HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/8/2004 - STAFF REPORTS (4) 200 Pine Avenue ® �
Suite 300
Long Beach
California 90802
i . Tel (562)435-5551
Fax (562)435-5735
Memo
To: Troy Butzlaff, City of Palm Springs
From: Jonathan Brown, Adler Public Affairs
CC: Jeffrey Adler
Date: 7 September 2004
Re: JUT Public Education Budget and Schedule
In our original proposal, we budgeted for three newsletter-style mailers to be sent to all postal stops in the City of Palm Springs.
Per the City Council's request, I am providing additional options for size and quantity.
Quantity Specifications COST* Per Unit
39,000 22"x 17"folded to 8.5"x 11" $20,300 $0.52
39,000 11"x 17"folded to 11"x 5.67" $17,540 $0.45 — 9
20,000 22"x 17"folded to 8.5"x 11" $15,000 $0.75 w 9
20,000 11"x 17"folded to 11"x 5.67" $12,700 $0.64 i
*Cost is inclusive of writing, designing,printing and postage
The 39,000 quantity will allow for mailing to every postal stop in the City of Palm Springs. The 20,000 quantity will allow for
mailing to every registered voting household in the City of Palm Springs.
The City Council has expressed interest in including information about other ballot measures in these public education
materials. If the Council wishes to do so, it is our recommendation that the larger format be utilized.
Our experience is that a minimum of,three mailers is required to ensure that the information is disseminated sufficiently and the
information is retained by recipients
We recommend mailers arnVe on or about:
Tuesday October 5, 2004 (Approval Deadline: September 28)
Friday, October,15,2004 (Approval Deadline: October 8)
Wednesday, October 27,2004 (Approval Deadline: October 20)
We are grateful to the Council and Staff for selecting Adler Public Affairs to perform this important function on their behalf. We
look forward to working with you.
a
ALESHIRE &
• WYNDER, LLP
ATTO a N FVS AT LAV'
www awnttu on eys.com
INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: DAVID READY, CITY MANAGER
TROY BUTZLAFF,ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER
FROM: DAVID J.ALESFIIRE, CITY ATTORNEY
DOUGLAS P. HAUBERT,DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY
DATE: SEPTEMBER 3,2004
FILE: 1003-001
RE: MAILING INFORMATION TO REGISTERED VOTERS REGARDING UTILITY TAX
MEASURE
According to Jonathon Brown, there is a general "rile" that if the City sends
informational literature to people prior to the election, then such literature must be sent to "all
postal stops," rather than simply households with registered voters. Mr. Brown is trying to find
out where he heard this rule,but I have not heard back from him.
If the City mails to "all postal stops," then the mailing universe is approximately 40,000
households. If the City mails only to residences where there is at least one registered voter, then
the mailing universe is approximately 20,000 households. The mailing universe for those who
voted in the 2004 Primary election is smaller, approximately 8,500 households. Since voter
turnout in Presidential election years is very high—often around 80% -- it may not make sense to
go with a universe smaller than all registered voters.
We read Mr. Brown's email citing Stanson v. Mott (1976) 17 Cal.3d 206, as saying
targeted mailings are improper. In Stanson, the California Supreme Court held that expenditures
by a government agency for (or against) a ballot measure were illegal. Furthermore, public
officials who authorized such expenditures, if such authorization was negligent, may be held
personally liable for such illegal expenditures.
Stanson did not address any issues related to the target group receiving the improper
literature. Rather, Stanson discusses the content of infonnational literature (which is permitted)
as compared to campaign mailings (which is prohibited). By its discussion of the law in other
states, Stanson supports the position that dissemination of balanced information to voters is
pennissible:
"It does not necessarily follow, however, that the department was without power
to incur any expense at all in connection with the bond election. In Citizens to
Protect Pub. Funds v. Board of Education . . . [the New Jersey Supreme Court
decision written by future U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brennen], while
01003/0001/34321 01
T
David Ready, City Manager
September 3, 2004
Page 2
condemning the school board's use of public funds to advocate only one side of
an election issue, at the same time emphatically affirmed the school board's
implicit power to make "reasonable expenditures for the purpose of giving voters
relevant facts to aid them in reaching an informed judgment when voting upon the
proposal." (Emphasis added.)
The Court in Stanson, which is still the seminal case on government expenditures in
connection with ballot measures, emphasized the importance of"advocacy" words designed to
urge a voter to cast a ballot in a certain way. Even without "expressed advocacy," Stanson held
that "the determination of the propriety or impropriety of the expenditure depends upon a careful
consideration of such factors as the style, tenor and timing of the publication; no hard and fast
rile governs every case." (Emphasis added.) In other words, the core holding from Stanson is
that public agencies may send out fair, balanced, impartial, and relevant information to voters,
but should not try to persuade them to vote a certain way. It appears the most important issue is
the nature of the written materials and whether they are neutral, rather than to whom they are
directed.
In Schoeder v Irvine City Council(2002) 97 Ca1.App.4`1i 174, the Court of Appeal upheld
a voter registration drive paid for by the City of Irvine to specifically encourage its citizens to
become involved in elections by registering to vote. Although the voter registration drive was
conducted immediately before the vote on a ballot measure affecting the proposed El Toro
Airport, a matter of great concern to members of the City Council (whom opposed the Airport),
the court held that since the expenditures did not advocate either side, they were neutral and,
therefore, permissible.
Likewise, in FPPC Advice Letter A-92-102, the Fair Political Practices Commission
opined that the expenditures by the City of Carson for a "Get Out the Vote" drive were non-
partisan and did not amount to "political" activities. While the FPPC does not specifically give
advice on whether expenditures by government agencies are permissible under Stanson V. Mott,
the Corot of Appeal in Schroeder found the advice given to the City of Carson instructive in its
holding that hvine's voter registration drive was not for a"political purpose."
Because the courts have relied on FPPC advice, at least in part, in determining whether
expenditures by City governments are for a"political purpose," I contacted the FPPC. I obtained
telephonic advice from FPPC consultant Hal Dasinger that simply sending mail only to a limited
universe, such as households with a voter who voted in the last election, does not affect whether
or not the mailing is for a"political purpose"within the meaning of the Political Reform Act.
hi conclusion, an argument can be made (supported by the FPPC in a "nonbinding"
fashion) that so long as the materials are balanced and neutral, they do not become "political"
advocacy solely as a result of sending them to those eligible or likely to vote in an election. (Of
course, the result may be different if mailings are targeted at specific voter groups based on party
registration or other preferences.) However, given the likelihood of high turnout in the
01003/0001/34321.01
David Ready, City Manager
September 3, 2004
Page 3
November election, we think it may be safer to use a universe of all registered voters, rather than
some target group of likely voters, if there is a challenge based on the content of the materials.
Finally, we are not sure of the relative cost of mailings to 40,000 versus 20,000 or 8,500
households. This should be factored in and the mailing universe should be only diminished for
significant savings. can find no legal authority that suggests it is improper to send information
only to registered voters. Do not hesitate to contact us at (949) 223-1170, if you have any
questions or wish to discuss this matter further.
[END OF MEMORANDUM]
01003/0001/34321 01
. ''EH
�
LL WYNDER, P
AT'PORNLYS AY LAW
www.awa mrn eY"cam
MEMORANDUM
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF PALM
SPRINGS
FROM: DAVID J. ALESHIRE
DATE: SEPTEMBER 8,2004
FILE: 01003-0001
RE: DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS IN CHINO CONE AND ADJACENT AREAS
A. INTRODUCTION
At the City Council meeting on September 1, Councilman Pougnet raised the issue of
adopting a moratorium enacting development restrictions in the Urban Reserve area in the Chino
Cone. He asked for a report from this office as to how an ordinance could be developed on this
subject. On September 2, the Director of Strategic Plainiing and I met with Councilmembers
Pougnet and Mills to discuss different mechanisms of development control. This report is an
outgrowth of the Council request and the above meeting.
B. RECOMMENDATION
That staff prepare an urgency interim zoning ordinance enacting more restrictive
standards in the Chino Cone and Highway I II Corridor and bring the ordinance back to a
Council meeting on September 22 or 29 for adoption.
C. STATUTORY AUTHORITY
Government Code Section 65858 authorizes a city to adopt, as an urgency measure, an
interim ordinance prohibiting land uses which may be in conflict with a general plan, specific
plan, or zoning proposal that the City is considering, studying or intending to study within a
reasonable period of time, without following the procedures otherwise required for the adoption
of a zoning ordinance. An urgency ordinance must be adopted by a four-fifths vote of the City
Council. No notice or hearing is required for the first adoption. (Beck Dev. Co. v. Southern Pac.
Transp. Co. (1996) 44 Cal.App.4`h 1160.)
Although the common concept of a building moratorium is that all development is halted
during the moratorium, under this statutory authority the city, on an urgency basis, actually
adopts regulations wider which development can proceed while permanent regulations are
studied. The goal is to not allow inconsistent development to occur while the study is being
conducted.
09999/0002/34341.01
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council, City of Palm Springs
September 8, 2004
Page 2
Before adopting or extending an interim ordinance, the City Council must make the
finding that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, or that
the approval of additional subdivisions, use permits, variances, building permits, or the like,
would result in such a threat. The findings must be contained in the ordinance. (216 Sutter Bay
Assoes. v. County of Sutter (1997) 58 Ca1.App.4"' 860.) Ten days prior to the expiration of the
ordinance, the City Council must issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate
the condition that led to the adoption of the ordinance. (Gov't Code Section 65858(d).)
If an interim ordinance is initially adopted without notice and a hearing, the ordinance is
effective for 45 days. (Gov't Code Section 65858.) The City Council may extend the interim
ordinance once for 10 months and 15 days, and a second time for one additional year, both
extensions would require notice and a hearing. (Id.) Like the ordinance itself, any extension
requires a four-fifths vote.
D. FACTUALBACKGROUND
The Chino Cone has long been recognized as not only one of the most unique areas of
Palm Springs, but in the entire state, It rises from the desert floor some 2,000 feet to where the
Valley Station of the Palm Springs Aerial Tram ascends another 6,500 feet to the forests of Mt.
San Jacinto. The broad reach of the Chino Cone alluvial fan is visible for miles from many
different directions.
The unique features of the Chino Cone have always been recognized in the City's general
plan process. In 1959 the area was studied in a General Plan Report and a plan for the area was
produced in 1966. A spectrum of residential densities was proposed from 1 unit per 5 acres to
43.5 uiuts per acre, including resort hotel and commercial areas. The urban reserve concept was
reconnnended as a holding zone until specific development plans could be proposed. No
development was to be permitted on slopes steeper than 30%. These standards were continued in
the 1993 general plan.
Although through the years, many developers have considered development of the Chino
Cone, the difficulty of the rocky terrain, environmental constraints, the land ownership patterns
and general real estate market conditions have kept any developer from actually getting permits.
The largest scale project approved in the Chino Cone was the Shadowrock Project where a
development agreement was approved by Council Resolution 1462 in 1993 (PSMC 94.08.05).
The Development Agreement provided for a destination resort hotel/golf course, 60 unit hotel,
135 single family luxury estates and 210 luxury condominiums in the upper portion of the Cone,
below the "oasis."
However, environmental litigation ensued after project approval, and by the time it was
resolved, the real estate market for hotel resorts had evaporated and the developer has been
seeking financing ever since,
09999/0002/34341.01
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council, City of Palm Springs
September 8, 2004
Page 3
After a slow real estate market in Palm Springs in the 1990's developers who had
experienced success "down valley" began to investigate Palm Springs and significant projects
were proposed on the fringes of the developed areas. Century Homes proposed Mountain Gate I
along Highway I I I at the entry to Palm Springs, and its success immediately led to Mountain
Gate II. The two projects include some 514 units. These were pretty much standard mid-market
subdivision proposals with density at 4 units to the acre. Moreover, on the Chino Cone itself,
several lesser density luxury residential projects were proposed, but generated significant
neighborhood concern as requiring too much grading and not being sufficiently sensitive to the
terrain, among other issues. F\ T a�4�
This, along with development proposals in other po�oo e City, has led to the
" IT11`snde Initiative," which has uali" for the March b'afl The measure classifies land in the
"lv3ouniat��egion an provides that the laud can on y be subdivided into 40 acre lots for
development of a'single unit. Within these lots, only an area of some 10,000 square feet can be
developed (about .5% of the area) with a structure of no more than 5,000 square feet and with a
height limit of 18 feet. Vested projects are exempt from the new regulations.
Most of the Chino Cone is now zoned urban reserve (PSMC 92.22.00). The urban
reserve designation permits the land uses consistent with the General Plan. In this area, General
Plan land uses include hotel, single family residential, multifamily residential, resort commercial
and recreational land uses all development must be master planned with a Planned Development
District and must have an EIR prepared. The development standards require development
proposals in 40 acre increments and minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet, but of course,
through the planned development district mechanism, development can be approved to lesser
standards (PSMC 94.03.00).
E. PROPOSED INTERIM STANDARDS
If the City's current urban reserve .classification leaves the development of the Chino
Cone open to, perhaps, too wide of a range of development proposals which has generated the
Hillside Initiative, and if the Hillside Initiative itself with its 40-acre minimum lot size restriction
is too restrictive, is there a middle concept which could respond to citizen concerns yet permit
development sensitive to the unique qualities of the Chino Cone? The Director of Strategic
Planning and this office have attempted in the last week to develop such a concept.
Although subject to debate and further reflection, we are proposing the following
elements.
1. Area The area of concern is not simply the Chino Cone, but the entire entry to
the City. A portion of this area is under the jurisdiction of the County and
development projects not meeting City standards are now under construction.
09999/0002/34341.01
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council, City of Palm Springs
September 8, 2004
Page 4
The proposal would include all areas on the west of Highway I I I from Snow
Creek to the Chino Cone excluding County territory.
2. Sub-areas. The sub-areas are: Area#1 - Palm Springs Aerial Tram; Area#2 -
Shadowrock; Area#3 -Agua Caliente Reservation; Area#4 - Tramway South;
Area 45 - Visitor Center (including a commercial development sub-area); Area#6
- Chino Cone Gateway; Area#7 - Chino Creek; Area#8 - Highway I I I Corridor;
and Area#9 - Snow Creels.
3. Process. Government Code 65858 permits the adoption of interim zoning
standards while studies are conducted to develop more long term standards. The
interim standards can be enacted on an urgency basis but the permanent standards
must be enacted within 2 years. The proposal is that on an interim basis within
each of the sub-areas or "Planning Areas," a specific plan must be proposed for
the "Planning Areas." A specific plan must be created by ordinance and requires
public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. We would
retain the requirement in the current urban reserve area that a specific plan require
full environmental review. In this instance, an added community planning
component would be required.
4. Planning Standards. Development of each Planning Area would require the
following components:
a. Master planning of road alignment;
b. Traffic analysis;
C. Bikeway and trail plan;
d. Water conservation and availability analysis;
e. Infrastructure plan;
f. Minimum development standards: Compliance with density standards of
Planning Area;
g. Fiscal Impact Analysis;
h. Open space plan;
i. Environmental review.
09999/0002/34341.01
The Honorable Mayor and Members of the
City Council, City of Palm Springs
September 8, 2004
Page 5
5. Density of Development. The density of development proposed in each Planning
Area during the interim period is as follows:
a. Planning Area 1: 1 unit per 40 acres;
b. Planning Area 2: Shadowrock Development Agreement;
C. Planning Area 3: 2 units per acre: 20,000 square foot minimum lots;
d. Planning Area 4: 2 units per acre: 20,000 square foot minimum lots;
e. Planning Area 5: resort commercial and residential;
f. Planning Area 6: 2 units per acre: 20,000 square foot minimum lots;
g. Planning Area 7: watercourse and recreation;
h. Planning Area 8: 1 unit per 2.5 acres.
i. Planning Area 9: 1 unit per 20 acres.
6. Grandfather Clause. It is proposed that all projects with approvals of
entitlements, including development agreements, be permitted to proceed under
such entitlements.
F. CONCLUSION
The draft specific interim regulations and diagram are attached as Exhibits A and B.
The purpose of the interim regulations is to reassure the public that there will be a
detailed planing process before any further projects are approved in the Chino Cone and
Highway 111 Corridor. Until detailed regulations are adopted, the interim standards will require
a master plan including the backbone transportation and infrastructure systems, a trail and open
space plan, analysis of water usage and availability, environmental review, and a fiscal impact
analysis to assure that the development will pay sufficient fees to not be a burden on the
provision of public service.
09999/0002/34341.01
CHINO CANYON SPECIFIC PLAN AREA INTERIM ZONING REGULATIONS
CREATING SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS FOR
CHINO CANYON, SNOW CREEK, AND SOUTH SIDE OF HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR
BETWEEN GATEWAY DRIVE AND CITY LIMITS
(September 8, 2004)
SPECIFIC PLAN AREAS
The required Specific Plans shall provide a comprehensive land use plan which must comply with
the goals and policies of the General Plan and this Ordinance. Each Specific Plan shall develop
a detailed land use evaluation to assign land use and density to ensure that land uses are fairly
allocated to all properties with potential development opportunities. Planning areas may be
combined into larger Specific Plans. An Environmental Impact Report is required for each Specific
Plan.
The following Planning Areas and development criteria have been established based upon property
ownership, parcel configuration, topography, and other planning considerations.
PLANNING AREA NO. 1 - PALM SPRINGS AERIAL TRAMWAY: This area includes the Palm
Springs Aerial Tramway Valley Station and accesory improvements. All current codes and
ordinances shall apply to all properties owned, leased or managed by the Palm Springs Aerial
Tramway. All other properties shall be limited to one (1) dwelling unit per40 acres. Allowable land
uses and property development standards in Section 92.21.01 "O"Open Land Zones, Palm Springs
Zoning Ordinance (PSZO), shall apply.
PLANNING AREA NO.2-SHADOWROCK: This area shall be designated Development Agreement
No. 2 per Section 94.08.05, PSZO. This Planning Area shall be developed in accordance with
Section 94.08.05 Shadowrock Development Agreement, PSZO. This Development Agreement and
related land use approvals provide for the ultimate development of a destination resort project
consistent with the General Plan. The project is composed of: (a) an eighteen (18)-hole
championship golf course, clubhouse, and driving range; (b) one hundred thirty-five (135)single-
Page 1 of 6
family and luxury estates; (c) ten (10) luxury bungalows; (d) two hundred (200) luxury
condominiums; and (e) a sixty (60) unit hotel building and spa/fitness/tennis facility. The
Shadowrock Development Agreement also approved two(2)alternative development scenarios as
to the hotel and tennis facility phase: (i)alternative 1 being a four hundred ninety (490) unit hotel,
and (ii) alternative 2 being two hundred eleven (211) single-family and luxury estate homes.
PLANNING AREA NO. 3 - AGUA CALIENTE BAND OF CAHUILLA INDIANS RESERVATION:
This area is designated single-family residential development with a maximum density of two (2)
units per acre. Minimum lot size shall be 20,000 square feet of net lot area. Density transfers and
clustering of residential units shall be permitted in conjunction with the development of a resort or
championship golf course only. Property development standards including but not limited to
building height, setbacks, lot coverage, landscaping, and exterior lighting shall be established in
the Specific Plan.
PLANNING AREA NO. 4 -TRAMWAY SOUTH: This area is designated single-family residential
development with a maximum density of two (2) units per acre. Minimum lot size shall be 20,000
square feet of net lot area. Density transfers and clustering of residential units shall be permitted
in conjunction with the development of a resort or championship golf course only. Property
development standards including but not limited to building height, setbacks, lot coverage,
landscaping, and exterior lighting shall be included in the Specific Plan. Access to Planning Area
No. 4 shall be Tramway or Racquet Club Road only. Emergency access to existing roadways
located east shall be required. A specialty park shall be provided in accordance with the General
Plan designation.
PLANNING AREAS NO. 5 and 5-A-VISITORS' CENTER: This Planning Area shall be limited to,
single-family and multi-family residential development, (four (4) to six (6) units per acre) resort
commercial, hotels, resort hotels, visitor serving activities, retail, and public and quasi public
parking. Property adjacent to the Palm Springs Visitors'Centershall be a mixture of hotels, resort,
commercial, and other related uses. The Specific Plan shall require consideration for enhancing
the existing Palm Springs Visitors' Center, designation of a fire station site, and the Palm Springs
Aerial Tramway. Property development standards including, but not limited to, land use intensity
Page 2 of 6
and density, building height, lot coverage, landscaping, parking, and exterior lighting shall be
included in the Specific Plan.
The Area designated as Planning Area 5-A is the property surrounding the existing Palm Springs
Visitors' Center and Palm Springs entry way sign. The City Council has determined that property
surrounding the Visitors' Center ( a portion of Assessors Parcel No. 504-040-045, and -001) may
be developed with a focused Specific Plan provided the proposed land uses are complementary
and compatible with the Palm Springs Visitors' Center. Permitted land uses shall be resort hotels,
hotels, tourist related commercial uses, restaurants (no fast food or drive-thru), entertainment,
public facilities, public parking, retail, and multi-family residential. All land uses shall be compatible
with surrounding land uses.
PLANNING AREA NO. 6 - CHINO CANYON GATEWAY: This area is designated single-family
residential development with a maximum density of two (2) units per acre. Minimum lot size shall
be 20,000 square feet of net lot area. Density transfers and clustering of residential units shall be
permitted in conjunction with the development of a resort or championship golf course. Property
development standards including but not limited to building height, setbacks, lot coverage,
landscaping, and exterior lighting shall be included in the Specific Plan.
A detailed analysis of the North Palm Canyon Drive (State Highway 111) street frontage shall be
prepared which provides for expansive parkways, view corridors, screening of development, and
landscape shall be included in the Specific Plan.
PLANNING AREA NO. 7-CHINO CREEK: This Planning Area shall be limited to watercourse and
public recreation uses. This Planning Area may be merged with Planning Areas Nos. 2, 3, 6, or 8
for planning purposes and development purposes. Land uses shall be limited to public parks, golf
course, trails (equestrian, mountain bike, and hiking). The property surrounding the large rock
outcropping adjacent to North Palm Canyon Drive shall be considered for a National Monument
Visitors' Center, trail head, and other related uses. View corridors shall be maintained.
PLANNING AREA NO. 8-HIGHWAY 111 CORRIDOR: This Planning Area shall be limited to very
Page 3 of 6
low-density residential development not exceeding one(1)unit per 2.5 acres. The purpose of this
Planning Area is to preserve the rural character of the area and to allow very low-density residential
development, including large ranch and estate lots. Also included in this Planning Area is the need
for a public recreation amenity which could include a public park, trail head or other related public
recreation and open-space amenities.
PLANNING AREA NO. 9 - SNOW CREEK: This Planning Area is limited to conservation of the
existing watercourse and very low-density residential development. Residential development shall
be limited to one (1) unit per 20 acres for property located outside of the flood plain.
GENERAL REQUIREMENTS
COMMUNITY PLANNING REQUIREMENT
Prior to the preparation of any required Specific Plan, the project proponent, developer, and/or
developers shall fund a comprehensive community planning program that shall be conducted by
the City. The results of this program will be to develop a Strategic Management Plan for
development of the required Specific Plan. Public involvement will be required throughout the
Specific Plan and development entitlement process.
CIRCULATION / ROADWAYS
1. A roadway alignment studyfor all secondary,collector,and local roadways within the Chino
Cone area as shown on the General Plan shall be prepared as part of a Specific Plan.
2. The study shall include a traffic analysis for the entire Chino Cone and a comprehensive
roadway, bikeway, and trails plan. Design standards for each roadway shall be developed
including special roadway sections,median islands, landscaped parkways,decorative, and
safety lighting. Roadway design and location shall be designed to take advantage of view
corridors, active and passive recreation, and screen proposed development.
3. Each Planning Area shall provide circulation and roadway improvements that provide
Page 4 of 6
adequate circulation and access to adjacent properties.
4. A bikeway, sidewalk, equestrian trail, and hiking trail plan shall be developed to provide
recreational amenities and trail linkages.
LARGE-SCALE RESORTS: In accordance with the General Plan, there are three large-scale
resorts within the Specific Plan Areas. A large-scale resort may be permitted in the areas shown
on the General Plan provided thefollowing minimum property development standards are complied
with:
1. A minimum of 75% of the lot project site shall be devoted to open space and
recreational land uses.
2. A large-scale resort shall include a minimum of forty (40) acres.
3. Building height shall be limited to thirty (30)feet in height. Additional building heights
may be permitted within a Specific Plan area provided it can be demonstrated that
adequate setbacks and view corridors are provided.
WATER CONSERVATION: For all developments located within the boundaries of this Ordinance,
the Specific Plan shall include a comprehensive water availability analysis and water conservation
program. Water availability analysis shall comply with the provisions of SB221 and SB 610 with
the exception that such analysis shall be required for all Specific Plan areas except Planning Areas
Nos. 2 (Shadowrock) and 5-A (Visitors Center). The use of treated wastewater effluent for golf
course areas shall be evaluated and considered.
RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE: Each Specific Plan shall include a recreation and open space
element. Desired recreation and open space amenities include passive and active recreation.
Each Specific Plan area shall have linkages and continuity of recreation and open space amenities.
Recreation areas and open space shall have public access. On-site private recreation amenities
shall meet or exceed General Plan criteria. Speciality parks and other amenities shall be provided
in accordance with the General Plan.
Page 5 of 6
INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS AND SERVICES: Acomprehensive
program for the provision for and development of all required infrastructure and public services shall
be included in each Specific Plan.
FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS: Each Planning Area and Specific Plan shall have a comprehensive
Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared under the direction of the City which demonstrates that all
infrastructure and public services are provided for without becoming a burden on the City.
Page 6 of 6
M1 u
FORM GIVER,*
5 >7vi4
lit;hway l
�
y�y
i „" ,� ✓' yM df ks 0, '� '1 � � s
ae rt a ba l
yy
I
tim1
,=a
,.. _,
'''�
COMMENTS TO THE CITY COUNCIL
FROM: Frank Gaydos,
Member, Mountain Preservation Conservancy
DATE: September 8, 2004
PALM SPRINGS HILLSIDE
DEVELOPMENT MORATORIUM
I. Preface to Moratorium Request Statement:
Quotes from "The Heart is Fire" The world of the Cahuilla
Indians of Southern California, by Deborah Dozier:
"The land's the most important thing. If you don't have land,
you have nothing...This was given to us by our Creator, to take
care of it, to live here in harmony with it, and that's why we
were put here, to protect it." Katherine Saubel
"Old man Pedro Chino used to say, "This land is alive. It is
alive. In Cahuilla, what he was saying to me is that the heart is
fire, the heart of the land. He said, "That is why you can see
where it breathes." Alvino Silva
"I can sit on a rock and think how many generations, how
many hundreds of generations of Cahuillas have sat on that
rock and thought, "This is mine, this is where I come from.
Not "mine" in the sense of possessing it, but "mine" in that I
am part of it, my world. And to be able to know that it is going
to be there. To maintain it, so that five generations down the
road, somebody will sit on that same rock and have the same
feelings." Jo May Modesto
z
"I remember we were told as youngsters that you never
destroy plants around you, or trees or rocks around you. They
are alive. That is where you get your energy, from all those
things around you. So you don't destroy all those things.
That's what we were told. Now, when I see the non Indians
destroying everything around here, they are destroying all of us"
Katherine Saubel
H. Comments on Cahuilla Indian Quotes:
The rocks and landscape are alive. It provides us energy, it
breathes like we do and "The Heart is Fire."
Many of us "non-Indians" have the soul and the spirit of the
Indian. We too see the land as a "living" entity, as part of us,
not alien, but in harmony with our waking and sleeping lives.
That's why many of us built our homes on the Chino Canyon
hillsides. To be closer to nature, the rocks, plants, the birds,
reptiles and animals that also call it home.
It wasn't for land values, it wasn't for greed and wasn't to
destroy the natural landscape that is an integral part of the
magic of Palm Springs.
For decades there has been minimal growth on the hillside.
Those who built here in the 1940,s and 50's were the true
pioneers of the area. The flatlands around the center of Palm
Springs were seen as the most desirous place to live. The
hillsides were covered with huge rocks, mesquite, scrub cactus
and populated with snakes and other critters not compatible
with "city folk." But many loved that rugged terrain and
sought refuge in its beauty and quite serenity.
3
Now the hillside is threatened with large scale housing tract
developments. Gated communities that will destroy the
balance of nature, keeping people in and nature out.
What the Chino Canyon neighborhood wants is simple. We
want the City of Palm Springs to slow down, take a breath as
they revise the General Plan and form a vision for protecting
the remaining hillsides around its northwest slopes.
There is a precedent for a Moratorium on hillside development
and tangible, valid reasons for making it happen. Hundreds of
residents from south to Vista Chino, north to the Tramway
Road and west of Palm Canyon Drive have signed petitions to
halt development and many hundreds more are waiting for the
appropriate forum to make their voices heard.
III. Justification for the City of Palm Springs to Consider a
Moratorium on Hillside Development:
1. The City of Palm Springs is currently updating and
revising its General Plan. The General Plan is a "master
plan' for the city that guides land use, traffic and
circulation and economic, cultural, environmental and
social policies.
• Why have a General Plan? State law requires all cities to
have a comprehensive long-term plan that directs
development of the community.
• The City of Palm Springs has not revised its General
Plan since 19 5'�3
4
• Who revises the Plan? A General Plan Steering
Committee representing the business, public sector and
recognized neighborhood groups under the supervision
and guidance of the Planning Commission.
2. The Moratorium. What is it?
• A moratorium is a temporary halt to all major
development projects. It gives the city time to
evaluate its remaining vacant land, especially in
scenic, hillside areas that have scenic, cultural and
environmental importance to the city and the
community.
3. Palm Desert's Moratorium:
• In May, 2003 the City of Palm Desert instituted a
moratorium on new development. They did permit
developers to submit project proposals, but for more
than 9 months, there was a halt to development
while the city was able to revise its General Plan.
This sets a precedent in the Coachella Valley and we
recommend the City of Palm Springs pursue the same course.
Other Reasons:
4. The Historical/Architectural Survey is being conducted
and the results will be available ,2004.
5. CVAG's "Fish, Game & Wildlife Multi-Species Natural
Habitat Plan is currently being reviewed by Cities in
Riverside County and its results will have an impact on
hillside development (Re: Shadowrock Development
Project)
4p. March 8, 2005 "Yes on the Palm Springs Mountain Initiative."
. March 8, 2005 Palm Hills Referendum.
Note: There should be a moratorium on all hill side building until
the above Initiative and Referendum are voted on by the
citizens of Palm Springs.
Charles Ira Sachs �� � ��
335 Vilest Mariscal Road
6j
l'alrrs springs,cap 92262-290755
(760)325-53981 onrs@oarthlink.net
September 8, 2004
SUBJECT: Moratorium: Chino Cone/Highway#111/Snow Creek
To Whom It May Concern:
It is with great appreciation that there is a serious review and consideration by the City of Halm
Springs to put a Moratorium in effect on any development in the Chino Cone, along Highway
#111, Snow Creel:and related areas for the betterment of the approach to Palm Springs. This
beautiful gateway is unique In the visual calm to our not congested and peaceful community. It is
imperative that a fair, balanced and timely plan be established with all parties concerned in
agreement.
Key, which I am sure all parties understand, is that once this landscape Is gone, It will be gone
forever.With all the varied environmental Issues at hand that could be effected by any changes in
the landscape, such as water, power, community support,
It is our last chance to carefully make that choice that less is more. A famous quote about
pollution Is Lee Iacocca, when questioned about the environment, he asked, "How much clean air
do we need?"The same can be said here. "How much landscape do we really need?"The
answer is obvious; all we can get to retain that which is unique for our community.
To date there is too much of a rush to judgment, using out dated plans and statistics to make
decisions that In the long run, could greatly hunt this community, and could be fatal In the end.
We all surely only want the best for Palm Springs and area communities. Your positive plan must
put a hold on development of this corridor for us to step back, review options, so that In the long
run it Is good for all parties concerned. My thanks for your thoughtful Implementation of a fair and
timely Moratorium.
Yours m s 4in er ly,
(6harleel,ra a�a hs'
��1
t
September 8, 2004
CENTURY
VINTAGE
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
g
t A 0 M E S City of Palm Springs
3200 East Tahquitz Canyon Way
By Century Crowell Palm Springs, CA 92263
Subject: Proposed Urgency Zoning Ordinance
Honorable Mayor& City Council:
We were recently informed that the City Council would be considering an
Urgency Zoning Ordinance for the area known as the "Chino Canyon Area." While the
City Council agenda,did not provide sufficient information to determine the nature of the
zoning measures proposed, we learned this morning that the urgency ordinance
includes density reductions for several planning areas that would significantly impact the
value of property affected by the urgency ordinance, including property in which Century
Crowell Communities has an interest. In addition, we are concerned that some of the
density reductions may be inconsistent with the City's adopted General Plan Land Use
and Housing Elements. For these reasons, we respectfully request that the Urgency
Ordinance be amended to mirror the permitted densities in the current General Plan.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the ordinance and look forward to
working with the City and its staff in the future.
Sincerely,
Stephen Long
Project Director
Century Crowell Communities
1535 South "l)" Street, Suite 200, San Bernardino, California, 92408, (909) 381-6007, Fax (909) 381-0041
1-800-BUY-CENTURY!, http://wwwcenturyvintage.com