Mission Statement
The purpose of the Citizens' Task Force (CTF) is to
overcome the divisiveness which has beset the
community by seeking common ground for the
development of land use policies for the areas subject to
Measures B and C which will protect the scenic values of
Palm Springs
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum
t . Z -
'
• Measure B
- General Plan amendment to change the zoning to 1
house per 40 acres on the mountain and alluvial fan
areas of Palm Springs
- Measure B did not pass; no zoning changes
• Measure C
- A referendum on the approval of the Palm
Hills Corporation's proposed project of 1200 acres,
homes, resort hotel and golf course
- Measure C passed rescinding council's approval of
Palm Hills
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 2
• Vic Gainer, former chairman • Steve Pougnet, PS City
Save Our Mountains Council
• Sheryl Hamlin, Business Owner • Shelly Saunders, PS Business
and Save Our Mountains Owner and member Save Our
supporter City
• April Hildner, Save Our Carole Sukman, Save Our
Mountains supporter Mountains Supporter
• Chris Mills, PS City Council Ed Torres, Developer
• Stephen Nichols, landowner
and preservationist
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
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 3
rw & Process
Backgrourr
• CTF envisioned by council member
Pougnet & CTF member Gainer who jointly
selected the committee
• City approved funds to include the
facilitator, David Aleshire
• 20 meetings at the PS Hilton and site visits
approaching 70 hours
• Agendas and Minutes from meetings
available from the archives
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 4
{
z
CTI
• Interpret the Mission Statement
• Recommend a set of policies and development
standards which will protect the mountains and
alluvial fans and would be acceptable to the vast
majority of the community
• The CTF report makes recommendations in
three critical areas :
— Mountains
— Chino Cone
— Palm Hills
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 5
e r d
1) Measure B Review
2) Palm Springs General Plan Review
3) Palm Springs Zoning Review
4) Hillside Ordinance and Ordinances from other cities
5) Legislative issues including "Takings"
6) Smart Growth
7) Coachella Valley Multiple Species Planning
8) Land Acquisition for Conservation
9) Meetings with conservation groups
10) Funding alternatives including developer fees, state
funding and bond financing
11) Field trips
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum
6
' + Guidinq Principles
x
• The unique natural environment of Palm Springs with its rugged mountains and
sweeping desert sands create stunning vistas with a sense of space and distance, and
is Palm Springs' most important asset
• This natural environment has historically drawn people to live here and made Palm
Springs a world class resort destination and the protection of this natural
environment is vital to the well being o?its residents and to sustaining its tourism
based economy
• All land uses must respect the scenic values of the desert and mountain terrain and
protect this historical heritage
• The mountain region is an extraordinarily rich, though fragile, natural environment
which sustains a brilliant variety of wildlife and plant species, some of which species
are threatened or endangered, and the City's land use policies must be understanding
of ecosystem interactions and protect and conserve sensitive habitat
• Development must be harmonious with, adapted to and respectful of the natural
features with minimal disturbance of terrain and vegetation, use of natural and
sympathetic materials, and be located in a manner sensitive to terrain, including
wildlife habitat, watercourses and steep slopes
• Open space is a limited and valuable resource which is a part of the City's historic
heritage and the City should identify sensitive open space areas for conservation and
should acquire and preserve such areas
• The City should continue its policies for open space acquisition by which some 3000
acres have been acquired, including mitigation of developer impacts through land
dedication and payment of in-lieu fees acceptance of gifts of land, obtaining federal
and state grants for conservation, wo;hing with regional conservation agencies, and
developing other funding sources
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 7
' & Summary of Findinas &
Accomplishments
• 1.esThe open mountain/desert entry to Palm Springs is vital to Palm Springs'future and must be
prerved.
A 75-125' natural buffer zone should be created along Hwy 111 fully screening any development; and
County areas along the entry corridor should be annexed.
• 2. Development in the mountain areas should be discouraged.
98% of the mountain area would have its development density cut in half to 1 unit per 40 acres, and due
to restriction on development of slope areas and other grading and development restrictions, would be
unlikely to develop.
• 3. Preservation of substantial portions of the Chino Cone in an undeveloped state is a priority.
Densities are limited to less than half what is permitted by current general plan;
— Density transfer provision would keep the base of Chino Cone open;
In residentially developed areas, 50% of the land would be dedicated for open space;
Sensitive areas, such as around Ship Rock would be preserved;
— Large-scale resorts would be reduced to 1 on non-Indian land (Shadowrock); and
— Development around the Visitor Center will protect its historic character.
• 4. Special Development Standards are recommended.
— For trails: encourage recreational trail use and linkages, relocating trails in sensitive areas;
— For open space: develop a priority list and acquire sensitive parcels, setting such parcels aside by deed
restriction;
For grading: minimize grading and vegetation disturbance, requiring grading bonds for security;
— For design: harmonious with natural setting, blend with terrain, use of natural materials;
— For infrastructure: desert design without curbs, gutters, sidewalls; no black asphalt; minimal street
lighting.
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 8
Of
flu
� �. q sT r
�
� 7• �� �` '44 . t -.s' 1 7- ""- rE � q�f "tY wu Y a I � X.
T
a ti
4v4
h'
•�F• '� { � � �j yyc ,yt R'
r � q'k+;4'• i �y�'1.,, �y 3'b. 1 tiIW:�t YkdF1A�l.�*41y
MoUntains Ovenrie\A/
s � ■ ■ ■.. ■ ■ � v■ V ■V rr _
�
• Goal : preserve as much as possible of the
mountains in a pristine state, promoting
acquisition of sensitive parcels and
recreational use through a system of trails
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 10
a Development Standards for
Mountains
• Same standards for San Jacinto/Santa Rosa area
• Toe of the slope and above
• Limit of 1 house per 40 acres
• Development on slopes less than 10% permitted; greater than
30% not permitted; between 100/o-300/o subject to review
• 95% undisturbed open space
• Must adapt to terrain with minimal grading and grading plan
• Require bonds to assure minimal grading
• Minimize disturbance of hillside vegetation
• Use natural materials for screening
• Locate away from sensitive areas
• Encourage habitat protection
• Public acquisition for conservation
• 18'/24' height limit for structures; 250 X 250 lot
• Sewer connections, if practical
• City encourages use of mountains for recreational purposes so
long as not to degrade habitat; existing trails will be maintained
and new trail links can be developed
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 11
Ti raLi SittaiTidarw�
• City encourages use of Mountains for recreational
purposes so long as not to degrade habitat -- a useable
trail system is a community asset
• Existing trails will be maintained for active use
• Trail links can be developed
• New development can be required to encourage
pedestrian use by providing internal trails with links to
existing trails
• City shall encourage proper trail maintenance
• Historic trails may be registered on National Register
• City will provide appropriate access for trails
• If trails impinge on sensitive habitat, City will relocate
them . City will decommission or close trails only if
necessary based on best available scientific research
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 12
Standards for the Acquisition of
R ' Open Space
• City will actively seek to acquire Mountain property
• City will develop priority acquisition list
• City will seek federal/state funding
• Land currently owned by City will be set aside by deed
restriction
• City may trade for parcels where:
— The acquired parcel has greater open space value than
the released parcel based on habitat or aesthetic values
— Three (3) acres acquired for one (1 ) acre given up
• City will work with federal and state agencies to promote the
National Monument and other resource conservation
programs
• City will work to preserve and enhance the natural
environment
• City will work with conservations groups
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 13
" ". MrOuntaain Ares
r jm 5 r
• Measure B density standard of 1 unit per
40 acres would apply in 98% of the
mountain area
• MAP TO BE ADDED AND SLIDE TO BE
FORMATTED BY STEVE C. W/STEVE P . &
VIC
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 14
w w.8'77j
n C
x rx
.T: ;v x.
F L4
ff 0-
� ...u:,r; xs" Pyl'�' ! 1. ✓ r�:rr�
• Diverse area consisting of mountains,
alluvial fan and the gateway to Palm
Springs
• Adopted in 09/04, the Chino Cone
Urgency Zoning is in place now until
10/05 . This reduced density by 50%
• The CTF recommendations include more
protections for this area than the CC
Urgency Zoning while retaining the same
Planning Areas (PA 1 -9)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 16
r
� x
* N# 04, J {#
1q, �
� 1� 11 ♦ - '..+ 4Y Lt'� � qyV .
Visio
�C V I�7IV„
• Maximize open space by encouraging density transfers on the
lower portion of the Cone
• Produce development projects respectful of the natural desert
and scenic vistas
• Preserve Indian development rights along with the approved
Shadowrock hotel-golf destination resort
• Require development to pay its way
• Create wide Highway 111 buffer and Tramway buffer
• Require development to maximize open space by clustering
and dedicating 50% of the land for open space
• Require 20% of the lots for custom development
• Incorporate new, natural standards for development including
streetscape
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 18
Chino Cone General Development
Standards
• Specific Plan & Environmental Impact Report (EIR) required for
each area except for 5A where it is discretionary
• Road alignment/traffic analysis for each area
• Recreation/open space plan to show: linkages within Planning
areas and between, view analysis, natural areas/watercourse
areas, recreation areas, habitat mitigation,
preservation/conservation areas
• Water conservation provisions
• Two large-scale resorts: Shadowrock & Tribal
• Infrastructure funded by development
• Fiscal Impact Analysis necessary to justify project
• Open space acquisition program through in lieu fees and
dedication
• Existing substandard lots can be developed with one single family
residence (SFR)
• Permitted golf course to be maintained as open space in
perpetuity
• Tram Way Buffer: natural streetscape, 50" setback
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 19
Highway 111 M , fir
HWY 111 Buffer: meandering border, setback 75'-125' with
average 100; natural vegetation, special trail/walking
treatment, berming to screen development to the toe of the
mountain slope, no visible roofs from HWY 111
WA
a
._ H—w—r+i—-—u ——Y�ewFn h+�.M Yww .FYi�IM� ,.�fr�-�nawgwnKMa"� raahW,., wRe+ •Y i • • •
— wxriw A�w
1.,N'A?VNA4 W0a . Ir
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 20
AM �V7I'■ n A ■ �N■
Till �� Ii'��wwa.�0'�'i vj�jwi E 1P
'4W1tk1!
• The Citizens Task Force
recommends:
— annexation of all county
property adjacent to HWY 111
entry
— Development of strategies to
preserve this area to the
extent possible
• Annexation will allow PS �-
standards to be applied to this
sensitive view corridor along �®
the entry to PS rather than
county standards
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 21
Chino Cone
Residential Development Standards
Tram Way setback/natural landscape treatment
Buffering with other residential areas
— Blending with natural surrounding criteria and terrain appropriate
architecture per Mountain Ordinance
No front fences/walls; rear screened with natural materials and terrain
Grading pad areas to meet contours
Open space areas not screened or enclosed
— No curbs, gutters or sidewalks and all streets of colored or stamped
concrete
Height: 18' measured from natural grade, following natural contours, but
with permitted projection per code
— Clustering of residential development and maximizing extent of
undeveloped areas is encouraged
— Sufficient variety of floor plans and desert sensitive elevations to avoid
tract appearance; 20% of lots reserved for custom development
If tile roof, natural clay tiles, mudded, two piece must be used
10,000 sq. ft lot minimum
50% of the land dedicated to the city for public open space
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 22
0-7
D� � Aerial Tramway itay
•Bounded by PA 2 and
mountains i
•Acres: 570
•Developable: 454 acres
•Computed max units = 11
•Density: 1 unit/40acres
•Uses: Tram, estate =_ r
residential, open space
Development standards;
see Chino Cone general '
standards (slides 18/21)
s
t
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 23
a IF PM TT A. ha%A VVI V\rA
-Bounded by PA1, PA3
and Mountains
-Development Agreement & plans
approved in Nov. 1993
-Development Agreement
expires June 2006
-Acres: 360
-Developable: 360
-Computed max units: 415 f
Hotel (270 units), SFR (145)
-Uses: resort hotel, golf, SFR
-Density: specific plan
-Acquisition Areas:
500 acres dedicated
i¢nr� ri_
------
-Development standards:
see Chino Cone general standards
(Slides 18121)
-Special Infrastructure: developer to .
reconstruct Tramway Road for
to improve safety and construct
water, sewer, landscaping, other
improvements and underground
utilities
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 24
- ------ - - - —
� k �A Tr 02
1"dW% Land
f
-Bounded by 5 planning areas: ra
PA6, PA5, PA4,PA2,PA7 I'
-Under jurisdiction of Agua Caliente .',
Band of Cahuilla Indians
-Land use agreement with city of
Palm Springs dating from 1977 -:
-Area: 415.5 acres
-Developable: 342.69 acres
-Uses: resort hotel, golf, SFR
-Density: 2 units/acre
Development Standards: same as . :
Chino Cone general standards
(slides 18/21) plus golf coursea :=
residential similar to Shadowrock
-Natural buffering on east boundary ' -
making a soft edge `
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 25
--- -�
to �
' k DA # d TrM W IY FM
Bounded by PA3, PA5 and
areas not covered by CTF
proposal and mountains to the
south
• Area : 119 acres
Developable: 98 acres
y"
• Computed max units: 197 `'
• Uses permitted: low density .e g
�Y
estate residential ,
��
• Density:
/2 units acre with
v A.2
minimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft. ; _ L4 _
• Open Space/recreation : ,
linkages surrounding projects,
50% land dedicated open
space
• Development Standards: d `
Chino Cone general standards
(slides 18/21) 7
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 26
DAf,ErrrhAILMRI
•Bounded by PA6, PA3, PA4, M xrx iIM
& Tramway Road and southerly
by areas not covered by CTF plan M`'
936 acres total developable
5A - Commercial - 12 acres
5B - Residential - 24 acres
!.
raa
q S
tAi "a6a`Z k'�
1�i4i� Y
V r
..Y
Tramway r32sSta4bo=HSF6iF33
Palr¢i Sprirra�1r ,;nss Ger(W
Pta;o Qwneay of Omar Ghutam
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 27
r
Aft
5A - Commercial 513 — Residential
• Area•. 12 acres out of the 36 acres of • Area: 24 acres of residential, floating
PA 5bounda but not larger ith PAS may get smaller,
• Commercial can increase into 0 Computed max units: 144
residential 0 Uses 5B: single and multi-family
• Uses 5A: hotel, museum/cultural, residential @ 4-6 units per acre
public uses, resort retail • Residential must have 6O% open
space
• Architecturally significant building 0 Buffer treatment on northern property
(Frey Gas Station) line similar to PA3
• Development Standards: Community 0 Height: 2 stories or 24 feet
Services Commercial (CSC) or High 0 Development Standards: Chino Cone
Commercial (PC) zoning standards but ggeneral standards as applicable (slides
must harmonize and not overshadow 18/21)
Visitor Center
• Mandatory decorative paving for
parking (includes stamped concrete)
• Height: 2 stories or 24 feet
• For every extra sq ft above 12 acres, 1
sq ft of open space must be dedicated
in 5B; for example if 5A expands to 15
acres, there would be a loss of 3 acres
in 5B
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 28
•Bounded by PA5, PA7, PA3
and 111
*Area: 89.33 acres
*Developable: 89.33 acres
@Computed Max units:
134 @ 1 .5 acre average
*Uses: golf & very low density ' :'°
estate residential
*Density: 1 .5 units/acre with
minimum lot size of 10,000
sq. feet with density transfer LL':
k
to PA 8 of 1 .5 units/acre if r
dedication of to City
-
property Y �=
20% bonus for transfer
u
*Development standards:
Chino Cone General � a r
(slides 18/21)
Nfi z�
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 29
oe
■ A Tr i Chino iao Creek
r a Ch■ V V
• Bounded by PA6, PA3, PA8, PA2,
mountains and 111
• Area: 176 acres
a
• Developable: 174
• Computed Max Units: 0
• Uses: water course, public
recreation, golf, equestrian trails
k
• Development: retain
natural/open character; if golf,
target golf with no trees and no
# ry
grass visible from Hwy 111
• Scenic entry corridor treatment —
see chart on slide 20
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 30
yyy E py PA # 8 & County _
Highway Ill Corridor
*PA 8 bounded b '� i -REi
�19w'
county land and
Q �
*Cove & Windy Pt
*County
development •
standards
differ from PS:
6 units per acre
•Potential to annex
I � I
•Land Transfer ill
considered
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 31
DA # 8 High ay ll036 rr lor
• Area: 203 acres
• Developable: 123 plus county land
adjacent
y Computed max: 246 subject to PA#6
density transfer to a maximum of
,� I 430.5 units
U
F; f .
a y 1, aU # Uses: low density residential
Density: 2 units/acre with minimum
lot size of 10,000 sq. ft provided that
density transfer from PA#6 permitted
to a max. density of 3.5 units per acres
• Encourage addition of property to
north with same standards
• Height: 15'
• Scenic entry corridor treatment
• Ship Rock and surrounding area to be
preserved; developer would be
credited for dedication
• Development Standards: see Chino
Cone general standards (slides 18/21)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 32
PA # 9 Snow Creek
• Bounded by county lands & - w
mountains and 111I
• Area: 1195 acres4i
Developable: 244 acres
• Computed max units: 6-300
• Uses: conservation in
floodplain, very low density l
residential
• Density: 1 unit/40 acres
• Development standards:
see Chino Cone general
standards (slides 18/21)
Scenic entry corridor
treatment: See PA#6
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 33
Chino Cone Sumay of Residential
Changes Per Task Force
Recommendations
CHINO CONE PLANNING AREAS Developable General Plan CTF Recommendations
Acres Density (Units) (w/Density Transfer)
LOW DENSITY AREAS (1,4,7,8,9) 1093 948 621
MEDIUM DENSITY AREAS (5,6) 125 689 144
TOTAL (NON RESORT) 1218 1637 765
Developable General Plan CTF Recommendations z
Acres Density '
All Residential Residential+Hotel
RESORT AREAS (2,3) 703 1766 1406 300/600
TOTAL (ALL AREAS) 1921 3403 2171-1065 (600)
1. Computed as if all single-family residential at 3 units per acre. Actual classification is urban reserve and density is flexible.
2. Shadowrock was actually approved as a 270-unit hotel and 145 single family units, which is less than % units per acre, or I
unit per 2 acres. Development on Indian land, if mixed resort project, is presumed to have similar density(2 hotel units to I
residential). Total development would be 2171 SFR or 1065 SFR and 600 hotel rooms
SUNIlVIARY
• CTF Recommendations would result in a 47% density reduction in Chino Cone from General Plan density,
(disregarding the two remaining resort projects of Shadowrock and Indian Areas)
• In addition, density in mountain areas cut in half by reducing density from 1 unit per 20 acres to 1 unit per
40 acres
• 2/3 of the Chino Cone density is in the vested Shadowrock and Indian resort Project Areas
0 Measure B density standard of I unit per 40 acres would apply in 98% of the mountain area
c<
t ' ✓
t »4%
�'`s�$ �`I�• i Z ( % � l f a n, } .2 aI�X �S { r' � t"� • _
< i
�4 .!t fl1 ..F �� g y y- c t_fir _ _ • •
' v " yat d h t=.tr . a z P,TM s .•• • • 1 1
4-J 1� �, %J�'" • {}r�T.�M f .. f /s.�i '+4+•`Yc.. h.
. w ��.'ll Lq4�,*, „3`h� -t'I 14� �0}yYe�y .,.L�^ •'.'..'GN!/ A
r ',�'` wJ'�•" mnym filF�f,Ty'aayx t . .:. . • . .
f l,�7ef'L�'_"� *{.y,tt ''�3,�'���`✓�, �°vvr�''3*a�y.,"�.ty�;•,ui'.ur
.M
h
�� �� `f�.��y.t�!!�'�� yt yy ti lx{�;�£`�� �iP�' Z� . - -• • • -
54`
lr. " a l'f ifw•rL? 2.... yy T_wsKA e
g 91 Previously-Approved homes
o Palm Hills property
Vested 91 homes
are near water tower area
Subdivision approved
- In 1984 (Tract 17403)
tv
Project can be developed
even if there is no Palm Hills,
But is superseded if a new
Palm Hills project is approved
Visibility of the project to the
Valley floor is in dispute
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 36
/� :3R i�st�u'�- �yn,�ir �rl•,'�'.`.�y-�.a�a.. 1i �'',rr,f+Pt3':�•.^. r� ?�i, .-- '�y�;^y �� ,
• - �C�m W,{y t i�HlNw Y �"" J �T••-n' W � -.a '4 Y%,41.
b ;' r
..R� � 1x�st �.ox L:�•b?for ai rs{."� i�1� ka ts� �'��
ee 4 •`x„ {��"s��t ? lGl 4{e7C... Sy ,�f�d��r� ;®.
i$i^. �'\ *�4 � *,. �.: .. �.. � 4 s •�*. "TT e � ��r �xibv.ltmrsal ,
'`S, s i.. � �� ��y �'� Y�°� 1� • � 1.t ;g♦ y r�}y "tv� .�.s�J�$�,jeN�Nt�.nLL Y .xs
+ y,7 .+'4L w + �. . . tNV �.�'�Ia. 3. '' J i e.�Ki�x, P �' i'•y e
C' * l _r a Y ��e. • - .r an� `� g`C,..., n- y 1��1 ,'"�Cek;�x$r
w "✓ ^ >' "'� SDt � W' t h x
, k* 'd ' Y"¢ •�1.
otr32r.• r�µ 'v i�"'�` �,�j� ': �Y ,t `t l �f N"w.. t 'R a '� r
it i t�'� �•r�y�r .,�✓-fin �yy '� �'- -^ •��V '_Y _
y3 • \�'Y' gpy:,iX f' N`�:1��'�1 � 4 v� •i, r ���t
♦ l
W
N
a
4 Pui:':: MISS Acquisia�'.i1i i Op"Iio is
• Acquire entire 1200 acres for cost of $20-$25 million
— For $20 million 25-year bond issue: $23.63 annually per
assessed valuation of $100,000
• For example, a homeowner of a $300,000 assessed value home
would pay $70.89 annually
• Not acquiring the 91 house vested project, but only 640
acres of Section 31, for a cost of less than $ 10 million
— For $6 million 25-year bond issue: $7.09 annually per assessed
valuation of $100,000
• For example, a homeowner of a $300,000 assessed value home
would pay $21 .27 annually
• Talk to conservation agencies about matching funds:
Goal is 50% match
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 38
x
Tli
The following alternatives exist for Palm Hills:
1) Develop only the approved 91 homes (see previous slide) with
remainder of property to be acquired or developed to the Mountain
Standards
2) Resubmission of a project in compliance with the General Plan and
superseding the 91-lot project
3) Acquisition of all of Palm Hills by the city of Palm Springs through a
bond measure and/or matching funds from other sources
The committee supports continued research on the above alternatives
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 39
b.x ` r The Palm Hills Planning Areafi
at
and Mountain Standards
• •• RAMONRD--. --..
PALM HILLS PLANNING AREA: 5°°' E" E
Planning Areas 2A, 26 & 3
Public Land: 13,054 acres 69% • • ;
Private Land: 4,722 acres 25%
Reservation: 1,119 acres 6% A��
Total 18,895acres 100%
The CTF recommendation to
PH-2A Resort Hotels, Golf Courses, �.
Attached and Detached Residential and P�-=" zone the San Jacinto and Santa
Accessory Commercial/Service Uses Rosa Mountains within the
Target- 1840 Units (4600) population Palm Springs boundaries to
PH-213 Resort Hotels. Golf Courses,
r �, one house per 40 acres
Attached an Detached Residential and :; significantly reduces the
Accessory Commercial/Service uses ,r ; likelihood that the 30 square
Target- 960 Units (2400) population
mile Palm Hills planning areas
PH-3 Attached and Detached Residential will realize the development
and Accessory Commercial/Service uses PH described in the Palm Springs
6
Target- 1000 Units (2500) population General Plan.
Target Number of Units — 3800
Target Population Range- 9500 �
Source: Mountain Preservation Initiative Planning Analysis,
Director of Strategic Planning, 11/3/2004 :t
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 40
a, 'a
StUFM
Next
f _
• CTF recommends the Chino Cone Urgency Legislation be
modified/updated with the CTF recommendations (estimated
October 2005)
• Second urgency ordinance incorporating the CTF mountain
standards adopted for the mountains (estimated November 2005)
• General Plan committee to review the CTF recommendations (next
30 days)
• Meet with Tribal representatives to review recommendations (next
30 days)
• Meet with citizen groups, property owners, developers and other
interested parties (next 30 days)
• Develop an ordinance with appropriate environmental documents to
be approved by the City or the voters and enacted prior to
expiration of urgency ordinances (in 2006)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 41
CITIZENS TASK FORCE OUTLINE
MOUNTAIN PRESERVATION ORDINANCE
This is an outline for drafting a Mountain Preservation Ordinance.
A. STATEMENT OF PURPOSE
1. Scenic value.
2. Resort attraction/heritage.
3. Habitat protection: Multi-species Plan.
4. Ecosystem interactions.
5. Encourage conservation.
6. Scarring impacts of development.
7. Public acquisition: Public/private fiurding,
8. Limited development permitted.
B. ZONING STANDARDS
1. Create Mountain Zoning District.
use map to define the toe of the slope.
same rules San Jacinto/Santa Rosa.
2. Use: (a) Single family residential (clustering ok).
(b) Public infrastructure.
(c) Equestrian use.
(d) Wildlife preserve.
(c) Recreational use, trails, natural parks, etc.
3. Density: 1 dwelling unit per 40 acres.
4. Slopes: Development ok if less than 10%; not permitted if over 30%.
Between 10-30% slope must have studies showing appropriate structural stability
and visual appearance. Can disapprove based on safety and aesthetic concerns.
5. Design Goals: Harmonious with, adapted to, respectful of natural setting; adapt to
terrain with minimal grading; multi-level flowing with terrain; minimize
disturbance of hillside terrain and vegetation; use of natural materials for
screening; locate away from sensitive areas.
6. Open Space:
(a) Developed area no more than 5% of lot or 1 acre, whichever is greater, not
counting roadway.
(b) Clustering permitted.
(c) Require covenant with City protecting open space in an undisturbed
condition.
01003/0002/39232.03
-� 7. Height.
(a) 30'.
(b) Protrusions permitted per code.
8. Lot size: Minimum dimension on any side 250'.
9. Yards: 50' setbacks.
10. Landscaping-Indigenous/Native Landscaping Materials.
11. Lighting-not illuminate mountains or sky.
12. Grading.
(a) Must have grading plan and conform to plan.
(b) Bond for violations.
(c) Minimize grading.
(d) Show streets. Minimize scarring and retaining walls. Retaining walls will
blend into surroundings.
(e) Rocks and material recovered during grading will be incorporated in
design insofar as possible.
(f) Dispose of surplus grading material at approved site.
® 13. Streets: May approve alternates to normal City standards:
(a) No use of black asphalt. Design so road surface not prominent.
—S (b) Minimize grading, cut slopes and retaining walls.
(c) Adequate site distance.
(d) Curb and gutter may be modified (wedge curb) or eliminated so long as no
drainage problems.
(e) Adequate dust free parking.
(f) No sidewalks.
(g) Adequate access for emergency equipment(may upgrade fire protection
systems).
14. Fire protection.
(a) Meet access standards.
(b) Safety areas.
(c) Fire resistant materials.
(d) Water systems.
15. Sewers: Connect to sewer imless financially impractical and adequate on-
site location.
16. Drainage: To street or if reasonable to natural drainage.
17. Maintenance: Maintenance standards generally applicable (93.19.00) (proper
• storage,property free of trash, vegetation healthy, safety, good
repair, "quality appearance,"vehicle parking, etc.)
2
01003/0002139232 03
-� C. DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
1. All subject to architectural review.
2. All subject to Planning Commission review and approval.
3. Noticed hearing with notice to adjacent property owners.
4. Specific Plan process in Palm Hills.
D. PROPERTY ACQUISITION AND CONSERVATION
1. City will actively seek to acquire Mountain property.
2. City will develop priority acquisition list.
3. City will seek federal/state and private funding.
4. Land currently owned by City will be set aside by deed restriction.
5. City may trade for parcels where:
(a) The acquired parcel has greater open space value (whether mountain,
alluvial fan or desert)than the released parcel based on habitat or aesthetic
values.
(b) Trade on ratio of 3 acres for each acre given up.
6. City will work with federal and state agencies to promote the National Monument
and other resource conservation programs.
7. City will work to preserve and enhance the natural environment.
E. TRAILS
1. City encourages use of Mountains for recreational purposes so long as not
degrade habitat. Promoting a useable trail system is a community asset.
2. Existing trails will remain for active use.
3. Trail links can be developed.
4. New development can be required to encourage pedestrian use by providing
internal trails with links to existing trails.
5. City shall encourage proper trail maintenance.
6. Historic trails may be registered on National Register.
7. City will provide appropriate access for trails.
8. If trails impinge on sensitive habitat, City will relocate them. City will
decommission or close trails only if necessary based on best available scientific
research.
3
mon, onn-- lion
CITIZENS TASK FORCE
CHINO CANYON OUTLINE
This is an outline for drafting a Chino Canyon Ordinance.
A.. GENERAL CRITERIA
I. Retain nine areas of urgency ordinance with "Broxmeyer" piece moving from 5 to
6 and "Bragg" from 6 to 3.
2. Master Plan required for each area in the form of a Specific Plan.
3. EIR mandatory for each area except for Area 5A(discretionary there).
4. Road alignment/traffic analysis for each area.
5. Recreation/open space plan to show.
(a) Linkages (within Planning Areas and between)
(b) View Analysis
(c) Natural areas/watercourse areas
(d) Recreation areas
(e) Habitat mitigation
(f) Preservation/conservation areas
6. Water conservation provisions.
7. Two large-scale resorts permitted, one each in Planning Areas 2 and 3.
8. Infrastructure Plan with all infrastructure funded by development.
9. Fiscal Impact Analysis necessary to justify project.
10. Open space acquisition program through in lieu fees and dedication.
11. Existing substandard lots (less than permitted lot size) can be developed with one
single family residence.
12. Any permitted golf course must be maintained as open space in perpetuity.
13. Hwy 111 Buffer Standards:
(a) Meandering border.
(b) Setback'75-'125 from Hwy. with average 100'.
(c) Natural vegetation.
(d) Special trail/walking treatment.
(e) Berming to screen development to the toe of the mountain slope.
(f) No visible roofs from Hwy. 111.
14. Tram Road Buffer Standards: 50' desert buffer treatment(See Hwy 111).
B. PLANNING AREAS
PLANNING AREA 1: AERIAL TRAMWAY
I. Data:
(a) Area—570 Acres
(b) Developable Area—454 acres
(c) Computed Max. Units— 11
2. Uses Permitted: O-Zone.
3. Density: 1 unit/40 acres.
01003/0002/39433.05
4. Open Space/Recreation: O-Zone.
5. Acquisition Area: None.
6. Development Standards: O-Zone.
7. Special Infrastructure:
PLANNING AREA 2: SHADOWROCK
1. Data:
(a) Area—360 (originally 1000 acres)
(b) Developable Area—360 acres
(c) Computed Max. Units—415
2. Uses Permitted: Resort hotel, golf, single family residential.
3. Density: Specific Plan.
4. Open Space/Recreation: Same.
5. Acquisition Areas: 500±acres dedicated.
6. Development Standards: Same.
7. Special Infrastructure: Specific Plan.
PLANNING AREA 3: INDL47V
1. Data:
(a) Area—419 acres
(b) Developable Area—346 acres
(c) Computed Max. Density—692 units
2. Uses Permitted: Resort hotel, golf, single family residential.
3. Density: 2 units/acre.
4. Open Space/Recreation: Same.
5. Acquisition Areas: None.
6. Development Standards: (a) Same as PA 4 but permitting golf course
residential per Shadowrock.
(b) want natural buffering on east boundary without
clear tree line to make a soft edge.
7. Special Infrastructure: Specific plan.
PLANNING AREA 4: TRAMWAYSOUTH
1. Data:
(a) Area— 119 acres
(b) Developable Area—98 acres
(c) Computed Max. Units— 197
2. Uses Permitted: Low density estate residential.
3. Density: 2 units/acre with minimum lot size— 10,000 square feet.
4. Open Space/Recreation: Linkages surrounding projects
50% land dedicated open space
5. Acquisition Area: None
2
mnn3mnn 11r
6. Development Standards: (a) Tram Road setback/natural landscape
treatment(50').
�- (b) Buffering with other residential areas.
(c) Blending with natural surrounding criteria
and terrain appropriate architecture per
Mountain Ordinance.
(d) No front fences/walls; rear screened with
nature materials and terrain.
(e) Grading pad areas to meet contours:
(f) Open space areas not screened or enclosed.
(g) No curbs, gutters or sidewalks and all streets
of colored or stamped concrete.
(h) Height: 18' measured from natural grade,
following natural contours, but with
permitted projection per code.
(i) Clustering of residential development and
maximizing extent of undeveloped areas is
encouraged.
0) Sufficient variety of floor plans and desert
sensitive elevations to avoid tract
appearance.
(k) 20% of lots reserved for custom
O development.
(1) If tile roof, natural clay tiles mudded, 2
r piece.
7. Infrastructure: (a) Access: Tram Rd. or Racquet Club.
(b) Specialty park.
(c) Scenic Tramway Corridor Treatment.
PLANNING AREA 5: VISITORS CENTER
1. Data:
(a) Area—36 acres (Commercial Area [5A approximately 12 acres];
Residential [513 approximately 24 acres]).
(b) Developable Area—same.
(c) Computed Max. Units— 144.
2. Uses Permitted: Area 5A: Resort retail, hotel, museum/cultural public uses,
and
Area 513: single and multi-family housing.
3. Density: 4-6 units/acre for residential.
4. Open Space/Recreation:
5. Acquisition Area: Visitor Center environs.
6. Development Standards: Retail/Residential.
(a) Commercial: CSC or HC zoning standards but must harmonize with and
not overshadow Visitor Center—50% open space.
(b) Residential: 50% open space; no fencing or walls.
(c) Buffer treatment similar to PA3 on property line adjacent to PA6.
3
01003/0002/39433.05
7. Infrastructure: (a) Enhance visitor center.
(b) Provision of entrance City Monument location.
(b) National Park Visitor Center.
(c) Tram parking improvements.
8. Scenic entry Tramway corridor treatment.
PLANNING AREA 6: CHINO CANYON GATEWAY
1. Data:
(a) Area—94 acres.
(b) Developable Area—same.
(c) Computed Max. Units— 141 (@ 1.5/acre average)
2. Uses Permitted: Golf and low density estate residential.
3. Density: 1.5 units/acre with minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet
with density transfer to PA 8 of 1.5 units/acre if dedication
of property to City. 20% Density bonus for transfer.
4. Open Space/Recreation:
5. Acquisition Area: Parcels adjacent to Hwy. 111.
6. Development Standards: Same as PA#4.
7. Infrastructure:
8. Scenic entry Tramway corridor treatment:
PLANNING AREA 7: CHINO CREEK
1. Data:
(a) Area— 176 acres
(b) Developable Area— 174 acres
(c) Computed Max. Units—0
2. Uses Permitted: Water course and public recreation; golf, equestrian, trails.
3. Density: 0.
4. Open Space/Recreation:
5. Acquisition Area: Entire area encouraged.
6. Development Standards: (a) Retain natural/open character.
(b) If golf. target golf with no trees and no
greens visible from Hwy. 111.
7. Infrastructure.
8. Scenic entry corridor treatment: Same as PA 46.
PLANNINGAREA 8: HIGHWAYlll CORRIDOR
1. Data:
(a) Area—203 acres
(b) Developable Area— 123 acres (Additional county area can be added)
(c) Computed Max. Units—246* (Subject to PA# 6 density transfer)
2. Uses Permitted: Low density residential.
•
4
01003/0002/39433.05
3. Density: 2 units/acre with minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet
provided that density of transfer from PA #6 permitted to a
�_. maximum density of 3.5 units per acre. Encourage addition
of property to north with same standards.
4. Open Space/Recreation:
5. Acquisition Area: None
6. Development Standards:
(a) Height: 15' restriction measured from natural grade.
7. Infrastructure.
8. Scenic entry corridor treatment: Same as PA#6.
PI ANNINGAREA 9: SNOW CREEK
1. Data:
(a) Area- 1195 acres
(b) Developable Area-244 acres
(c) Computed Max. Units-6-300.
2. Uses Permitted: Conservation in Floodplain; very low density residential.
3. Density: 1 unit/40 acres.
4. Open Space/Recreation:
5. Acquisition Area:
6. Development Standards: O zone (consistent with PA#1).
7. Scenic entry corridor treatment: See PA# 6.
C. POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
[REVIEW MOUNTAIN ORDINANCE OUTLINE]
1. Mapping. 10. Landscaping.
2. Uses. 11. Lighting.
3. Density (clustering) 12. Grading.
4. Design goals. 13, Streets.
5. Open space treatment. 14. Fire.
6. Acquisition priorities. 15. Sewers.
7. Height. 16. Water.
8. Lot size. 17. Utilities.
9. Yards. 18. Trails.
19. Process.
5
0100:1/0 0 02/3 943 3.05
11
TAP (16
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
PROVISION SUMMARY
A. MEANING OF MOUNTAINS
1. I-16 Land Uses must respect "scenic values" of "desert and mountain terrain" (shows 81%
currently vacant/ open space 71% at build-out)
2. II-1 Mountains are a part of resort attraction of Palm Springs; structures on hillsides damages
natural environment; assume environmental quality; special treatment for preservation
3. 11-29 Mountains are a part of city heritage
4. II-35 Urban design must preserve and enhance natural features such as hillsides; quality of built
environment enhances economic base
5. I1-50 Poor hillside development results in visual scars
B. ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSIDERATIONS
1. II-4 Groundwater replenishment comes from percolation of water from mountains
2. 11-9,10 Identifies habitat types and plant communities including those found in the mountains
3. 11-24 Mining discouraged
4. 111-36 Increased fire risks from steeply sloped areas
5. III-16 Valley soil conditions affected by mountain erosion
6. 111-17 Risk of landslides
C. DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
1. 1-26, 27 Designates General Plan categories and ecological communities
2. 1-32,33 Conditions for hillside lots R, L, CDL land uses: R-2 (I du/ 5 acres); R-4 (I du / 2.5 acres);
Ll (ldu/acre); L-2 slope 10%: lit 30; protect view, fit terrain, 65-75% open space
3. 1-78 Mountains in Conservation areas: Open Space; Conservation, Desert, Watercourse, Public
Recreation
4. I-79 Policy 3.32.1 Conservation: ldu / 20 acres; no development of slopes 30% or greater; 30' lit; density
transfer; 90% open space
5. 1-79 3.32.2 Desert: 5 acre minimum parcel; 3.5 du / acre; 24' lit; 90% open space / recreation. Cluster:
18' lit; 70% open space/recreation
6. I1-3 5.1 Maintenance of appropriate natural areas in undeveloped state
7. II-3 5.1.2 Through acquisition and regulation preserve desired natural desert and mountain areas.
01 003/0 0 02/3 8 95 0.01
TA*P
DESCRIPTION OF GENERAL PLAN PROVISIONS
,J,yu.
S �,�AP Y PROVISION PROVISION
8. II-3 5.2.2 Acquire open space as opportunities arise
6. II-3 5.1.3 City shall protect views through acquisition and regulation
7. II-6 5.4.1 Frontal slopes and landmark peaks preserved as open space
8. II-7 5.4.4(b) Concentrate development where slope less 10%; 30% slopes undisturbed; 10-30%
geotechnical and visual simulation
5.4.4(c) Development must be compatible with open space, not break ridgeline
5.4.4(e) Low lighting
5.4.4(h) Streets minimize scaring
9. II-8 5.4.5 Wind-farm where slopes over 15%must demonstrate no adverse aesthetic impacts
10. 11-23 5.5.31 Restricts development overlooking Bighorn Sheep Habitat, support species, minimize
5.5.9 fragmentation, provide corridors,biological surveys
11. II-37 5.11.3 Grading permits required: inter-dependence land values and aesthetics (5.1 ld)
12. II-37 5.11.4 Utility corridors shall not interfere with scenic vistas
13. 11-43 5.19.4 Landscape design to enhance "defensible space"for fire safety
14. 1I-53 5.24.3 Areas to be preserved through acquisition or regulation with exceptional scenic value
15. III-18 6.6.3 Slopes shall be evaluated for stability in site-specific manner
16. IV-56 10.9.7 Mountains are recreational asset; encourage equestrian, hiking trails but avoid sensitive
habitat
17. I11-29,30 Building code procedures for grading must ensure structural stability
18. IV-5,6 Right of way standards for hillside streets
D. SPECIFIC AREAS
1. I-21 Chino Cone is an area of special importance: development conform to special characteristics
of site; specific plan or planned development district
2. 1-22,23 Palm Hills: compatible with ecological systems; limited high quality resort, residential;
specific plan
NOTE: The General Plan contains a number of other provisions not cited here concerning flat land development and requiring that
development protect the views of the mountains. (I-31; 3.3.3: encourage preservation of scenic view sheds from adjoining property)
01003l000268950.01
T.44Z
DESCRIPTION OF ZONING REGULATIONS
PALM SPRINGS ZONING ORDINANCE
CODE SECTION SUMMARY QUOTE
91.00.10 Definitions 1. Generally: Vertical distance+ 18"from average grade `Building height" means the vertical distance plus
"Building Height" at curb or from top of crown of roadway eighteen (18) inches measured from the average grade at
the curb adjacent to the property or from the top of the
2. Hillside Lots: If lot greater 20,000 sq. ft. or if pad crown of the roadway if there is no curb, exclusive of
height more or less 18" abovefbelow curb, Director or PC exceptions permitted in Section 93.03.00. In the event of
may establish different point of measure. If lot greater hillside lots, lots in excess of twenty thousand (20,000)
30,000 sq. ft. measured from adjacent natural grade square feet or lots where the approved pad height is
greater than eighteen(18) inches above or below the curb
level, the planning director or planning commission may
establish the point of measurement at a level higher or
lower than the curb or crown of street. The building
height for parcels in excess of thirty thousand (30,000)
square feet shall be measured from adjacent natural grade
unless otherwise established by the planning commission.
93.13.00 1. Defmition: Applies to Hillside Areas which is any See Attachment
"Hillside Development" parcel where a portion has a grade of 10%or more
2. Process Generally:
a) Must go through architect review
b) PC hold public meeting with notice to adjacent
property owners
c) PC may hold public hearing
d) Appeals to City Council
3. Process for Remodels and Minor Changes:
a) Addition less than 400 sq. ft., no increase building
height, no substantial grading, no substantial change
appearance
b) Director decision but subject appeal PC
c) PC decision appealable to CC
01003/0002/38940.01
Tr Z
DESCRIPTION OF ZONING REGULA'
PALM SPRINGS ZONING ORDINAP
I '
CODE SECTION SUMMARY QUOTI
4. Plans:
a) May deviate no more 1 ft. from final grade
b)Must show rock, soil, building pads, color,
screening, landscaping
c) "Continuity surrounding development"
d) "Sensitivity to existing views"
5. Density:
a) Density of underlying zone
b) 30% slope preserved as open space by CC&Rs
c) Streets, open space not count in density calculation
6. Streets:
a) Collector streets (4 lots)
• Grade 20%or 15%short distances
• R of W 40' with 36' width double loaded, 32'
single loaded
• Cul-de-sac no more 500' length
b) Minor streets: same except
• 32' width double loaded, 28' single loaded
7. Drainage: To natural drainage course or street
8. Sewage: Sewered unless exempted by CC
9. Excavations:
a) Grading plan required
b) Excess dirt and rock must be removed to approved
site
c) Blasting requires approval of Director
10. Fire:
a) Access easements required
01003/0002/39940.01
T' 4Z
DESCRIPTION OF ZONING REGULATIONS
PALM SPRINGS ZONING ORDINANCE
CODE SECTION SUMMARY QUOTE
b) Fire-resistant building and landscape material
c) Adequate water system required
11. Exceptions: Alternate street designs approved PC or
CC may reduce to 24' if safe, provide drainage, parking,
emergency equipment
94.04.00 1. Required for all structures on Hillside Area 94.04.00 Architectural review.
"Architectural Review" 2. Staff approval not permitted for single family hillside E. Procedures.
homes 1. Architectural review shall be required for the
following:
a. All industrial, commercial, professional and residential
structures and related landscape areas, except for single-
family residences not located on major thoroughfares;
b. Hillside developments, including all structures,
grading, landscaping, and exterior lighting, in accordance
with Section 93.13.00 (Hillside developments), which
may require public hearings before the planning
commission;
94.06.01 Director or PC may approve minor modification in 94.06.01 Minor Modifications.
"Minor Modifications" building height and front yard without notice or hearings A. When in the public interest, the planning
if no detrimental effect adjacent property: commission or the director of planning and building,
Building height to 30' without publishing, posting or mailing of notice and
Front yard to 10' without public hearing, may consider and render
decisions on slight modifications in the provisions of this
Zoning Code, limited to the following:...
8. Slope and Hillside Areas.
For areas with a grade of ten (10) percent or more,
modification of building height to a maximum of thirty
(30) feet and modification of front yard to a minimum of
ten (10) feet, upon approval of a site plan, elevations and
a grading map showing existing and finished contours.
0100310002/38940.01 -
Ti Z
DESCRIPTION OF ZONING REGULATIONS
PALM SPRINGS ZONING ORDINANCE
CODE SECTION SUMMARY QUOTE
Approval shall be based on the finding that such minor
modification will not have detrimental effect upon
adjacent properties;
9.60.050/9.60.030 Offsite improvements such as streets shall be as required 9.60.050 Off-site improvements. For hillside areas, off-
"Offsite Improvements" by specific plans and may be modified for topography site improvements such as street design, width, radii,
curbs, gutters, sidewalks, etc., shall be as required in the
specific plans for each area and the general standards may
be modified to adjust to specific topographic conditions.
93.09.000 Generally developer must dedicate and improve a half 93.09.00 Building permits--Dedication and
"Dedication and street but PC can modify requirement for hillside streets improvement of streets.
Improvements of Streets" D.Dedication of Streets.
1. The applicant for a building permit in any zone district
shall dedicate street right-of-way as follows:
a. To provide for a half-street in accordance with the
ultimate right-of-way shown by the city's general plan
street plan;
b. To provide for a minimum half-street of twenty-five
(25) feet for any street not shown on the city's general
plan street plan. This requirement may be modified by the
planning commission for hillside streets or for streets
within developed neighborhoods;
93.21.00 Ambient lighting should be as low as possible to enhance 93.21.00 Outdoor lighting standards.
"Outdoor Lighting" community character. Limitation on lighting in single A. Intent and Purpose.
family residential areas. Direct lighting of sky or hillside These regulations are intended to maintain ambient
prohibited. lighting levels as low as possible in order to enhance the
city's community character and charm and maintain dark
skies. Area lighting should provide good visibility,
minimum glare and minimum spillage onto other
properties or into the sky...
C. Lighting Standards.
01003/0002/38940.01
® Tl, 4Z �®
DESCRIPTION OF ZONING REGULATIONS
PALM SPRINGS ZONING ORDINANCE
CODE SECTION SUMMARY QUOTE
3. Spillover Lighting.
With the exception of light sources that do not exceed a
height of three feet above finished grade, light sources
must be a full cutoff so as to not direct light skyward, and
shall be so arranged by means of filters or shields to
avoid reflecting lighting onto adjoining properties or
streets. Lighting fixtures that do not exceed a height of
three (3) feet above finished grade shall be properly
focused to minimize glare and spill light into the night
sky and onto adjacent properties.
Direct lighting of the sky or of the hillside is prohibited
except as provided pursuant to Chapter 5.64 of the Palm
Springs Municipal Code (Searchlight Operations).
93.01.01 Tennis courts on hillsides subject to PC review 93.01.01 Tennis courts.
"Tennis Courts" A. Tennis courts may be allowed, subject to the following
conditions:
1. Single-family Zones.
e. Plans and minor architectural approval application,
including plot plan, grading plan, landscape plan, shall be
submitted to the planning division for approval pursuant
to Section 94.04.00. Tennis courts located in hillside
areas, as defined in Section 93.13.00, shall be reviewed
by the planning commission. For all other locations, the
planning director may approve proposed tennis courts.
92.01.03 1. Building Height: Generally 1 story, 12' except from 92.01.03 Property development standards.
"R-1 Zone" setback a line with slope 1:3 until max 18'. Gables, The following property development standards shall
dormers may encroach. PC may modify for hillside lots apply to all land and buildings in the R-1 zones, except
2. Garages may be detached that any lot created in compliance with applicable laws
3. Front yard may be modified by Director and ordinances in effect at the time of is creation may be
used as a building site.
All lots hereafter created shall comply with the following
01003/0002138940.01
TI�I41Z
DESCRIPTION OF ZONING REGULATIONS
PALM SPRINGS ZONING ORDINANCE
i
CODE SECTION SUMMARY QUOTE
minimum standards and lots now held under separate
ownerships or of record shall not be reduced below these
standards.
6. Building Envelope. Buildings shall not exceed one (1)
story and twelve (12) feet in height at the minimum
setback. From the minimum setback, the height may be
allowed to increase along a plane which has a slope of
4:12, until a building height of eighteen (18) feet is
attained. Gable ends, dormers and front entrance
treatments, not exceeding fifteen (15) feet in height, may
encroach past the building envelope limits. These
regulations may be modified by the planning commission
for hillside lots pursuant to Section 94.06.01(A)(8).
7. Garages/Carports. Garages shall be located not less
than twenty-five (25) feet from the property line abutting
the street from which such garage has vehicular access
and twenty-five (25) feet from the opposite side of the
alley from which such garage has vehicular access.
Garages may be detached from the main building in the
R-1-A, R-1-AH and hillside areas only.
92.04.03 R3 Also permit modification of building height and front Similar to above R-1
92.05.03 R4 yards in hillside areas by Director and PC
92.00.03 GR5
92.22.02 May use for urban use through Planned Development
Urban Reserve District.
a) FIR required
b) Minimum area 40 acres
c) Minimum lot 10,000 sq. ft.
d) Lot width at least 100'
e) Height subject PC/CC
f) 75% open space
01003/0002/38940.01
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: AUGUST 4,2005 MEETING
- -DATE: - -Thursday August 4,2005 — -- — -- --
START TIME: 5:00 p.m.
END TIME: 9:00 P.M.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Caliente Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire, V. Gainer, S. Hamlin, C. Mills, S. Pougnet, E.
Torres, S. Nichols, and S. Saunders present. A. Hildner and C.
Sukman not present.
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A.. July 21,2005 Minutes. Minutes of July 21st were reviewed and approved without
corrections.
13. Status of Ordinances. Work on the ordinances has been stopped due to concerns
by the Councilmembers at exceeding the budget approved
by the Council. Facilitator gave a report on legal
expense. Original expectation was 8-10 meetings with 40
hours of meetings and 40 hours of preparation. Minutes,
meetings with Tribe, meetings with developers (Century,
Palm Hills), meetings with conservation agencies,
ordinance preparation, media program, and similar
matters were not included in the estimate: just
developing development/conservation concepts and
mediating debate. Just meeting time for above is now at
60 hours. Although we are close to budget for original
tasks, total cost is now approximately $35,000.
Councilmembers don't want further work on the
ordinances but will approach Council for more funding
after program is presented. Facilitator will keep doing
work even if no assurance for payment and will bill for
work in original scope (no bills sent to City thus far).
C. Media Program. Clarification that material will not be available on
September 1 but just before Coimcil Study Session,
Editorial Board meeting tentatively scheduled on
September 13, 2005. Material will be put on General
Plan website — Hamlin to prepare and Mills to arrange
with City Manager.
Legal issues were discussed concerning the Chino Cone
moratorium. The environmental analysis can be included
in the General Plan budget. On an interim basis the
Chino Cone standards can be in the extension of the
01003/0002/40965.02
August4, 2005
Page 2 of 3
- AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
urgency ordinance and the Mountain Standards could be
in a new urgency ordinance.
PRESENTATION PREPARE PRESENT
1. Power Point Hamlin All
2. Fact Gathering Mills All
3. Study Session All
Presentation
4. General Meeting All
Presentation
5. Individual Group All
Meetings
6. Presentation Materials Mills All
7. Maps&Boards Mills All
D. Review of PowerPoint A thorough review of the PowerPoint presentation (8/4
Presentation. version)was undertaken with the following changes:
o S5 - 11 meetings and 50 revised to 20 meetings and 70
hours
S7- Reorganize list of topics covered
• S8- Approve a set of recommended policies for the
General Plan
S9- Entry preserved "to the extent possible;" outline
goal to preserve PA6 & 7 undeveloped through density
transfer to PA8 "or other property in the City"
• S12-13- General development and trail standard slides
• S 14-Add opens space conservation slide
• .S20-Hwy 111 buffer slide needs work
• S23- Show hotel/SFR units separately; specify
infrastructure improvement
S25- PA4: development standards moved to general
discussion
• S27- PA5: delete open space in commercial area and
enhance parking treatment; residential open space goes
from 70%to 60%, delete "no fencing or walls"
• S31- PA8: encourage presentation of area around
Shiprock with developer able to capture the density
(no capture on HWY 111 buffer)
• S33-Delete 3 slide chart of changes and simplify
• S34- Factual summary of Palm Hills
• S35- 91 lots: need slide showing lot configuration.
Contact developer
• S36- Create an acquisition slide explaining the facts
• S37- Outline options: (a) 91 lots developed with
01003/0002/40965 02
August 4, 2005
Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
remainder developed to the mountain standards or
acquired; (b) replace 91 lot project with a new specific
plan complying with the General Plan, or (c) City
acquiring entire 1,200 acres
• S38-Outline Action Plan
K Meetings for August
1. Report on Tribe 1. Tribe generally had no issues with our
Meeting recommendations. They have good data for doing
slope/development analysis and determining density
yield from various slopes. We may be farther along
than they on development standards. Indian
ownership of particular parcels may be important.
2. Report on Planning 2. Meeting is being scheduled.
^_ Center
3. Other Meetings 3. None.
• E. Review Acreage Tables None.
F. Good of the Order None.
G. Calendar Review August 18, 2005
September 1, 2005 —revised to be Sept. 8, 2005
ninmmnm r -ni
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: JULY 21, 2005 MEETING
DATE: Thursday July 21, 2005
START TIME: 5:00 p.m.
END TIME: 10:30 p.m.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Caliente Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire, V. Gainer, S., Hamlin, C. Mills, S. Pougnet, E.
Torres, S. Nichols, S. Saunders, and A. Hildner present. C.
Sukman not present.
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. July 7,2005 Minutes. Minutes of July 7rd were reviewed. There was discussion
as to Area 5 in the Chino Cone. It should be added to the
Minutes that beside the issue of uses, there was also some
disagreement on the height and visibility. Also, A.
Hildner was in attendance, minutes approved as
corrected.
B. Status of Ordinances. A rough draft of the Mountain Ordinance has been
prepared and distributed and work has begun on the
Chino Cone Ordinance. [Councilmembers later
instructed to stop work on ordinances due to funding
issues.]
C. Media Program.
PRESENTATION PREPARE PRESENT
1. Power Point Hamlin All
2. Fact Gathering Mills All
3. Study Session All
Presentation .
4. General Meeting All
Presentation
5. Individual Group All
Meetings
6. Presentation Materials Mills All
7. Maps&Boards Mills All
01003/0002/40741.01
Page2 of4
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
D. Meetings for August.
1. City Staff 1. Ready and Holland should be in the loop, could be
included in T. Davis meeting.
2. Barakian— 2. Aleshire will send him information. Meeting not
Engineering necessary
3. Tribe 3. Mills and Aleshire to meet with T. Davis.
4. Century 4. Not necessary—if they have something to report
they will get back to us but we are proceeding.
5. Shadowrock 5. Not necessary.
6. Palm Hills 6. Not necessary.
7. Trails Groups 7. Not necessary.
8. Sun Editorial Board 8. September 13 meeting set.
01003i0002i40741.01
Page 3 of 4
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
E. Review Hamlin Power Group complimented S. Hamlin on initial effort to
Point Presentation prepare PowerPoint presentation for Community
Information Foram. Hamlin has already revised
consistent with email comments to 1st draft
Further comments:
• Modify middle picture;
• S2: 1 house/40 acres, mountain and alluvial fan, resort hotel, modify interpretative
language;
• S3: Delete retirement;
• S5: Nichols landowner/preservationist; grant to support and refer to Hilton/11
meetings to 15 meetings, site visits and over 60 hours;
• S8 and SIO: Move to S6 and combine as organizational slide explaining mission
and organization looking at Mountains, Chino Cone and Palm Hills;
• S6: Become S7 and modified to subjects investigated;
• S9: Language changes to recommend policies;
• SIO: Summary of major findings;
• S 12: Language corrections; add bonding; add trail and conservation issues (separate
y page);
S 13: Chino Cone overview add urgency ordinance comments;
• S 14 and S 15: Consolidate and add slide with overview;
• 516: Make Hwy Ill buffer a separate slide and make residential standards a
separate slide;
• S 17— S 36: Reverse order of presentation—Areas 1 to 9; try and get each area onto
1 slide if possible;
• 524: 1.5 units/acre; very low density;
• S38 & 530: Reorganize as factual statement, take out references owner does not
want to sell and specific investment and reference to 91 homes being back up plan;
• 540: Change from could not reach consensus to supports continued research.
Following specific review there was further discussion about whether more specific
recommendations could be made in Palm Hills and how significant of a change would
be caused by the Task Force's recommendations in the Mountains, what has really
been accomplished. In Palm Hills the discussion went back to the options 1) applying
the 1 unit per 40 acre standard and prohibiting hotel/golf, 2) recommending
development standards which would permit a scaled back resort hotel/golf project not
visible from the valley floor, or 3) acquisition of the whole 1,200 acres or the portion
excluding the vested _ acres. The consensus was to recommend that all 3 options
needed further study.
Some members expressed frustration with the recommendations concerning Area 5 in
the Chino Cone. S. Nichols left the room. Some members expressed their feelings that
their concerns with Area 5 had not been addressed. Some of the concern was over the
commercial area, the nature of the uses and whether the commercial would overshadow
01001mnrl'-0741 01
Icily 21, 2005
® Page 4 of 4
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
the Frey building. Language will emphasize that this would be a design requirement,
but we will have to trust that those involved in the design process will address our
concerns. The 50% open space standard was further discussed and found too
restrictive. In lieu, it was suggested heightened decorative treatment of the parking
areas would be required. The residential area had even greater sensitivity due to
encroaching onto the upslope of the Cone. There was further discussion of height,
open space and buffering. It was pointed out that the commercial would screen much
of the residential. The soft boundary was discussed and it was suggested for each
additional acre of commercial above 12 acres, there could be a requirement to dedicate
equivalent open space. It was suggested that the open space requirement could be
increased to 70%. Finally, the buffer was reexamined and it was reemphasized to
establish a northern buffer to coordinate with Hwy 111, Area 3/6 buffers.
E. Review Acreage Tables None
F. Good of the Order None
G. Calendar Review August 18, 2005
September 1, 2005
01 nml'OOn7( 01^1.n1
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: JULY 7,2005 MEETING
DATE: Thursday July 7, 2005
START TIME: 5:00 p.m.
END TIME: 8:40 p.m.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Caliente Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire, V. Gainer, S. Hamlin, A. Hildner, C. Mills, S.
Pougnet, C. Sukman and E. Torres present. S. Nichols and S.
Saunders not present.
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. June 23,d Minutes V. Gainer raised questions as to whether the group had
AD D supported a bond measure for $20M for Palm Hills. He
supported a smaller amount. After discussion, minutes of
y June 23`d were reviewed and approved without correction.
B. Chino Cone Status Councilmembers Mills and Pougnet reported on the meeting
with Century. Century is processing its community outreach
1. Century Homes program through the City. Century understands the concepts
2. Agua Caliente being discussed by the Task Force. They will study it.
Facilitator reported on conversation with Tribal planners. In
Area 3 density and resort hotel are ok. They have some
questions which we have responded to.
S. Hamlin raised issues with working of Chino Outline. Her
suggestions will be incorporated except there was some
disagreement over limiting uses in Area 5 to hotel, museum
and accompanying retail and also over height and visibility..
C. Palm Hills Recom- The discussion began with a statement by each person of
mendation and pursue both their views on Palm Hills. There was a discussion of the site
options concurrently. tour. The view was expressed that it was a wild area,
unsuitable for golf. It was stated that any development would
® 1. Option A: Acquisition be visible to the valley floor. This was debated. It was stated
a) Bond Financing that the potential for development of the 91 lots was stated
Analysis. almost as a threat.
b) Other Funding
01003/0002/40493.02
July 7, 2005
Page 2 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
2. Option B: Reduced
Project.
a) Status of One view was that the 91 lots could proceed and a bond issue
Discussion with of$34M could be recommended as %z the cost of acquiring
Developer the remainder of the site. Discussion ensued on the
desirability of the 91 unit project, without resolution. There
b) Key Standards. was then discussion that even if this course was chosen, there
still needed to be development standards for Palm Hills. It
was argued to make it subject to the other mountain
standards: 1 unit per 40 acres and no hotel. Some members
strongly objected in view of the money and time spent by the
developer. The area requires high infrastructure costs and the
developer should be able to recover its investment. It was
asked what happened to the 2-part strategy we were pursuing
(bond measure and reduced project)? Concern was that a
$10M bond issue would not be supported by the voters.
Facilitator shared a meeting with the developer's attorney,
Jim Schlecht. Developer is willing to meet the group and
discuss a reduced project. Over a year ago they discussed
acquisition with Wildlife Agencies but the buyer Palm Hills
has contracted with wanted more than $20M. City could only
force acquisition through condemnation.
Facilitator suggested that group was re-debating the same
issues and maybe the so-called "blackhole" option should be
reconsidered. With further discussion a consensus was
reached on this. Discussion of whether some standards
should be specified. The conclusion was Palm Hills will
have to go through specific plan process and we will leave it
to the developer and Council as to whether to make the area
subject to the Task Force's "mountain" criteria. We will also
give the Council information we have gathered on acquisition
and let the Council decide whether to take the issue to the
voters.
0 1 0 03/0 0 02/4 049"1 02
July 7, 2005
I � Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
D. Discussion of Schedule, Concerns were raised as to whether four more meetings were
Preliminary Report and necessary. People are going out of town in August. August
Media Campaign meeting dates are on an as-needed basis. All concepts should
be agreed to in July with August meetings focused on media
1. Public Involvement material and manner of presentation.
Program
Review outline of public involvement program and general
2. Summary of Chino consensus on dates and goals. Initial meeting with Council
Recommendations and then general public meeting. Disagreement about
location of public meeting (Convention Center, Mizell) was
3. Summary of Mountain unresolved.
Recommendations
Assign duties. S. Hamlin to do a draft of a Power Point
presentation. Facilitator presented a general summary of
program components on Mountains and Chino Cone.
E. Review Acreage Tables None
F. Good of the Order None
D
G. Calendar Review July 21, 2005
August 4, 2005
August 18,2005
01003/0002/40493.02
FINAL
S CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: NNE 23,2005 MEETING
DATE: Thursday June 23, 2005
START TIME: 5:00 p.m.
END TIME: 7:45 p.m.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Caliente Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire, V. Gainer, S. Nichols, S. Hamlin, C. Mills and S.
Saunders - present. S. Pougnet; C. Sukman; A. Hildner; E.
Torres—not present.
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. June 16tn Minutes Minutes of June 16U' were reviewed and approved without
• correction.
B. Review of Revised The outline will be reviewed by the members. Facilitator
Outline for Chino Canyon gave a report on latest conversation with Century. The
and Entry on Century separate meeting with Councilmembers which was scheduled
and Update. for June 20 was cancelled as they wanted a meeting solely
with the Councilmembers. Meeting has been rescheduled for
June 27. Councilmembers will convey the importance of the
density transfer concept and encourage Century to see if it
can work.
C. Review of Options for Facilitator presented a calculation of the expense of a bond
Palm Hills. issue for acquisition of Palm Hills for conservation. Bond
issue costs were estimated for bonds costing from $3M to
$20M. The $20M issue would include the property with the
91 lots, while the smaller amounts would be focused on
Section 31 acquisition. Annual costs were determined for
differing housing values — thus a $500,000 house would
entail an annual expense of $118 for a $20M bond issue
($23 63 per $100,000 of AV). Group felt the information
was good and endorsed the full acquisition rather than a
partial. Facilitator summarized a discussion with Bill Havert
concerning matching funding for acquisition from the
Mountains Conservancy. They currently have no funding but
hope to have more money by 2007. Although they have
acquired parcels in Patin Hills and would look favorably on
leveraging other funds, they could not make any
oiooi/oongw, ?nj
June 23, 2005
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
commitments until money was available and they could
evaluate other acquisition options. Meeting is also being
scheduled with Gene House of Friends of Mountains.
Facilitator reviewed email from A. Hildner concerning Palm
Hills stating that while she favored acquisition, she could not
support scaled back project and suggested that the standard
be 1 house per 20 acres and leaving the vested 91 lot
subdivision to be developed. Re-discuss for members not
present at the last meeting ownership patterns. Group does
not like 91 lot project. Will be a part of eastern entry to City.
Group likes strategy of having acquisition plan coupled with
scaled back project. Hotel must not be visible, 91 lots
eliminated, and acquisition of Hwy 111 entry cone area as a
part of the project. If appropriate conditions met, ok with
resort hotel and golf but only in Palm Hills.
D. Discussion of Schedule, Facilitator presented revised Public Involvement Plans from
Preliminary Report and Hildner/Gainer, and alternative. Discussion of number of
Media Campaign public meetings needed and over-all schedule. During
August, media materials must be prepared. C. Mills felt that
the City could provide technical support. Tentative schedule
was as follows:
Sept. 1 Distribution of Public Materials
Sept. 14 Presentation at Council Study Session
Sept. 17 Convention Center Public Meeting
Sept. 17-Oct. 15 Individual Group Meetings
Sept. 22 Task Force Meeting for Evaluation
Oct. 20 Task Force Meeting to Review Results of
Meetings
Nov. 9 Final Presentation to Council
E. Review Acreage Tables None
F. Good of the Order None
G. Calendar Review Group agreed to keep proposed schedule although some
members will be missing future meetings due to vacations.
Future meetings will be July 7 and 21 and August 4 and 18,
as needed. Next meeting will include update on Century and
Palm Hills,preliminary ordinances and media materials.
01003/0002/40292.01
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: JUNE 16,2005 MEETING
DATE: Thursday June 16, 2005
START TIME: 5:00 P.M.
END TIME: 9:30 p.m.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Caliente Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire; V. Gainer; S. Nichols; S. Pougnet; C. Sukman; A.
Hildner; E. Torres, S. Hamlin. C. Mills and S. Saunders were not
present.
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. May 26th Minutes Minutes of May 26`h were reviewed and approved with minor
corrections.
B. Review of Revised Revised outline to be presented at the next meeting.
Outline for Chino Canyon Facilitator gave a report on latest conversations with Century.
and Entry on Century They won't meet until July 18 and President J. Pavelcek won't
and Update. be there. However, a separate meeting with councihnembers
has been scheduled for June 20. Group would like Facilitator
and City Manager (if available) at the meeting on June 20 so
that there is coordination of the message. Century needs to
know the importance of the density transfer concept and see
if it can work.
C. Review of Options for Extensive discussion of Palm Hills. Facilitator reviewed
Palm Hills. existing General Plan Provisions which provide that Palm
Hills is subject to a specific plan process permitting
environmentally sensitive development precluding
development on 30% slopes and densities of %2-2 units per
acre with Resort Hotel and Residential uses. "Blackhole"
option involves Task Force "Mountain" Ordinance simply
allowing future development to comply with existing General
Plan and not specifying additional standards - let project go
through the process. Three perspectives developed: 1)
Blackhole is fine — we don't need to get involved in this
politically sensitive issue; 2) We need to comprehensively
deal with all issues including Palm Hills and should specify
standards we can live with, which standards should not
preclude development, and 3) We need to specify standards
01003/0002/40147.01
June 16, 2005
Page 2 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
and these should be the same as the rest of the mountain areas
and if this precludes development that is ok because we'd
rather there was no development in Palm Hills anyway.
There was discussion of the 91 lot vested subdivision and its
undesirability, but some said "so what, there's nothing we can
do about it." Some argued that Palm Hills was the key issue
in the campaign and they had compromised on other issues
but could not live with any Palm Hills project. Others said
that it was unfair to the developer who had worked so long on
this project and that he be told no development would be
permitted—it violated the principals on which the Task Force
was proceeding. Some said down-zoning was ok and we had
said Santa Rosa's and San Jacinto's should be treated the
same. It was pointed out that in an earlier "Mountain"
discussion we had agreed to comeback to Palm Hills. Further
discussion of when down-zoning was legally permitted and
issues which arise from the fact that Section 31 was under
contract and not owned by the same entity which owned the
91 lot subdivision. Those advocating "no project" were asked
what they would do and they said buy it. Discussion
followed about available revenue sources. Facilitator
suggested a compromise consisting of 2 parts: Plan A would
be for acquisition involving primarily Section 31 with money
coming %2 from citizens through a bond measure and %2 from
other sources, and, in the event the acquisition program is not
supported by the voters; Plan B being a reduced, more
sensitive project with no ridgeline development,no steep lots
etc. Further discussion of proposal. Discussion of
development standards including 1 unit per 40 acres overall
density with clustering & no ridgeline development.
Facilitator said issue of hotel/golf course is critical.
Discussion of golf course feasibility/desirability. Hotel
should be low rise. Group generally supported compromise
proposal and directed Facilitator to contact developer and get
more information, and also get analysis of bond issue cost at
different funding levels. Subcommittee should also follow up
on other funding options.
01003/0002/40147 01
June 16, 2005
Page 3 of 3
—' AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
D. Discussion of Schedule, V. Gainer and A. Hildner presented proposals. Gainer
Preliminary Report and generally proposed completing our plan in June — July,
Media Campaign developing public materials in August, scheduling a public
meeting at Desert Museum / Convention Center in
September, meeting with groups who request, meetings,
consideration of input by Task Force and adoption of plan by
Council thereafter. Hildner suggested putting out material 30
days in advance and 1 public meeting for presentation and a
second for testimony. S. Pougnet suggested that the first
presentation needs to be to the Council so that the Council
who is providing funding to support the Task Force will not
feel preempted. Facilitator instructed to merge these
concepts into a single plan.
1. Review Outline for Chino Not Discussed.
. Recommendations
2. Review Outline of Not Discussed.
Mountain
Recommendations
(Dawn)
E. Review Acreage Tables None
F. Good of the Order None
G. Calendar Review Group agreed to keep proposed schedule although some
members will be missing future meetings due to vacations.
01003/0002/40147.01
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: MAY 26, 2005 MEETING
DATE: Thursday May 26, 2005
START TIME: 3:00 p.m.
END TIME: 9:30 p.m.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Caliente Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire; V. Gainer; C. Mills; S. Nichols; S. Pougnet; C.
Sukman; A. Hildner; E. Torres, S. Hamlin, S. Saunders, Dawn
Honeywell.
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. Minutes May 19`h Minutes of May 19i1' were reviewed and approved with a
change relating to adding more information concerning the
discussion of making an ordinance subject to initiative. S.
Saunders also gave a report on the General Plan review
process.
B. Review of Revised Facilitator gave a report on meeting with Tom Davis and
Outline for Chino Canyon Staff Re Area 3. They had not carefully reviewed Urgency
and Entry. Ordinance. They wanted to retain resort golf course and
residential uses. Did not necessarily object to two units/acre
but 20,000 min. lot size may be an issue. They will review.
Facilitator will send them preliminary standards for Areas 2,
3, and 4. Facilitator reviewed conference call with Century
representatives. They are suggesting that no development in
Area 6 is an issue. Facilitator suggested that Century will be
a challenge as they will want as many units as possible but
ultimately they will prefer 500 in Area 8 rather than 350 in 8
and 150 in Area 6. Hildner expressed disappointment with
500 in Area 8. She asked about other ways to raise money.
Discussed conservation funds and bond measure. Hildner
joined with others in supporting density transfer concept.
C. Review of Options for Facilitator introduced Palm Hills topic stating that Jim
Palm Hills. Schlecht was investigating acquisition of Cove area to the
north of Area 8. Some parcels Federally owned or owned by
the City but the key parcel was private. Various viewpoints
expressed on Palm Hills ranging from that it would never be
politically acceptable and would drag all the Task Force's
m oo3ionmis4784 M
May 26, 2005
Page 2 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
recommendations down, to there is new information about
the vested lots and with changes to the Project, and with
acquisition and dedication of parcels in the entry corridor, the
Project could be acceptable. C. Mills said that with the recent
election, he didn't want to do anything contrary to the voters
and it was the developer's job to change the Project and sell
it, not the Task Forces'. S. Pougnet agreed. Facilitator
presented three options: 1) make Palm Hills like rest of
mountain area of 1 unit/40 acres and no golf, but developer
has $11M invested and a $22M purchase contract and would
sue plus we have a vested 91 lot subdivision; 2) make subject
to a specific plan specifying general standards consistent with
the new modified project (no visibility, no lots violating the
general plan, entry property acquisition); or 3) make subject
to a planning effort with no standards, the "Blackhole"
option. Decide that the full site tour is necessary. Facilitator
will research current urban reserve zoning restrictions and
takings issues.
Reviewed schedule of getting ballot measure for November.
D. Discussion of Schedule, Several difficulties have arisen including 1) Century
Preliminary Report and discussions will not be quickly resolved; 2) want complete
Media Campaign not partial package; 3) July is a poor time to do public
outreach due to on-coming summer; 4) problem of
1. Review Outline for environmental compliance. S. Pougnet suggested we must do
Chino Recommendations it right and perhaps the public outreach should be September-
November with a March election if one is needed.
Discussion of the need for an initiative. Facilitator explained
how Urgency Ordinance could be amended to adopt Task
Force recommendations and then continue until election is
held. Consensus was June-July drafting and negotiations;
September-October public outreach. Facilitator presented
outline summary of Chino Cone objectives and policies and
density transfer provisions. Discuss density transfer program.
Consensus was that we want to continue with this concept.
Subcommittee Pougnet, Mills, Aleshire to meet with Century
and explain necessity. Facilitator stressed that development
of Area 8 could be very controversial without a program such
as Area 6 density transfer. Group felt that this is the right
message but needs to come from CoLmcilmembers.
Facilitator to set meeting. Reviewed latest changes to Chino
Cone outline.
olon3mnroi397 ^nz
May26, 2005
Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
E. Review Acreage Tables None.
F„ Good of the Order None.
G. Calendar Review Meeting schedule: Meetings for June 2nd and 9 h are
cancelled due to extending the
schedule. Next meeting will be June
16" 5-9 pm
1
01003/0002/39794 02
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: MAY 19,2005 MEETING
DATE: Thursday May 19, 2005
START TIME: 5:00 p.m.
END TIME: 10:30 p.m.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Caliente Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire; V. Gainer; C. Mills; S. Nichols; S. Pougnet; C.
Sukman; A. Hildner; E. Torres and S. Hamlin. S. Saunders left at
6 pm.
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. Minutes May 12`d Minutes of May 12`d were reviewed. Further discussion
occurred on whether different development standards should
be recommended for Shadowrock if approvals lapse. Some
would want less development. Majority wanted to continue
treating it as a vested project. Minutes then approved without
change.
B. Discussion of Schedule, Concern was raised about the public perception that the Task
Preliminary Report and Force is conducting "secret" meetings, and whether a
Media Coverage preliminary report should be given. Discussed schedule.
Facilitator gave overview of schedule. Facilitator will be
gone from June 1-15. During that period group could
develop media program: What groups to approach, public
presentations, media materials. Facilitator's attorneys will
develop ordinances in his absence. At meeting on June 16
ordinances and media materials will be reviewed and media
program can begin leaving six weeks before materials are
necessary for November ballot. Members reviewed calendar
(see below). It was decided that this program was adequate
and no preliminary public report was necessary.
C. Review of Urgency Facilitator began discussion with a summary of his meetings
Ordinance and Planning with Century Homes. In a meeting with Century he found
Areas for Chino Canyon and that Century was in escrow with Hillinger for most of Area 8
Entry to develop outline of (and County property to the North), and negotiating for much
ordinance of Area 6 and 7. Facilitator proposed transferring density
from Area 7 to Area 8; dedication of Areas 6 & 7 to City in
J perpetuity; development of Area 8 at 3.5 units/acre; and
01003/0002/79704 09
May 19, 2005
Page 2 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
development of County area to similar densities; significant
100' Hwy 111 buffer. Century suggested that it might work
for 500 units. Century knows that it must go through an EIR
process, but wants an expeditious development process.
Discussion as to whether ultimate work product must be
subject to election, some arguing that it would give greater
public support for the project, some arguing that it would
bind the Council's hands in the future if improvements were
needed, forcing expensive elections. Task Force members
were extremely interested in density transfer proposal and
would support an MOU with the developer which would not
be subject to an election.
The Chino Canyon Outline showing changes from the
last meeting was reviewed. The Tram road buffer provision
and Hwy I11 corridor provisions should be added to the
General Criteria. Tram Area (Area 1) is ok. Shadowrock
Area (Area 2) should have same single-family design
language concerning harmonizing with desert and open space
as in other areas. Indian Area (Area 3): Move 40 acres from
Area 6 to Indian; create berm to buffer view from Hwy 111
without distinct tree line; 20,000 lots an issue (should be
similar to Area 4 or permit golf course clustering like
Shadowrock). Facilitator will review any deviations from the
Urgency Ordinance with Tom Davis. Tram South (Area 4):
Tram road corridor (review Crescendo buffer treatment -
50'?); terrain appropriate architecture; no hard-line limit on
height of graded slopes; no curb/gutter/sidewalks, no asphalt
roads (mountain standards); 20% of lots undeveloped for
"custom" feeling; sufficient variety of floor plans and desert
sensitive elevations to avoid "tract" feeling. Chino Gateway
(Area 6): Buffer to toe of slope. Chino Creek (Area 7): Ok.
Snow Creek (Area 9): Ok. Hwy 111 Corridor (Area 8): If
no density transfer, this would be developed per Area 4,
Major discussion of Visitor Center (Area 5): S.
Nichols recounted things done for community by Nichols
family and stated Urgency Ordinance provisions were
appropriate. Some members preferred no commercial while
some no residential. Nichols felt he needed flexibility to go
with either use, although he agreed to divide his 36 acres into
two areas. Agreed to split Area 5 into two areas with soft
line of approximately 11 and 25 acres, the smaller area
around the visitor center and focused on resort commercial,
museum, cultural and related uses with major access off
Tramway. Further discussion of residential with these view
points expressed: residential should be eliminated, enough
0 1 0 0 3/0002/1 9 7 04 W
May 19, 2005
Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
open space has been preserved and residential is ok, multiple
family is ok if clustered, only single family should be
permitted with standards already developed. Issue
unresolved as to the residential area.
D. Review Acreage Tables None
_ (Measure B)
E. Preliminary Discussion of Facilitator distributed packet of materials from EIR on Palm
Palm Hill Hills. Discussed General Plan inconsistencies with original
Palm Hills Plan. Showed maps. Discussed ownership and
sale of project. Due to development costs exceeding $50M,
developer needs hotel and most current lots. Current
investment exceeds $10M. Pahn Hills is now revising plan to
1) move hotel so not visible from Palm Springs, 2) keep all
development below ridgelines, 3) eliminate lots which do not
O meet general plan criteria. It was pointed out that these were
not the only problems with Palm Hills; for example traffic.
Discussed existing approved subdivision of 91 lots, including
lots in front of slope visible to Palm Springs. New plan
reduces lots in this area to 24. 91 lots are Developer
insurance policy as to what can be developed if no Palm Hills
project. Facilitator asked if Task Force might have positive
feeling toward Palm Hills if 1) developer gave up vested 91
lots, 2) made project changes contemplated,and 3) developer
provided additional land dedication. Facilitator suggested
that Palm Hills could acquire and dedicate to City the entire
desert cove in County to the north of Area 8 to create
additional preservation of desert entry. Task Force
encouraged further investigation by Facilitator.
F. Good of the Order None
G. Calendar Review Meeting schedule: June 2 5-9 pm; June 9 3-6 pm; June
16t' 5-9 pm; June 23`d 5-9 pm
01001/0001i10704 0?
FINAL
O CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: MAY 12, 2005 MEETING
DATE: Tuesday May 12, 2005
START TIME: 5:00 P.M.
END TIME: 9:00 P.M.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Caliente Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire; V. Gainer; C. Mills; S. Nichols; S. Pougnet; S.
Saunders; C. Sukman; A. Hildner. E. Torres and S. Hamlin
arrived late.
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. Minutes May 3rd Minutes of May 3rd were approved without change.
B. Review Member Issues
i
Smart Growth(Torres) Members found the summary useful. It is attached to the
Minutes
Sea Ranch(Hamlin) Comments were made on the beauty and quality of the
development. Project is less than I unit per acre but includes
golf with adjacent homes. Sensitive land use guidelines
Desert Sun Editorial (Hamlin) No change to meeting process but public process will be
needed
Summary of Chino Cone Summary given of Tour. There are pockets where
(Gainer) development in Area 6 would not be visible from Hwy 1 I I
C. Review of Urgency General discussion of Chino Cone development issues,
Ordinance and Planning densities, open space, viewshed protection and similar issues.
Areas for Chino Canyon Facilitator presented outline of issues for resolution.
and Entry to develop Attached to Minutes is an outline showing changes discussed
outline of ordinance with members. Discussion included:
A. General: 9 areas of Urgency Ordinance retained but
move Broxmeyer Parcel from Area 5 to Area 6. EIR
mandatory in all areas but discretionary in Area 5A. Specific
Plan required in each area as Master Plan to include road
alignment, traffic study, water conservation, infrastructure
plan, view analysis, and similar components all to be funded
01003/0002/39551.01
April28, 2005
Page 2 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
by developer. Open space plan will include analysis of all
areas for preservation and acquisition through developer
funding and dedication. Fiscal impact analysis required
showing positive fiscal impact. Large scale resorts permitted
one each in Areas 2 and 3 only.
B. Planning Areas
Area 1 (Tram): Current standards with I unit to 40 acres ok
Area 2 (Shadowrock): Vested project. Discussion of
changing permitted uses and zoning should approval lapse.
Majority did not support this concept.
Area 3 (Indian): Question whether City should have any
standards. Urgency Ordinance standards were discussed with
Tribal representatives. City standards still set a goal under
the City's Land Use Agreement with the Tribe. Consensus to
continue Urgency Ordinance Standards
Area 4 (South Tram): Discussed how to have estate lots but
maintain general open space character. Density remains 2
units/acre but reduce lot size to 10,000 to allow closer
grouping. 50% of land to remain common open space. Tram
Road border buffer treatment like Crescendo. Fences/walls
naturally secured. Minimize grading.
Area 5 (Visitor Center): Disagreements over whether hotel
permitted and residential use. Argument made for
emphasizing museum and cultural uses. Subject deferred.
Area 7 (Chino Creek): Open space preferred. Willing to
permit golf use if this means City doesn't have to buy the
property to keep an open character. Target golf.
Area 9 (Snow Creek): 88% is flood plain. One property
ownership. Expensive to provide road and utilities. Density
of 1:40, similar to Area 1.
Area 8 (Hwy 111 Corridor): Discuss entry buffer.
Meandering edge from 75' to 125' in width with 100'
average. Natural treatment. No roofs visible from Hwy 111.
Berming. Discussed appropriate density: Urgency Ordinance
2-3 units, Mountaingate 4 units —discussion ranged from 1 to
3. Facilitator proposed giving higher density in Area 8 in
order to get Developer to dedicate Area 6 to City. Density
01003/0002/39551.01
April 28, 2005
. Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
Transfer explained. Take 130 units permitted in Area 6 and
combine with 250 units in Area 8 to get a total of 380 units.
Give density bonus of 20 units to a total of 400 units for
transfer, for average density of 3.25 units/acre — with other
development restrictions and the dedication of Area 6 in
perpetuity. Facilitator was asked if this was legal and said it
was if it was properly implemented. Facilitator was told to
contact Mountaingate concerning concept and report back.
D. Review Acreage Tables None
(Measure B)
E. Preliminary Discussion of None. Will probably not be covered at next meeting
Palm Hill
F. Good of the Order None
G. Calendar Review Next meeting(May 19) is to be 5:00 p.m. —9:00 p.m.
r�
ntnn'a/nnmiae55t nt
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: MAY 3, 2005 MEETING
DATE: Tuesday May 3, 2005
START TIME: 5:00 p.m.
END TIME: 9:00 P.M.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Board Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire; V. Gainer; S. Hamlin; C. Mills; S. Nichols; S.
Pougnet; S. Saunders; C. Sukman; E. Torres, A. Hildner
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. Minutes April 28 Minutes of April 28 were approved with a change to item
"D.5." changing"whichever is less"to "whichever greater."
B. Mountain Preservation Reviewed revised "Mountain Preservation Ordinance"
Ordinance Outline Outline and made the following changes:
1. B6(a)—changed"whichever is less"to is greater.
2. B 12(d) — deleted last sentence concerning treated
concrete faces and inserted "Retaining walls will blend
into surroundings."
3. B13(a) — deleted minimum 24' travel way and
renumbered.
4. B 13(g)—specify no sidewalks.
5. E2—existing trails will remain for active use.
C. Urgency Ordinance for Facilitator reviewed circumstances leading to urgency
Chino Canyon ordinance. Development at the entry to Palm Springs led
Councilmember Mills to request staff briefing on
development potential in Chino Cone. Staff presentation was
made at Council meeting on July 28, 2004. After August
summer recess staff met with Council Subcommittee of Mills
and Pougnet to develop components of ordinance.
Components were: develop 9 planning areas including desert
entry area; specific plan with EIR required for development
projects; master plan required for each area; density reduced
by approximately 50%; and adoption as an urgency measure.
Stimulus for ordinance was concern over developer activity
on the west side of Hwy 111, and also by concern over
potential Hillside Initiative. Meetings were held with
stakeholders (both pro and anti-development) and ordinance
01001/0009/39476.01
April 28, 2005
Page 2 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
was adopted by a 5-0 vote on and extended on
to . Urgency ordinance is still in effect
although Hillside Measure has failed. Each Planning Area
development standards were reviewed by Facilitator in some
detail.
D. Concept Discussion of S. Saunders made a video of a driving tour of the Chino Cone
Chino Cone and various new perspectives which the Task Force members
found extremely well prepared and interesting. Members
then discussed their concerns over the Chino Cone area,
including:
• S. Saunders: Discussed natural beauty and compatibility,
with good development—need for "smart growth."
• E. Torres: Must blend development with preservation.
Will provide materials on "smart.growth." Components
include minimizing gating and emphasizing the natural
beauty in design.
• A. Hildner: The open space is critical. Need holistic
approach. Golf is not true "open space" and does not
preserve critical aspects of Chino Cone.
• S. Nichols: Not much development potential left in
Palm Springs. Much of the potential really rests with the
Tribe and is not subject to City control. Indian section is
beyond City's control.
• Facilitator: Explained legal issues concerning Tribal
development sovereignty.
• C. Sukman: The entry to Palm Springs is critical to the
identity of the community. The essential feature of this
is the open space.
• S. Hamlin: Sometimes less is more. Attractive
development is possible. Cite Sea Ranch coastal project
as an example. Density less than 1 unit per acre. We
need less density.
• S. Pougnet: The entry is important. Does not condone
"taking" of property from those who have made a long-
time investment. City program must consider open
space acquisition.
• V. Gainer: The view corridors are an essential part of
the preservation program. Believes that there are
funding sources. Doubts that a bond issue makes sense
but believes there are other sources. As Indian property
and Shadowrock are beyond our control, focus would be
on areas 6, 7, & 8.
0100.3/0002/39476 01
April 28, 2005
1. Page 3 of 3
\ AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
• C. Mills: The way to get preservation without taxing the
citizens is to give some development rights in exchange
for preservation. Through this method the City has
acquired almost 3,000 acres - the most of any Valley
city. Through Planning Areas 6, 7 and 8 we should
protect and continue to see the toe of the slope. A 150'
setback from Highway 111 should be required.
• Facilitator discussed three different funding approaches
including:
(a) City-wide tax/assessment to fund acquisition
bond;
(b) requiring dedication by developers in exchange
for development rights;
(c) creating development fee to be paid by developers
in Chino Cone or City-wide, like Multispecies fee, to
pay for open space acquisition.
More materials can be provided.
E. Acreage Tables These are still being updated.
y F. Good of the Order None.
G. Calendar Review Next meeting (May 12)is to be 5:00 p.m,—9:00 p.m.
01003/0002/19476 01
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: APRIL 28,2005 MEETING
DATE: Thursday, April 28, 2005
START TIME: 5:00 p.m.
END TIME: 9:15 P.M.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Board Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire; V. Gainer; S. Hamlin; C. Mills; S. Nichols; S.
Pougnet; S. Saunders; C. Sukman, E. Torres,A. Hildner
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. Introductions New member April Hildner was introduced and gave a
summary of her background. Steve Pougnet explained
circumstances for April replacing Paula Auburn.
B. Minutes April 15 Minutes of April 15 were approved with some changes to
item "H" where the language concerning the Task Force's
initial effort to focus on the "true mountain" was changed to
"above the toe of the slope."
C. Mission Statement, Media
Relations, Privacy and
Distribution of Materials
1. Mission Statement Final copies of Mission Statement and Press Release were
reviewed.
2. Media Relations Members discussed media exposure and articles. Pougnet
discussed appearance at Desert Sun editorial board and
anticipates editorial. Pougnet and Gainer said they intended
not to do additional interviews and let the attention wane.
Group will be judged by its results.
3. Privacy Hamlin said she didn't see why the meeting couldn't be open.
Various other members said that they thought the meetings
were not "secret" but private and that this was essential for
the group. No changes to format were made.
4. Distribution of Material Facilitator indicated that the City Attorney had requested that
copies of all material given to Councilmembers
Pougnet/Mills should be given to the City Manager for
01003/0002/39349.02
April28, 2005
Page 2 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
distribution to the rest of the Council. Objections were
raised, including from C. Mills and S. Pougnet and Facilitator
was instructed not to share these materials. Facilitator was
also instructed not to have CV Trails Committee review trails
material at this time for the same reasons.
D. Outline of Mountain A draft outline of an ordinance for the Mountain region was
Preservation Ordinance presented. A redlined copy is attached to show the changes
and indicates the nature of the debate. Major points were:
1. Ordinance will only apply above the toe of slope and
a map will be attached.
2. Ordinance will be comprehensive with a statement of
policy.
3. Generally use will be single family residential at 1
unit per 40 acres but clustering will be permitted.
4. No development on significant slopes (30%)
5. Developed area limited 5% of the lot or I acre,
whichever is greater.
6. All development shall be harmonious with the natural
setting.
7. Height permitted up to 30'.
8. No minimum house size.
9. Indigenous landscaping.
10. Minimize grading, bond for disturbance, discretion to
vary street standards.
11. Palm Hills issues deferred.
12. Acquisition of sensitive property encouraged.
13. Trail system is a community resource and will be
protected.
E. Acreage Tables These are still being updated.
F. Rim Rocks There was some discussion as to whether the Rim Rocks
issues needed to be in the work program as it is flatland area.
The matter was deferred to the end of the work program.
G. Chino Cone and Data There was talk about the importance of the entry to Palm
Needs Springs and that the Task Force needed to look beyond the
mountain and change our order of proceeding. There was a
discussion of the City boundaries and the developing areas in
County jurisdiction. There was a discussion of City
annexation efforts and the reasons for resident resistance.
There as a strong feeling that the Task Force should perhaps
make recommendations concerning annexation before
completing its work. There was a presentation on the
0 1 0 03/0 0 0 2/3 9349 M
April 28,2005
Page 3 of 3
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
purpose behind the Urgency Ordinance so as to prevent a
Mountain Gate II-type project to the west of Highway 111.
The feeling was that our next meeting could begin to focus on
Chino Cone and the area covered by the Urgency Ordinance.
H. Calendar Review There was discussion of election calendar and the need to
complete the analysis in May so that public meetings could
occur in June and July could be used to place the matter on
the ballot. The May 5th meeting was shifted to May 3rd and
a meeting added for April 12th.
1
oir vnnn- o on?
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: APRIL 15, 2005 MEETING
DATE: Friday,April 15, 2005
CALL TO ORDER: 3:05 pm. ADJOURN: 7:40 p.m.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Board Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire; P. Auburn; V. Gainer; S. Hamlin; C. Mills; S.
Nichols; S. Pougnet; S. Saunders; C. Sukmau.
E. Torres (Absent)
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
Mr. Gainer provided the CTF with a copy of a Desert Sun editorial dated March 10, 2005.
The CTF members reviewed the editorial and highlighted provisions which they found
especially instructive. The editorial stated "This much we know: Fighting each other with
special elections and trading insults at public forams won't get us anywhere." The editorial
. advocated that those involved with the underlying issue of the "pace of growth" need to "learn
' the lost art —the fine art — of listening and compromise....The civil process is communication,
discussion, dialog....They need to meet—not during a public hearing at a Council meeting but
at a separate designated time [to]... come up with a `balance plan for growth.'...The City
cannot continue with a business as usual attitude; upset residents can't ran to the ballot box
every time they don't get their way. It's divisive and paralyzing. The operative words are
listening and compromise."
A. Approve 4/7/05 Minutes One change was noted which was the discussion as to whether
the Facilitator would work pro bono. By consensus the minutes
were approved with the modification. The corrected minutes
are attached.
B. Press Release Changes to the Press Release were discussed. The Press
Release was approved with minor typographical corrections.
The distribution of the Press Release was discussed and it was
determined that it should be given to the Desert Sun
approximately at the time of next Wednesday's Council
meeting on April 20,2005.
C. Mission Statement There was some discussion concerning different variations of
the Mission Statement. It was eventually decided that the
simplest version of the Mission Statement would suffice. The
final version of the Mission Statement is attached.
D. The Takings Concept The Facilitator prepared a paper concerning the takings concept
and its Application and made a presentation.
01003/0009J49144 0?
April 15, 2005
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
E. Hillside General Plan The Facilitator reviewed a table which he prepared concerning
Provisions all provisions in the General Plan dealing with Hillside issues.
Discussions ensued concerning the meaning and affect of these
provisions. The General Plan map was discussed. It was
demonstrated to the Group that between Indian and City
ownership, only a small portion of the mountain area is actually
in private hands and subject to development.
F„ Hillside Zoning The Facilitator reviewed a table outlining all zoning provisions
Provisions concerning mountain property. A map showing the zoning
designations was discussed.
G. Mountain Initiative There was a brief discussion of some of the provisions of
Measure Measure B.
H. Conceptual Discussion The primary discussion revolved around the issue of whether
of Desired Mountain the City's current 1 unit per 20 acres standard for open space is
Zoning appropriate, or whether the Measure B 1 unit per 40 acres was
® sufficient, or whether some greater standard such as 1 per 60, 1
per 80 or greater was appropriate. After much discussion it
was determined that the 1 to 40 standard which was a part of
Measure B might be the appropriate recommendation. There
was some discussion about a method of assuring that the
property owned by the City in the mountains would not be
developed and only be used to assure open space. There was
some discussion of some of the other development standards
currently in the City zoning including the prohibition of
development of slopes of 30% or more and the provisions
concerning studies for development of areas of slopes between
10% and 30%. Ultimately it was decided that the Facilitator
should review the Zoning and General Plan provisions as well
as Measure B and provide the Task Force will a variety of
standards to be included in a Mountain Preservation Ordinance.
This document would be limited to the area above the toe of the
slope. Other areas subject to Measure B such as Rim Rocks
and the Chino Cone would be discussed at a later time.
I. Calendar Calendar dates were picked for April and May, 2005.
April 28 from 5 to 8:00 p.m.
• May 5 from 3 to 6:00 p.m.
® May 19 from 5 to 8:00 p.m.
• May 26 from 3 to 6:00 p.m.
All meetings will be in the Palm Springs Hilton Board Room.
01002/0002/39144.02
FINAL
CITIZENS TASK FORCE (CTF) FOR MOUNTAIN AND
FOOTHILL PRESERVATION PLANNING
MINUTES: APRIL 7,2005 MEETING
DATE: Thursday, April 7, 2005
START TIME: 5:00 pin,. END TIME: 7:30 p.m.
END TIME: 7:30 p.m.
PLACE: Palm Springs Hilton Board Room
ATTENDEES: D. Aleshire; P. Auburn; V. Gainer; S. Hamlin; J. Lyle; C.
Mills; S. Nichols; S. Pougnet; S. Saunders; C. Sukman; E.
Torres
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
A. Mission Statement Introduction by each member. Discuss goals and objectives.
Several ideas discussed included:
Ae I. Need for open process and for a public participation/
review process
2. Whether ultimate enactment should be by Council or
vote of electorate
3. That current zoning is adequate, public just needs to
understand it vs. fact that recent development
demonstrates inadequacy of current standards
4. Need for compromise: Inadequacy of initiative process
and take it or leave it approach
5. Importance of mountains and scenic vistas
B. Organizational Issues
1. Name Task Force for Mountain and Foothill Preservation &
Planning.
2. Membership Current participants all agreed to continue. Certain persons
had declined participation. Pougnet explained how
participants were selected. There were no suggestions for
additional members. Facilitator role explained. Discussion
of whether Facilitator could perform pro bono, but declined
due to time and distance. Group suggests that City pay and is
opposed to any developer funding for facilitator.
3. Schedule Generally every other Thursday from 3-6 p.m.; all will
submit calendars to Facilitator; goal is to report in 90 days.
01003/0002/38936 02
Apri17, 2005
Page 2 of 2
AGENDA ITEM DISCUSSION/ACTION
C. Confidentiality/Media Confidentiality of communications will be maintained.
Public process for adoption of end product. Will have press
statement but will keep everything low key, at least for now
Spokesmen: Pougnet/Gainer
D. Ground Rules Honesty, openness, listening, creative, problem-solving,
friendly
E., Issues Order to proceed: Mountains/Rim Rock/Chino
Cone/Palm Hills
F. Future Action 0 Facilitator to prepare current regulations.
• Next Meeting: Friday April 15 @ 3 p.m. @ Hilton
01003/0002/38936 09
. Task Force for Mountain Preservation and Planning
Public Involvement Plan
Public Review and Input on Task Force Recommendations
A. COMPLETE PREPARATION FOR PUBLIC REVIEW by September 1, for later
_ distribution at City Council Study Session.
• Recommendations posted to identified website(s) (General Plan) concurrent with City
Council Study Session, September 14&ready for distribution at that time
• Bound packets available at Study Session
• Announcements/press releases to public outlets and press regarding availability of
recommendations,public meeting schedule, and public comment opportunities
ities
B. PRESENT TO THE DESERT SUN EDITORIAL BOARD, Steve Pougnet and Vic
Gainer Tuesday, September 13
C, CITY COUNCIL STUDYSESSION—City Hall,September 14
• Public meeting permitting public comment; broadcast on channel 17
• Presentation of recommendations
• PowerPoint/charts and boards presentation
• Public comment
D. GENERAL PUBLIC MEETING—(Convention Center,September 17, 2:00 P.M.)
To be aired on Channel 17 (repeated broadcast throughout)
• Task Force Presentation(repeated broadcast throughout)
• Comment box
• Oral and written public comment
E. INDIVIDUAL GROUP MEETINGS ON REQUEST- (September 15- October 15)
• Individual meetings with Task Force members and groups requesting meetings
• Offer to meet with at least the groups on page 2
F. TASK FORCE MEETINGS
• September 22—Review results from public meeting and group meeting schedule
• October 20 — Review results from individual group meetings and reevaluate
recommendations
• Consider additional meetings in between as needed
G. FINAL COUNCIL PRESENTATION OFRECOMMENDATIONS-
(City Hall.November 9)
• Recommendations and implementing measures presented to Council in final form
ntnn"OOn" 013'704
Tasks and Timeline:
Immediately
• Investigate Channel 17 recording and airing public meetings
• Target locations, dates and times for public meetings
• Investigate locations, dates and times for public meetings
• Select and secure location, and dates and times for public meetings
July-August
• Investigate distribution channels
• Identify target audiences and prepare contact database:
Press: Desert Sun; Cindy Uken; Community Calendar
Press Enterprise: David Hermann, Community Calendar, ?
News 6 & 2
Bottom-line
Community:
Office of Neighborhood Involvement
Save our City
Economic Development Corp.
Chamber of Commerce
Desert Business Association
Tribe
Service Clubs
Mizell Senior Center
Building Industry Assoc. (BIA)
Conservation organizations (SOM, Sierra, etc.)
Recreational organizations (Coachella hiking&biking clubs, etc.)
General Plan Steering Committee
• Establish email address, telephone number and mailing address for receiving public
questions, comment/input
• Prepare ordinance summaries
• Prepare and submit press releases, community calendar submissions and general
pubic notices; Prepare presentation (roles and substance, including selecting
moderator for public meetings)
• Prepare PowerPoint presentation
• Prepare charts and boards
• Prepare survey for distribution at meetings
• Prepare and print handouts
• Media background meetings
• Prepare and practice presentation
September-October
• Prepare and submit press releases, community calendar submissions and general
public notices for public testimony meetings
• Meet to outline group meeting schedule
• Conduct general information meeting
• Conduct individual information meetings
November
• Review comments and testimony
• Finalize Ordinance and Bond Measure
• Present to City Council
NOM/000?4ma7 n4
TASK FORCE CONTACT SHEET
David J. Aleshire Vic Gainer
Aleshire & Wynder, LLP Phone: (760) 321-9331
18881 Von Karman Avenue, Suite 400 Email: viegainer@aol.com
Irvine, California 92612
Phone: (949) 223-1170
Fax: (949) 223-1180
Email: daleshire@awattorneys.com
Sheryl Hamlin April Hildner
Phone: (760) 318-9344 Phone: (760) 318-2618
Cell: (760) 668-2956 Cell: (760) 774-6525
Email: sherylhamlin@earthlink.net Email: april@hildner.com
Chris Mills Stephen Nichols
City of Palm Springs 879 N. Palm Canyon Drive
P.O. Box 2743 Palm Springs, California 92262
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Phone: (760) 323-2222
Phone: (760)323-8200 Email: steve.nichols@earthlink.net
Email: csm@csmarchitect.com
Steve Pougnet Shelly Saunders
City of Palm Springs Phone: (760) 320-8254
P.O. Box 2743 Fax: (760) 320-3667
Palm Springs, CA 92263-2743 Email: ssaund4292@aol.com
Phone: (760) 323-8200
Fax: (760) 323-8207
Email: spougnet@earthlink.net
Carole Sukman Ed Torres
Phone: (760) 327-0512 Phone: (760)325-3916
Cell: (760) 831-9900 Cell: (562)754-3334
Fax: (760) 327-0513 Fax: (760)327-2632
Email: caroleadam@aol.com Email: ED@edwardtorres.com
Citizens' Task Force 'tar Mountain and Foothill
Preservation and Planning
i � s * t au�� }� 4 ♦ �Aay.�
�' aw
1 �
Cover Photo: Copyright by Greg Day
i
Task Force for Mountain and Foothill
Preservation and Planning
Mission Statement
The purpose of the Citizens' Task Force (CTF, is to
overcome the divisiveness which has beset the community
by seeking common ground for the development of land
use policies for the areas subject to Measures B and C
which will protect the scenic values of Palm Springs
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum
r
Treasures B3 & � — i 4overnlber 22Ou4
• Measure B
- General Plan amendment to change the zoning to
1 house per 40 acres on the mountain and alluvial
fan areas of Palm Springs
- Measure B did not pass; no zoning changes
® Measure C
- A referendum on the approval of the Palm
Hills Corporation's proposed project of 1200 acres,
homes, resort hotel and golf course
- Measure C passed rescinding council's approval of
Palm Hills
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 2
01
; Y Committee Members
• Vic Gainer, former chairman • Steve Pougnet, PS City Council
Save Our Mountains Shelly Saunders, PS Business
• Sheryl Hamlin, Business Owner Owner and member Save Our
and Save Our Mountains City
supporter Carole Sukman, Save Our
• April Hildner, Save Our Mountains Supporter
Mountains supporter • Ed Torres, [developer
• Chris Mills, PS City Council
• Stephen Nichols, landowner
and preservationist
Facilitator: David Aleshire, former Palm Springs City Attorney
Made possible by the support of the City of Palm Springs, Ron Oder,
Mayor, and graciously hosted by the Palm Springs Hilton Hotel
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 3
d
� Background & Process �c
• CTF envisioned by council member Pougnet & CTF
member Gainer who jointly selected the committee
• City approved funds to include the facilitator, David
Aleshire
• 20 meetings at the PS Hilton and site visits approaching
70 hours
• Agendas and Minutes from meetings available from the
archives
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 4
• Interpret the Mission Statement
• Recommend a set of policies and development standards
which will protect the mountains and alluvial fans and
would be acceptable to the vast majority of the
community
• The CTF report makes recommendations in three critical
areas :
— Mountains
— Chino Cone
— Palm Fills
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 5
s ' 1_IbL VI 1v1C1JUU au1Jjt:k b 111VC L19C1LrU
1. Measure B Review
2. Palm Springs General Plan Review
3. Palm Springs Zoning Review
4. Hillside Ordinance and Ordinances from other cities
5. Legislative issues including "Takings"
6. Smart Growth
7. Coachella Valley Multiple Species Planning
8. Land Acquisition for Conservation
9. Meetings with conservation groups
10. Funding alternatives including developer fees,
state funding and bond financing
11. Field trips
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum
z " g Guiclinn _P_rin_c_i_nlPs
N~
• The unique natural environment of Palm Springs with its rugged
mountains and sweeping desert sands create stunning vistas with
a sense of space and distance, and is Palm Springs' most
important asset
• This natural environment has historically drawn people to live
here and made Palm Springs a world class resort destination, and
the protection of this natural environment is vital to the well
being of its residents and to sustaining its tourism based economy
• All land uses must respect the scenic values of the desert and
mountain terrain and protect this historical heritage
• The mountain region is an extraordinarily rich, though fragile,
natural environment which sustains a brilliant variety of wildlife
and plant species, some of which species are threatened or
endangered, and the City's land use policies must be
understanding of ecosystem interactions and protect and
conserve sensitive habitat
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 7a
Guiding Pror�rinrlec continue' d -y
• Development must be harmonious with, adapted to and respectful
of the natural features with minimal disturbance of terrain and
vegetation, use of natural and sympathetic materials, and be
located in a manner sensitive to terrain, including wildlife habitat,
watercourses and steep slopes
• Open space is a limited and valuable resource which is a part of
the City's historic heritage and the City should identify sensitive
open space areas for conservation and should acquire and
preserve such areas
• The City should continue its policies for open space acquisition be;
which some 3000 acres have been acquired, including mitigation
of developer impacts through land dedication and payment of in-
lieu fees, acceptance of gifts of land, obtaining federal and state
grants for conservation, working with regional conservation
agencies, and developing other funding sources
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum
7 b
Fps
-qiimmary of Finrlincic R.
� t
..+ -fir A 1* - h _ � �w. . . w � w . . • . .w '� �� - _
is 1. J Accomplishments
O 1. The open mountain/desert entry to Palm Springs is
vital to Palm Springs' future and must be preserved.
A 75-125' natural buffer zone should be created along Hwy
111 fully screening any development; and
County areas along the entry corridor should be annexed.
2. Development in the mountain areas should be
discouraged.
98% of the mountain area would have its development
density cut in half to 1 unit per 40 acres, and due to restriction
on development of slope areas and other grading and
development restrictions, would be unlikely to develop.
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 8a
t ' k a Summary of Findings
Accomplishments, continued .
• 3. Preservation of substantial portions of the Chino Cone
in an undeveloped state is a priority.
— Densities are limited to less than half what is permitted by
current general plan;
Density transfer provision would keep the base of Chino Cone
open;
In residentially developed areas, 50% of the land would be
dedicated for open space;
— Sensitive areas, such as around Ship Rock would be preserved;
Large-scale resorts would be reduced to 1 on non-Indian land
(Shadowrock); and
— Development around the Visitor Center will protect its historic
character.
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 3b
Sun1f11aQ`'/ of Findings ,
Accomplishments, continued
• 4. Special Development Standards are recommended.
For trails: encourage recreational trail use and linkages,
relocating trails in sensitive areas;
For open space: develop a priority list and acquire sensitive
parcels, setting such parcels aside by deed restriction;
For grading : minimize grading and vegetation disturbance,
requiring grading bonds for security;
For design : harmonious with natural setting, blend with
terrain, use of natural materials;
— For infrastructure: desert design without curbs, gutters,
sidewalls; no black asphalt; minimal street lighting.
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 8c
A
lk A
-47
s {}y
4y
fine ,
x
,� J t•
x
Al
art, + „�•.,,,dr ;„� �i„s
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum
f� f a yyyggry t' LL P iM1 a
ILA
Mountains Overview
4
t
• Goal : preserve as much as possible of the
mountains in a pristine state, promoting
acquisition of sensitive parcels and recreational
use through a system of trails
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 10
Development Standards for
° k Mountains
Same standards for San Jacinto/Santa Rosa area
Toe of the slope and above
• Limit of 1 house per 40 acres
Development on slopes less than 10% permitted; greater than 30%
not permitted; between 10%-30% subject to review
a 95% undisturbed open space
• Must adapt to terrain with minimal grading and grading plan
O Require bonds to assure minimal grading
® Minimize disturbance of hillside vegetation
CTF 9/3/2005 Community information Forum I sa
p Development Standards for
Mountains, continued x
• Use natural materials for screening
• Locate away from sensitive areas
• Encourage habitat protection
• Public acquisition for conservation
• 18'/24' height limit for structures 250 X 250 lot
• Sewer connections, if practical
• City encourages use of mountains for recreational purposes so long
as not to degrade habitat; existing trails will be maintained and new
trail links can be developed
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 11 b
_ A,, now-i raii Standards
• City encourages use of Mountains for recreational purposes so long
as not to degrade habitat -- a useable trail system is a community
asset
• Existing trails will be maintained for active use
• Trail links can be developed
• New development can be required to encourage pedestrian use by
providing internal trails with links to existing trails
• City shall encourage proper trail maintenance
• Historic trails may be registered on National Register
• City will provide appropriate access for trails
• If trails impinge on sensitive habitat, City will relocate them. City will
decommission or close trails only if necessary based on best
available scientific research
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 12
jA
, , A Standards for the Acquisition of
g Open Space y
• City will actively seek to acquire Mountain property
• City will develop priority acquisition list
• City will seek federal/state funding
• Land currently owned by City will be set aside by deed restriction
• City may trade for parcels where:
— The acquired parcel has greater open space value than the
released parcel based on habitat or aesthetic values
— Three (3) acres acquired for one (1) acre given up
• City will work with federal and state agencies to promote the
National Monument and other resource conservation programs
• City will work to preserve and enhance the natural environment
• City will work with conservations groups
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 13
w
M A . . ■Y J6. : .I}�y Ys7�a
IvIU
k
f ! t R
WA
Measure B density standard of
1 unit per 40 acres would apply
P
in 98% of the mountain area.
m h M1
M1t x
u
7h tq'
5 t
} t y
� S
R
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 14
�y Ff
scenes yr zne c,nlno Leone z_
}
v
f C s
Wade Byars Fthadesertsuo.com
The alluvial fan,part of the chino Cone vre si of Palm Springs on Hwy.
19$_
wad■Byars/Ulaawsfrt6 an.com
The alluvial fan,a goo�-,gical fa rmaaiion fnxmed fmm running water
carrying sand, grave aad racks th mush gargGG and canyons ham Ml �
rnn Jarman nn3n the plc t..eln'w Yhc nx:al main It rnrm'in ins.linen! 91
the d eposiicd:materia;.ac m from a bridpc oar ihrvy- 111 wcsd of Ralm
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 15
it `.nine L,vnU vVt:FVI :VV - m�
5
It 7
f
Diverse area consisting of mountains, alluvial fan and the gateway
to Palm Springs
• Adopted in 09/04, the Chino Cone Urgency Zoning is in place now
until 10/05. This reduced density by 50%
• The CTF recommendations include more protections for this area
than the CC Urgency Zoning while retaining the same Planning
Areas (PA 1-9)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 16
ing
Chino Cone: (Vine Major Plant
" t ra
Areas from Urgency Ordinance
City of Palm Springs
Department of Planning Services s
Chino Cons and Adjacent Areas-Planning Areas
0 2000 4.00 0000 12000 15.0P. t:
PA #1 Lavender Aerial Tramway
PA #2 Pale blue Shadowrock
:. := PA #3 Pink Indian Land
PA #4 Orange Tramway South
"t PA #5 Peach/blue Visitors Center
' II
PA #5 Turquoise Chino Canyon Gateway
PA #7 Lime Green Chino Creek
I ayM1t"em PA #8 Royal Blue Highway 111 Corridor
�t
PA #9 Purple Snow Creek
�= A
iT ni.�Ta
p +i
-
)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 17
• Maximize open space by encouraging density transfers on the lower
portion of the Cone
• Produce development projects respectful of the natural desert and
scenic vistas
• Preserve Indian development rights along with the approved
Shadowrock hotel-golf destination resort
• Require development to pay its way
• Create wide Highway 111 buffer and Tramway buffer
• Require development to maximize open space by clustering and
dedicating 50% of the land for open space
• Require 20% of the lots for custom development
• Incorporate new, natural standards for development including
streetscape
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 18
Chino Cone General Development
r 4 , Standards
• Specific Plan & Environmental Impact Report (EIR) required for
each area except for SA where it is discretionary
• Road alignment/traffic analysis for each area
• Recreation/open space plan to show: linkages within Planning
areas and between, view analysis, natural areas/watercourse
areas, recreation areas, habitat mitigation,
preservation/conservation areas
• Water conservation provisions
• Two large-scale resorts: Shadowrock & Tribal
• Infrastructure funded by development
• Fiscal Impact Analysis necessary to justify project
• Open space acquisition program through in lieu fees and
dedication
• Existing substandard lots can be developed with one single family
residence (SFR)
• Permitted golf course to be maintained as open space in
perpetuity
® Tram Way Buffer: natural streetscape, SO` setback
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 19
i F
lily
HWY 111 Buffer: meandering border, setback 75'-125' with
average 1001, natural vegetation, special trail/walking treatment,
berming to screen development to the toe of the mountain slope,
no visible roofs from HWY 111
E ,yy, .� •-_•-.....�..--.-.-.._....�_ ,may�Ar'(i
r V�1
�6
i
?5� � lay�; Hi =�ap•Y III
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 20
3
• The Citizens Task Force e= HOW
recommends:
— annexation of all county
property adjacent to HWY ai
111 entry
— Development of strategies
to preserve this area to the
extent possible
3 :4
R
•
Annexation well allow PS
a
standards to be applied to this
sensitive view corridor along ` `
the entry to PS rather than
county standards
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 21
14
' } .; Chino Cone
10 : ,- Residential Development Standards
- Tram Way setback/natural landscape treatment
- Buffering with other residential areas
- Blending with natural surrounding criteria and terrain
appropriate architecture per Mountain Ordinance
- No front fences/walls; rear screened with natural
materials and terrain
- Grading pad areas to meet contours
- Open space areas not screened or enclosed
- No curbs, gutters or sidewalks and all streets of colored
or stamped concrete
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 22a
k Chino Cone Residential ` ' ^ '
+ Development Standards, continued
fyy
- Height: 18" measured from natural grade, following
natural contours, but with permitted projection per code
- Clustering of residential development and maximizing
extent of undeveloped areas is encouraged
- Sufficient variety of floor plans and desert sensitive
elevations to avoid tract appearance; 20% of lots
reserved for custom development
- If tile roof, natural clay tiles, mudded, two piece must be
used
- 10,000 sq, ft lot minimum
- 500/b of the land dedicated to the city for public open
space
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 22b
rh ft L HCrldl l ramway
•Bounded by PA 2 and
mountains �fi
•Acres: 570
v
•Developable: 454 acres M
Computed max units = 11 ' '
*Density: iunit/40acres vnlll
*Uses: Tram, estatey
residential, open space , ,
eDevelopment standards;
see Chino Cone general
9 f
standards (slides 19/22a, 22b) 777,
kg
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 23
rr� 4* c all UVVrUk;K
*Bounded by PA1, PA3 %=x z
and Mountains
*Development Agreement & i . '
tans approved in Nov. 1993
*Development Agreement
expires June 2006
*Acres: 360 i
*Developable: 360 _
Computed max units: 415
Hotel (270 units), SFR (145) � '
*Uses: resort hotel olf, SFR ` `- _ �� ' � ° #:
*Density: specific plan
*Acquisition Areas: *Special Infrastructure: developer to reconstruct
500 acres dedicated Tramway Road to improve safety and construct
Development standards: water, sewer, landscaping, other improvements
see Chino Cone general and underground utilities
standards (slides 19/22a, 22b)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 24
I^
iA..We nA
� /� ■
t "3tiK YY d M 141!A M I
• c 4"�{: d
*Bounded by 5 planning areas:
PA6, PA5, PA4,PA2,PA7
*Under jurisdiction of Agua Caliente � "
Band of Cahuilla Indians
e 6`
a
*Land use agreement with city of �
Palm Springs dating from 1977
*Area: 415.5 acres
*Developable: 342.69 acres
*Uses: resort hotel, golf, SFftjA�
*Density: 2units/acre "
•Development Standards: same as
i+r.r
Chino Cone general standards W�� r ffiT
(slides 19/22a, 22b) plus golf course
residential similar to Shadowrock
•Natural buffering on east boundary - =
making a soft edge e r
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 25
1 fC1111Wdy 7VUL11
E ' k
a
Y
• Bounded by PA3. PAS and areas -_
not covered by CTF proposal and F
mountains to the south
• Area: 119 acres
• Developable: 98 acresaq
"�l:
• Computed max units: 197 = � ;
• Uses permitted: low density � =
estate residential '
_ .
Ll-k
• Density: 2 units/acre with ' ! ,
minimum lot size 10,000 sq. ft. aK � ��i��°'�'�° ,N�
• Open Space/recreation: linkages ,
surrounding projects, 500lo land _ t
5 w .. l
dedicated open space ,,
• Development Standards: Chino
Cone general standards (slides a
ZZ
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 26
ir
rti +' IL of �B)
*Bounded by PA6, PA3, PA41
& Tramway Road and southerly �
by cTF plan
by areas not covered
r
*36 acres total developable ,
5A — commercial — 12 acres
5B — Residential — 24 acres
�e
t
x
fr.
}
O
ct
Or
u iearclway Gas 5 anon—fiSPBii33 _
Palm springs Vfsham Gcn`.er
Phaxr Courtesy of omat Ghuhla,
27
CTF 9/3/2005 Community information Forum
r% A .LL \ O.S.L � J..-.� /T r A Qf
h # rMff a V 1 ILUUs %.enter k,H Ot 36) 3 3
5A - Commercial • For every extra sq ft above 12
acres, 1 sq ft of open space must
• Area: 12 acres out of the 36 acres be dedicated in SB; for example,
of PAS if SA expands to 15 acres, there
would be a loss of 3 acres in 5B
• Commercial can increase into
residential 513 — residential
• Uses SA: hotel, museum/cultural, . Area: 24 acres of residential,
public uses, resort retail floating boundary with PAS may
• Architecturally significant get smaller, but not larger
building (Frey Gas Station) • Computed max units: 144
• Development Standards: • Uses 5B: single and multi-family
Community Services Commercial residential @ 4-6 units per acre
(CSC) or High Commercial (HC) • Residential must have 60% open
zoning standards but must space
harmonize and not overshadow . Buffer treatment on northern
Visitor Center property line similar to PA3
• Mandatory decorative paving for . Height: 2 stories or 24 feet
parking includes stamped
concrete • Development Standards: Chino
• Height: 2 stories or 24 feet Cone general standards as
applicable (slides 19/22a, 22b)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 28
Pik u ChinoL.dnyvn �dzeWdy
*Bounded by PAS, PA7, PA3 R
and 111 k`
*Area: 89.33 acres I
•Developable: 89.33 acres -
s
=x
*Computed Max units:
134 @ 1.5 acre average a
g r
*Uses: golf & very low density
estate residential
*Density: 1.5 units/acre with
minimum lot size of 10,000 � d
sq. feet with density transfer
to PA 8 of 1.5 units/acre if
dedication of property to City
20% bonus for transfer
•Development standards:
Y „
Chino Cone General
(slides 19/22a, 22b) ;..- �
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 29
%.reeK
Ld �#� + •i� LP y4
F 1
.1➢� � f r � 1 �1 Ti r ! A'
• Bounded by PA6, PA3, PA8, PA2,
mountains and 111
• Area: 176 acres
• Developable: 174
• Computed Max Units: 0
• Uses: water course, public
recreation, golf, equestrian trails
• Development: retain natural/open
character; if golf, target golf with
.x
no trees and no grass visible from
Hwy 111 x;
• Scenic entry corridor treatment —
see chart on slide 20
POOR
t�
119
. ,
CTF 9/312005 Community Information Forum 30
PA # 8 & County ;
' a Highway Ill Corridor
•PA 8 bounded by E
county land and
r
•Cove & Windy Pt
5
•County
development
•k#c ial' r k *
standards
a
differ from PS:
6 units per acre
*Potential to annex
*Land Transfer
considered
•kes ..h c
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 31
IAA # Liiw l�•...�. � ♦ ♦ ♦ ��� � � � ,`w: " I' - j
}
" Area: 203 acres
Developable: 123 plus county land
adjacent
Computed max: 246 subject to PA#6
* density transfer to a maximum of 430.5
- units
• Uses: low density residential
• Density: 2 units/acre with minimum lot
size of 10,000 sq. ft provided that
density transfer from PA#6 permitted to
a max. density of 3.5 units per acres
• Encourage addition of property to north
with same standards
• Height: 15'
• Scenic entry corridor treatment
• Ship Rock and surrounding area to be
preserved; developer would be credited
for dedication
• Development Standards: see Chino Cone
general standards (slides 19/22a, 22b)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 32
. t
�" ry k
P® It 4 CnO.n, rraalor
�MmWW
• Sounded by county lands
& mountains and 111
• Area: 1195 acres
• Developable: 244 acres
• Computed max units:
x.:
6-300
• Uses: conservation in ,ta ;
floodplain, very love
density residential
k
• Density: 1 unit/40 acres
• Development standards:
see Chino Cone general
standards (slides 19/22a, '
22b) . ` at
• Scenic entry corridor
treatment: See PA#6 =-
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 33
Chino Cone Summary of Residential ' ,# tt*
` „ v� �w� ��c� I-c1 I AaR 1-VI �.0
Recommendations
CHINO CONE Developable General Plan CTF Recommendations
PLANNING AREAS Acres Density (w/Density Transfer)
LOW DENSITY AREAS 1093 948 621
(1,4,7,8,9)
MEDIUM DENSITY AREAS 125 689 144
(5,6)
TOTAL (NON RESORT) 1218 1637 765
Developable General Plan CTF Recommendations 2
Acres Density
All Residential Residential + Hotel
RESORT AREAS (2,3) 703 1766 1406 300/600
TOTAL (ALL AREAS) 1921 3403 2171-1065 (600)
SUMMARY
-CTF Recommendations would result in a 47% density reduction in Chino Cone from General Plan density,
(disregarding the two remaining resort projects of Shadowrock and Indian Areas)
•2/3 of the Chino Cone density is in the vested Shadowrock and Indian resort Project Areas
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 34
.>, rC11111 n1115 %JVVIfrileva 3
14
Palm Hills
r
1200 acres
• 351 unit hotel
h, 382 vacation units
• 165 single family homes
' 18-hole golf course
>; Approved by City Council in
June 2004
�. _ � h
Measure C rescinded
approval in March 2005
Owner/developer may submit
- � revised project for city council
review
l` Mountain standards to apply
outside the 1200 acres —
see slide 39 for details
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 35
gp( 91 Previously-Approved homes. ' _
Palm Hills property
Vested 91 hooves
are near water tower area
Subdivision approved
In 1984 ('Tract 17403)
Project can be developed
even if there is no Palm
Hills, but is superseded if
a new Palos hills project
is approved
Visibility of the project to
the Valley floor is in dispute
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 36
4
Palm Hills
. . j Vested 91 Homes
z .�
z
r r R L 11.+•"Y i,M 19 6 S ..t
r�
wy.
ti r
tip.
y ♦g '
IT
71
IV
M� ♦. a 'ha 4 :?1
ro � Y4
Y
Vertical Aerial Photograph with overlay of Recorded Tict Map No. 17403
Y4Xn.6 tZ.:p.rux [?.u�.lirlwxv4x Z3:uh.v..:..a.ianix=,-hr.i:r�n 1cn �a, r...
'Exhibit A
CTF 9/3/2005 _ Community Information Forum— _a «�__ 37
� v�t � �`9 Ar� � .a� L� it �� Air. ..�.L. � .� ♦�.®�.� � .ao .� _ .� �'��
• Acquire entire 1200 acres for cost of $20-$25 million
- For $20 million 25-year bond issue: $23.63 annually per
assessed valuation of $100,000
• For example, a homeowner of a $300,000 assessed value
home would pay $70.89 annually
• Not acquiring the 91 house vested project, but only 640
acres of Section 31, for a cost of less than $10 million
— For $6 million 25-year bond issue: $7.09 annually per assessed
valuation of $100,000
• For example, a homeowner of a $300,000 assessed value
home would pay $21.27 annually
• Talk to conservation agencies about matching funds: Goal is
500lo match
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 38
!t� e
�
19.. ». IJ.11�
? � t"Al111 "111M
_
The following alternatives exist for Palm Hills:
1) Develop only the approved 91 homes (see previous slide) with
remainder of property to be acquired or developed to the Mountain
Standards
2) Resubmission of a project in compliance with the General Plan and
superseding the 91-lot project
3) Acquisition of all of Palm Hills by the City of Palm Springs through
a bond measure and/or matching funds from other sources
The committee supports continued research on the above alternatives
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 39
a The Palm Hills Planning Area eNa
and Mountain Standards
PALM HILLS PLANNING AREA: s°°' EA E
Planning Areas 2A, 2B & 3 A w
Public Land: 13,054 acres 69% ` ' '••.
Private Land: 4,722 acres 25%
Reservation: 1,119 acres 6%
Total 18,895 acres 100% •- a. -
PH-2A Resort Hotels, Golf Courses,
The CTF recommendation to
Attached and Detached Residential and P.F ` zone the San Jacinto and Santa
Accessory Commercial/Service Uses i; Rosa Mountains within the
Target- 1840 Units (4600) population Palm Springs boundaries to
PH-213 Resort Hotels. Golf Courses, ,r-i--� -P 2�
one house per 40 acres
Attached an Detached Residential and i significantly reduces the
Accessory Commercial/Service uses likelihood that the 30 square
Target- 960 Units (2400) population mile Palm Hills planning areas
y�- will realize the development
PH-3 Attached and Detached Residential _
and Accessory Commercial/Service uses described in the Palm Springs
Target- 1000 Units (2500) population - General Plan.
Target Number of Units — 3800
Target Population Range- 9500
Source: Mountain Preservation Initiative Planning Analysis,
Director of Strategic Planning, 11/3/2004
i
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 40
3
Summa
ry of Findinas
ka
v
£ Accomplishments
"
• 1. The open mountain/desert entry to Palm Springs is
vital to Palm Springs' future and must be preserved.
— A 75-125' natural buffer zone should be created along Hwy
111 fully screening any development; and
— County areas along the entry corridor should be annexed.
• 2. Development in the mountain areas should be
discouraged.
— 98% of the mountain area would have its development
density cut in half to 1 unit per 40 acres, and due to restriction
on development of slope areas and other grading and
development restrictions, would be unlikely to develop.
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 8a
Summary of Findings
4416Accomplishments, continued
• 3. Preservation of substantial portions of the Chino Cane
in an undeveloped state is a priority.
— Densities are limited to less than half what is permitted by
current general plan;
— Density transfer provision would keep the base of Chino Cone
open;
— In residentially developed areas, 50% of the land would be
dedicated for open space;
— Sensitive areas, such as around Ship Rock would be preserved;
— Large-scale resorts would be reduced to 1 on non-Indian land
(Shadowrock); and
— Development around the Visitor Center will protect its historic
character.
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 8b
wd-
Summary of Findings &
Accomplishments, continued
® 4. Special Development Standards are recommended.
— For trails: encourage recreational trail use and linkages,
relocating trails in sensitive areas;
— For open space: develop a priority list and acquire sensitive
parcels, setting such- parcels aside by deed restriction;
— For grading: minimize grading and vegetation disturbance,
requiring grading bonds for security;
— For design : harmonious with natural setting, blend with
terrain, use of natural materials;
— For infrastructure: desert design without curbs, gutters,
sidewalls; no black asphalt; minimal street lighting.
CTF 9/3/2005 Community information Forum 8C
5
• CTF recommends the Chino Cone Urgency Legislation be
modified/updated with the CTF recommendations (estimated
October 2005)
• Second urgency ordinance incorporating the CTF mountain
standards adopted for the mountains (estimated November 2005)
• General Plan committee to review the CTF recommendations (next
30 days)
• Meet with Tribal representatives to review recommendations (next
30 days)
• Meet with citizen groups, property owners, developers and other
interested parties (next 30 days)
• Develop an ordinance with appropriate environmental documents
to be approved by the City or the voters and enacted prior to
expiration of urgency ordinances (in 2006)
CTF 9/3/2005 Community Information Forum 41