The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGENERAL PLAN COMMITTEE 1975 1 ANALYSIS OF CITY EMPLOYEES VS . POPULATION (1) PALM DESERT Certified Population 140165 Employees 21. 5 F-nployee/Capita 1/659 (1) INDIAN {SELLS Certified Population 1,406 Employees 6. 5 • Employee/Capita 1/215 (1) RANCHO MIRAGE Certified Population 5, 340 Employees 10. 5 Employee/Capita 1/509 (2) INDIO Certified Population 18, 100 Employees 153 Employee/Capita 1/118 7/2/75 Notes : (1) Numerous contractural services (2) Full service City INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Honorable Mayor Clark FROM: Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Review of Public Projects DATE: State Government Code Section 65400-65402 June 27, 1975 1 . Judge ruled that we have a General Plan in compliance with State Law. 2. Therefore, Sections 65400 - 65402 apply. 3. The determination required under Section 65402 (c) cannot be made. 4. The law does not provide for the ability of the School District to overrule such a finding. 5. However, there is an escape clause. If the Planning Commission does not,respond in 40 days, the project is automatically deemed in conformance. The evaluation of this Section of the Code is really a matter to be done by the City Attorney which is particularly in the area of the possible Escape Clause which the City may utilize when we have projects like the proposed school expansion. While it appears that the City is mandated to make this review, politically, the Commission may wish to ignore request for finding of conformance during any period that the General Plan would not be in effect. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PALM DESERT P. 0. Box 1511 Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 January 20, 1975 Mayor Henry Clark and. Members of the Palm Desert City Council: Re: Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report At a Board of Directors Meeting of Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert, held on January 13, 1975 , A resolution was unanimously passed ap- proving and requesting that changes be made in the Palm Desert Pro- posed General Plan and Environmental Impact Report as requested by the Palm Desert Property Owners Association; a copy of which is attached hereto marked Exhibit A. We respectfully request that the changes in Exhibit A be made and that the Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report, so revised, be submitted by the City Council for public hearing and approved by the City Council on Monday, February 3, 1975 . Yours Truly, CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PALM DESERT r President :7 Secretary ~ PALM DESERT 'ROPERTY OWNERS A. )CIATION 113.0. BOX 1244 PALM DBSGR'1', CALIFORNIA 92260 Tntnrziotrn (714) 341r28G4 A Non-Profit Corporation January 17, 1975 Palm Desert City Council 45-275 Prickly Pear ��X�� Palm Desert , Calif . 92260 Dear Members of the Council: The Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Property Owners Associa- tion at a special meeting held. January 17 , 1.975 adopted the following resolutions . We respectfully request the following changes in the proposed Palm Desert General Plan and Environmental Impact Report: 1 . In the Sphere of Influence of the Palm Desert General Plan , remove all recommendations and land development classifications except those in the current Riverside County General Plan including those areas classified as "Open Space and Planned Development - 3 or less" . a . It is unreasonable of Palm Desert to impose development classifications on areas outside the Incorporated City limits of Palm Desert until applications are made for annexation . To do so may deter those in the Sphere of Influence from requestingannexation . b . Annexation in many part of the Sphere of Influence may be years- off . Land Use can be better negotiated at the time annexation is in process . C . To include in the Palm Desert General Plan specific develop- ment classifications in the Sphere of Influence distorts all factors , environmental and economic , pertaining to the In- corporated area of Palm Desert . No corporation would include in their financial statement a forecast of income on property they hope to buy at some future time but .may never do so. 2 . Remove all reference in the General Plan , in word or classification, that would give the impression that "Regional Hotels or Motels (convention oriented) was desired or would be permitted. a . The proposed 300 to 400 hotel rooms located along or near to Highway III and West of Highway 74 should be removed from the General Plan. Adverse traffic , noise , economic problems in off season , as well as adverse effect on environmental Paam Desert Property Owners Association Jan0. />17 ,, 1{975 .el�g �'2 factors would negate any advantages that such developments would provide . b . Palm Desert should utilize the many presently unoccupied living units that are vacant for tourist rentals . Many units have never been used . They were built for second homes but were found unsatisfactory for anything but short term occu- pancy. To encourage their use as rental units may prevent these developments from becoming a blight on Palm Desert . c . As more tourist space is required allow more Hotels or Motels to be built similar to those now in Palm Desert . These do not need to be concentrated West of Highway 74 where traffic problems exist . Maintain the established character and charm of Palm Desert as a quiet, restful and relaxing place to vacation for a week, a month, or longer and have fun without noise , confusion and congestion created by large hotels . Vacationing is unique in Palm Desert . Few other places can offer what has made it famous and therefore cannot compete with us . 3 . Remove all reference in the General Plan , in words or classifica- tions that would give the impression that "Regional Commercial Buildings or Shopping" were desired or would be permitted . a . Change the classification of all vacant property adjacent to , and on both sides of Highway Ill, Painters Path and El Paseo to "C .P .S ." and establish the following restrictions as a . part of the classifications of C .P .S . 1 . Maximum square footage 40,000. Reference example : Market Basket presently has approximately 18 , 000 sq . ft . and 9000 is being added - total less than 30, 000. Safe- way approximately 25 ,000 sq . ft. Food King approx. 27 ,500. 2 . Maximum of 2 stories in height . 3. Provide ample parking space without crowding. 4. The area described herein (a) for C .P .S . will not accom- modate larger commmercial developments without seriously damaging all of Palm Desert . 4. Eliminate from the General Plan all residential classifications except the following. a. "Very Low Density - 1 to 3 to the acre" b . "Low Density - 3 to 5 to the acre" . (The density of 3 - 5 to also apply to any residential develop- ments in commercial areas . ) (The density to apply to single or multiple family units . ) c . Maintain the present concept and quality of all residential units to preserve the uniqueness that is Palm Desert . Palm llcaerl Properly 0w nero AesociaGon J ar. ' / , Pg 3 d . Eliminate the "town house" conception of residential buildings in the incorporated area of Palm Desert and conform to the existing character. of low profile single story homes with desert atmosphere and ample set back and outside patio space for outdoor living. 1 . This will save energy in heating and air conditioning. 2 . Easier and less expensive to maintain . 3. Two story and town houses may be fine for other areas but there is ample proof that they are a drug on the market in Palm Desert . Hundreds of them have not sold and are now vacant. 4. With a maximum of 3 to 5 to the acre there is still plenty of room for open space . Example : Marrakesh, Sandpiper and others . In one residential development ( ) the one story units sold quickly but the two story units have not sold. Without mentioning names here , we will be glad to provide proof there are hundreds of vacant town houses and two story units . 5 . On the "Information Sheet: Palm Desert Plan" provided by the City. No . 4 on Page 2 , it states in part that the "Units projected for the existing City Limits will mean an average residential density of "2 . 32 dwelling units per acre ." There should therefore be no quarrel with our request to have only 2 residential classifications 0 to 3 and 3 to 5 per acre . These 2 residential classifications will attract the type of developers desired and eliminate applications for the type of residential units that have proved to be unpopular and unsatisfactory in Palm Desert. 5 . We continue our request that the Environmental Impact Report be revised so that it legally conforms with all Environmental laws . The changes requested herein (1 thru 4) will materially reduce the adverse Environmental effects of the General Plan . The argu- ment that higher density (7 to 18) in some areas will allow more open space and therefore have less adverse Environmental effect is not true . Contrary to this it has been proven that a concentration of higher density multiplies the adverse effect on the environment by geometric proportions . (Dr . Pitts of the University of Cali- fornia in Riverside. ) We respectfully request that the General Plan and Environmental Impact Report be adopted in conformance with the foregoing requests or post- poned until these suggestions can be studied and the General Plan re- vised accordingly. In our opinion these suggestions are in accord with the input from the residents of Palm Desert . The General Plan, as ; submitted by Wilsey and Ham, is foreign to the wishes of the public and 1?*In�Deaert Property Owners Association Jan . 17 , 1975 � i'F5 • 4 is not consistent or compatible with the City of Palm Desert . Com- plaints from all segments of Palm Desert have been expressed on the proposed General Plan . The Council was elected on the campaign promises to follow the wishes of the people . We respectfully request they follow these wishes now in adopting a General Plan that will preserve the unity , beauty and environmental quality of Palm Desert . Yours truly, PAU1 DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION t 1 _ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Dave Erwin, City Attorney SUBJECT: Referendum Committee Litigation DATE: June 20 , 1975 The hearing with regard to attorney' s fees , if any that may be levied against the City of Palm Desert , was continued to July 11, 1975 after the election. The hearing with regard to modification of the Court ' s opinion eliminating reference to the return to the Cove Communities General Plan was held this morning and argued. The matter was taken under submission by the Judge with an indication that he may or may not rule prior to the election. I have no feelings one way or the other about the way the Judge may rule, nor did I have any indication from him as to his feelings one way or the other, other than he did not wish to become involved in the local politics in the City of Palm Desert. It was additionally argued by Mr. Burrell that the Court would fashion. an interim General Plan to be effective if the Referendum were successful against the General Plan which would encompass the existing General Plan and the amendments proposed by the Referendum Committee . It was the Judge ' s indication that he had no intention of doing this because this was a discretionary matter better left to the City Council . At some future time when we do have some further informa- tion, I will let you know. I D R A F T June 19, 1975 NEWSLETTER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE METHENY ' S OPINION ON THE GENERAL PLAN REFERENDUM Judge Metheny indicated that City Council was obligated to either rescind the City ' s General Plan or call for a General Plan election. Judge Metheny' s opinion did not speak to the subject of quality or adequacy of the City' s General Plan. This the Palm Desert electorate must decide. The election will not automatically determine whether or not petitioners ' requested changes will be included in a revised General Plan . This the City Council must determine through the normal hearing process on General Plan revisions. D R A F T June 18, 1975 NEWSLETTER SUPERIOR COURT J GE METHENY' S OPINION ON THE REFERENDUM Judge Metheny me ly indicated that in his judicial opinion, the City Council wa obligated to accept the legality of the Referendum petitio and either rescind the City ' s General Plan or call for General Plan election. Judge Metheny' s opinion did not i any respect speak to the subject of quality or adequacy of the City ' s General Plan. He indicated that this wa something the Palm Desert electorate must decide. Th election itself will not automatically determine whether o not the petitioners' requested changes will be included in a revised General Plan. This is something that the majorit of the City Council must determine through the .normal h \aring process on General Plan revisions . \ t w } D R A F T June 18, 1975 NEWSLETTER THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN What Is It? -- A description of the vision of the citizens of Palm Desert for the future character of their City and a definition of City policies to assist future public and private decision making. Why Have One? -- California State Law mandates that Palm g Desert have a general plan with elements by no later than July 1, 1975. The State explicitly requires a "GENERAL PLAN" , not a "specific plan". The General Plan was adopted by majority City Council action on January 20, 1975. How Was It Developed? -- This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens' Advisory Com- mittee, Planning Commission, and City Council , as well as hundreds of citizens contributing thier opinions at 42 open meetings. There was also communication with 70 organizations, agencies, and groups soliciting input . Consulting services cost the City approximately $35, 000. Professional staff input coveted a span of 11 months. How Is the General Plan Changed? -- By State Statute, each element of the General Plan is subject to change up to 3 times per year and must be reviewed at least once a year . The General Plan is easy to change since it is adopted by simple resolution after only one advertised hearing, and becomes effective immediately - total time 14 days. In comparison , the Zoning Ordinance is difficult to change since ordinances require an advertised public hearing, a first and second reading by the City Council followed by publication in the press, and a 30-day waiting period - total time 58 days. The Planning Commission already has -2- 1 i D R A F T June 18 , 1975 \4 THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN (Continued) How Is the General Plan Changed? (Continued) before it a list of 8 .changes to be made to the General Plan beginning in August , 1975. What Is a Referendum? -- Referendum is a process by which the electorate of a 'community can require a public vote before a legislative act of the City Council becomes final and binding . What Will Happen If the City' s General Plan Is Defeated?The City would immediately and automatically revert to the County' s old "Cove' s Community" General Plan which is more liberal and has many undesirable factors such as I permitting 7 story buildings and double the density of i the City Plan. I -- The City would be required to spend as much as $25, 000, four and one-half months time and hundreds of man hours to reestablish and reprocess a new General Plan. By State statute, it must represent a major change from the original plan - a slight modification is not legally acceptable. What Will Happen If the City' s General Plan Is Supported? -- All City programs aimed towards establishing controlled low-profile growth in the community would continue on schedule and changes required in the General Plan by the majority of the public would be accomplsihed through the orderly process of public hearings and revisions. y 1 D R A F T June 18 , 1975 NEWSLETTER ZONING ORDINANCE . It is the Zoning Ordinance, in conjunction with the Zoning Map, that actually implements the provisions of the General Plan . The Zoning Ordinance specifically describes the various cate- gories of land use and standards of development which must apply within the City, ! and then applies them to the precise areas of the City as embodied in the Zoning Map. This map ' shows the precise application to every parcel of property. During the past 4 months, the Citizens' Advisory Committee has had -- study sessions and the Planning Commission study sessions on the preliminary Zoning Ordinance and Map. These sessions will continue through August , 1975. This process started with a preliminary draft and all interested persons have been invited to attend these sessions. The preliminary draft was distributed to ` organizations and individuals throughout the community for their input . As a result of this input , innumerable changes and modifications have been made. For example, the high density 7 to 18 units per acre originally envisioned on 40 acres near the College of the Desert has been put into the medium density category of 5 to 7 and precisely established at 7 units per acre. The Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map are passed and adopted through the Ordinance Process which involves many steps and requires a total of 58 days to process. An ordinance is hard law which if violated, constitutes a misdemeanor involving up to a $500 fine or 6 months in jail . This , as opposed to resolu- tions which are more a matter of Council policy, involving no penalties and requiring only 14 days to process. The General Plan and amendments are adopted by simple resolution . D R A !F T June 18, 1975 NEWSLETTER THE ENVIRONME \IMPACTPORT The En.viro •mental Imp t Report , as a supplement to the General Pla,, describes what environmental impacts will result in the community hrough implementation of the General Plan . All aspect of the State Environmental Act have been met and complied with. The Environmental Impact Statement was certifi d on January 20th in conjunc- tion with the n w General P1 and went through the same development pro, ess. If the public supports the City' s General Plan on July 8th, the Environmental Impact State- ment will remaii unchanged. If�the public does not support the Cit Plan, the Envir``1onmental Impact Report will be revised to reflect any n2w General Plan developed. w � REFERENDUM COMMIT 3 OF PALM DESERT P.O. Box 444, Palm Desert, California 92260 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Statements issued to the Press and to the public at the Council Meeting last Thursday, are not true. No suit has been filed by the Referendum Committee of Palm Desert on the General Plan. What was filed (Indio, Case #19427) is a "Motion for Modification of Amended Opinion" (public copies available in Indio and Palm Desert City Hall) . This modification was proposed to avoid the possibility of returning to the Riverside County General Plan, which no one wants. If approved, these modifications would allow: 1. All construction to proceed as normal with the following exceptions: (a) Residential density notover 5 dwelling units per acre, not over one story or 15 feet in height. Projects already approved should be allowed to proceed consistent with earlier phases. (b) No commercial buildings over two stories or 25 feet high . (c) Hotels with over 100 rooms should not be permitted . (d) No commercial uses in residential areas. (e) No subsidized housing. This is NOTa moratorium but a return to normal building . This should prove that the Referendum Committee is doing their utmost to promote normal construction consistent with existing Palm Desert character. The wild statements and tactics by the City Attorney, the Mayor, and some of the City Council, are deplorable and should prove conclusively that we really DO need a new General Plan with specific controls. Anyone who has read Pages 14, 15 and 16 of the "Proposed Interim Plan" of the "Notice of Motion for Modification - - Indio 19427" , knows that a suit was NOT filed . Statements like - - "Get the working man out of the city" - - "They don't want anyone to work" - - come from people who eithei have not read the"Motion for Amendment" or are purposely distorting the facts., VOTE 'NO" 'ON THE GENERAL PLAN IULY 8TH . . . . It has no specific controls on height, density, and commercial building. June 16, 1975 Referendum Committee of rulm Desert P.O. Box 444, Palm Desert, California 92260 TEN REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE "NO" ON THE GENERAL PLAN TULY 8TH VOTE "NO . . . Against possibly 90, 000 people residing in Palm Desert VOTE "NO" . . . Against extravagance in Palm Desert City Government. Present budget $1 .3 million and more each year thereafter. VOTE "NO" . . . Against increasing our population above our water supply. It's decreasing now. No one knows what the future holds . VOTE "NO" . . . Against buildings five, six, or more stories in height . VOTE "NO" . . . Against 18 living units per acre. Should not be more than five. VOTE "NO" Against large commercial centers that would create traffic, pollution and police problems , and destroy the character of our community. VOTE "NO" Against changing the present qualities which have made Palm Desert a comfortable, friendly place in which to live. VOTE "NO" Against "fast buck" operators who would be in and out and gone, leaving us to live with their actions. VOTE "NO" Against increased taxes that are sure to follow a city government dedicated to unlimited growth. VOTE "NO" Against a city government which has proven itself to be unresponsive to the wishes of its citizens . VOTE "NO" AGAINST APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN ON JULY 8TH If a "yes" vote carries, your property values will be in danger and much of the enjoyment of living in Palm Desert will be lost. Don't let it happen. Referendum Committee of i m Desert P. O. Box 444, Palm Desert, Col ifornia 92260 BULLETIN . . . THE 1 .3 MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION Why does the Mayor and the City Council wart a General Plan that permits high- density and unlimited commercial growth? Simple, More people and more commercial institutions means more tax revenue to pay for "big government . " Palm Desert is already saddled with a municipal budget of $1 . 3 million, and it will only go higher if the proposed General Plan is approved . The Rancho Mirage budget, employing seven people is $520, 000, and the Indian Walls budget employing five people is $ 210, 000. We understand that there are 28 people in Palm Desert City Hall! What in the world do they all do? Vote "No" on Uncontrolled Growth VOTE "NO" ON THE PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN JULY 8TH FLASH . . . EVEN THE CITY MANAGER IS DOUBTING THE COUNCIL'S POSITION City Chic I ndicaies Suns Changes Htsaded In Nam By EVELYN YOUNG Hurlburt's statement is a request to Daily News Staff Writer preserve the panoramic views as "such PALM DESERT — Ci Maria er panoramic views are a vital amenity of _ Harve H irlburt last ni m r uc a the city." recommendation to City Council Ma or HenryB. Clark told Hurlburt General Plan "have a more rec Al,isa 4 a e zoning , or�manci Iona basis or c ERE. residents' panoramic views from their _ Both City Planner Paul Williams and homes than it does now through arse rl ary Cit Mana er Harve urlburt indicated height lumts., EneXev a si ones ou t�l'h"sT s n one of the requests of me u m e ; , era the Concerned Citizens, Inc. It has been reported that homeowniri Huriburt's remarks at the end of the west of Highway 74 have been complaining meetine. came as a surDrise as it is the to city hall about the high pads recently first time the city as in any way criticiz- allowed by the city to certain developer ed any part of a General Plan as of home sites which have cut off their view �rere are�bv i s an Hamplanning of mountains and desert. co`nsuTta`nts an 1 1fi SCffitC0. Cgy the �e�eren� mmittee. The statement re ared b Hurlburt an3'stri6uTc� a ress s es race the development o enera Plan and Daily News, June 13 , 1975 particularly the Urban Design Element,it nal Deconle evident e S a one of ule MOM elements 31 e character o Palin Deserte views a ens o e surroundmig mountabs and the valley floor. Therefore,greater emphasis should placedupon preserving Lnese views to e greatest extent possible." The Referendum Committee has re- quested that height limit be included in the General Plan. 1 Referendum Committee of Palm Desert P.O. Box 444, Palm Desert, California 92260 SNOW JOB In the printed arguments which accompany the sample ballot there is a statement by the City Attorney, WHICH IS JUST NOT TRUE ! He says , in his analysis of the yes and no arguments that "the City will further be required to rebuild the General Plan, redo the Environmental Impact Reports and conduct other time-consuming and expensive procedures necessary to the adoption of a new General Plan. " THE FACTS ARE THESE: All that is needed is to insert in the present General Plan proper controls of density and height. It's that simple. The redoing of the Environmental Impact Reports would not require more than three paragraphs. Not time-consuming at all. Since the modifications are downward, no problem would be encountered . Just refile the Plan. The rehearings, if necessary, will take less than 45 days . Thus, the City Attorney's "analysis" is just not true This is the same City Attorney who stated flatly that the Referendum was improper, only to find himself overruled by the Superior Court and the Cal ifornia Attorney General. Why should anyone believe his analysis? VOTE "NO" ON THE GENERAL PLAN JULY BTH It doesn't contain the controls we need . LATE BULLETIN . . . Our telephone workers report that many people have been confused by the Palm Desert Boosters campaign to create the idea that if a "NO" vote carries "everything will stop. " Of course, this is not true. We only want specific controls on density, height, and commercial building written into a revised General Plan which can easily be done without great time and expense. It is up to each of us to explain this to our friends if they too have been misled. Work for a nicer, more pleasant Palm Desert. It's within our power to bring it about. INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Response on the Notice of a Motion for DATE: Modification of Amended Opinion #3 by June 16 , 1975 the Attorney for the Palm Desert Referendum Committee Per your request, I have reviewed the recently filed motion to amend by the Attorney for the Referendum Committee. My initial reaction is that the proposal of an interim General Plan would be less than satisfactory from the City' s standpoint for the following reasons : 1 . Since the interim plan would, in effect, embody the total proposals by the Referendum Committee, it would be unlikely that the City Council would ever be able to develop a General Plan that would be substantially different from this interim plan. Therefore, this plan would tend to become permanent . 2 . I don' t believe the Judge has the power to establish such an interim plan. In essence , he would be establishing himself as the City Council. It would be my recommendation that the City make every effort to preserve the original motion of the Judge that we either have the new Palm Desert General Plan or the Cove Communities General Plan . It seems to me the City is mandated to make every effort to have a General Plan that relates directly to the feelings of the community; and since both of these plans were developed after many hours of public participation, and were legally adopted, it seems to me that our only real choices are one of these two plans . Any other document would not have had such public input or would have been legally adopted, therefore , the City would be in a precarious position if they supported any other alternatives than these two. i INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert Honorable Chairman and TO: Members of the Planning Commission FROM: Paul A. Williams , Secretary SUBJECT: General Plan Amendments DATE: June 6, 1975 As we are coming to the end of the development of the Zoning Ordinance and are moving into the development of the Zoning Map, I thought it appropriate to discuss with you, several items that I believe should be con- sidered for a General Plan Amendment . The following is a list of items that I feel should be amended as a part of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map; and you may wish to add to this list . I. CHANGES IN THE LAND USE MAP A. Show the commercial area correctly along San Pablo. B. Create a designation of Planned Commercial Resort and designate that area west of the Palm Valley Channel for that use. C. Show neighborhood 5 totally at 3-5 low density residential . D. Show the 40 acre site at Monterey and Parkview at 5-7 units to the acre, medium density. II. LAND USE ELEMENT Add an objective of providing a proper buffer between residential and commercial areas which shall be a major objective of the development of the land use. III. HOUSING ELEMENT Remove any reference to subsidized housing . Remove any reference to "Row Housing" . IV. CIRCULATION ELEMENT Revise the designation of Monterey Avenue to a major road status . General Plan Amendments -2- June 6 , 1975 V. URBAN DESIGN Add objective - line of sight shall be maintained to the maximum extent as possible. RECOMMENDATION: That it be moved by the Planning Commission that the above described items be scheduled for a General Plan Amendment as a part of the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance and that these revisions be included in the proposed Environmental Impact Report on the implementation tools of the General Plan. �-, pp �_.y�J �- � -- � � � ay S� 7 . � -- �. - --- - 'S- pp --a �^" -- - --- �� w�� ZM Ica. — rl — - _. •..r-- Cam'-- ��"__-�` "� --_ - - SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION CALFt"AR (E.C. 22600 ct seq) Vie_ x3-r'e/ ..,CITY OF PALM DESERT _ PROJECT OFFICER: ELDEN D. JONES DATE OF ELECTION JUL'f 8,1975 Referendum POLLS OPEN: 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. — R ^` �9I�erson Item )tospdnsible Date Ido. Action Required _ --- -_ City Clk. + Apr. 1I 1 PUGLISII ORDINANCE. ere:Between these dates C(G.C.l66 shall & May 1 (Date ublish the ordinance re: the election. (G.L. 60G1�and .C. 22830,22831, 22903) Publish in. the Palm Desert Post, n .S i May 26 2 copy of Ordinance No. 77 of the City Council received I y County Clerk. Ordinance requests County Clerk to conduct Co. Clk. May 28 3 PRFPARF R9L 2y--Order—bo1-lots--fr6m printer. Request . delivery on June 6. City Clk. June 2 4 ARGUMENTS.Arguments (limited to- 300 words) may be submitted or voters to the City Clerk until this date'. One argument for and one argumentsagainst will be selected for printing and mail- ing to the voters with sample ballots pursuant to E.C. 5014. (E.C. 5010 et seq) Co. Clk. June 8 5 CLOSE OF REGISTRATION. Last date to register or transfer . & Voters (30 da) registration. _ Co. Clk. June 6 ESTABLISH PRECINCTS, POLLING PLACES & APPOINT ELECTION OFFICERS. City Council 'rdinance P'o. requested County ` Clerk to . perform these requirements for this election. June 9 5 ABSENTEE VOTING. First date to apply for and receive absent (29_7) " voter ballots. Last day to apply for ballot is July 1. + (E.C.14620, 14800) IJQTF_ Voters may apply for ballots at either _the City Clerk's office or at County Clerk's office,P.iverside. Co. Clk. June 10 6, MAILING NOTICES & SAMPLE BALLOTS. Approximate date to com- (40-15) Hence maiTfng notices and sample ballots to each voter. • Mailing must be started no later than June 19 and completed I no later than June 27. (E.C. 1012) Co. Clk. June 12 7 Approximate date to make arrangements for delivery of equip- ment and supplies. Co. Clk. June 12 8 PUBLISH PRECINCTS POLLING PLACES AND ELECTION OFFICERS. (20) County Clerk is requeed to make this publication. st (E.C. 22834) iCo. Clk. June 19 & 9 PUBLISH SYNOPSIS of measure 2 times. (E.C. 2.2835, G.C.6066) June 26 in Palm Desert Post, on these dates. Co. Clk. June 30 lo, PAcr 4US Approximate date to pack out supplies. Include REGISTERS. (E.C. 22901) July 1 1.1 ABSENTEE VOTING. Last date to apply for absentee ballot. see 748DO E.C. for exceptions) July 8 12 ELECTION DAY. Polls open 7 a.m. to 8 P.m. Absentee ballots may be turned in at any polling place,in person, till 8 P.M. Co. Clk. July 10 13 �NVASS. County Clerk shall prepare the official canvass of the results and certify results to City Clerk. (Ord. No. 77 and E.C. 22932.5) City Council July 150 14 OFFICIAL CANVASS City Council shall meet at their usual place -- — - - .—---- ---'—- ---6f meeting to canvass results oT elecclon anu ueciare results' j and pass a resolution reciting the fact of the election. (E.C. 22932, 22932.5 22933) Co. Clk. July l.p 15 :�CIO STATEMENT_OF CHARGES_IQ_CITY_GL"ARK. When all charges can 6e determined county clerk will bi11 the city for mater- ials and services for the election. ' f IVA CITY OF PALM DESERT 1 VOTING PREL .CTS FOR SPECIAL ELECTION, July 1975 Voting Consisting Of Precinct Regular Precincts 743-001 -401L - 743-002 43-403 43-4 -8 43-41I 743-003 - -416 743-004 43-405 43-410 43-411 743-005 3-406 3-413 743-006 43-407 43-412 743-007 43-409 43-414 MOTE- : DEADLINE DUES FUR COfiM TTEES FOR OR AGAINST 11 AS TO FI E CAPiPAIGid TATEMENTS FIRST REPORT June 3 SECOND REPORT July 1 FINAL REPORT Sept. 16 i 1 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Schedule of Meetings Scheduled by DATE: the Palm Desert Boosters June 2, 1975 Gray Minor has scheduled the following meetings and wishes the city to be represented at said meetings : 1. A meeting with the J.C. ' s on June 4 at 7 : 001p .m. 1. in the Pomona Savings and Loan Community Room. He has provided a 15 minute period for a .speech on the General Plan by both the city and the Referendum Committee. There will be a 10 minute rebuttal period with the remaining time oriented to questions and answers with the estimated ending time being 8 : 30 p .m. 2. On June 10, a tentative meeting has been proposed at 7 : 00 p .m. before the Junior Women' s Club at a place yet to be determined. 3 . A meeting with the Lyon' s Club of Palm Desert at an unspecified time and place. , 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph. 346 0611 PR15SS REI,EASE May 30, 1.975 The City has been advised by the election Department of. Riverside County that the final date to register for the Palm Desert municipal election to be held in Palm Desert on July 8 , is Sunday, June 8 . Voters can register at Palm Desert City Ifall between the hours of 8 :30 A. M. and 12 : 00 P. M. ,- and 1 : 00 P. M. and .5 : 00 P.M. during the week of June 2 - 6. City Ilall offices are closed Saturday and Sunda.y.. I.HI'sET NO. i. May 29, 19'75 x-.-- WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN? 1 . A description of the vision of the Citizens of Palm Dose.rt for the future character of their City; and 2 . A definition of the City policies to assist public and private decision malting over many years . HOW WAS OUR PLAN DEVELOPED? This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 mem- ber Citizens ' Advisory Committee; Planning Commission ; and City Council ; as well as hundreds of citizens contributing their opinions at 42 open meetings . There was also communication with 70 organiza- tions, agencies and groups soliciting input before City Council adoption . WHAT IS A 'Z,ONING ORDINANCE? The Zoning Ordinance is the legal tool through which the elements of the General Plan are implemented and the quality of building controlled. Thus, the General Plan gives the direction and the Zoning Ordinance spells out the specifics . CAN THE GENERAL PLAN AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE BE CHANGED? Tl:e General Plan is changed more easily than the Zoning Ordinance . the BY State law each of the nine (9) elements i n h General neral Plan can be changed three (3 ) times a year and must be reviewed at least once a year. The Plan is amended by simple resolution after one advertised hearing and becomes effective immediately. The Zoning Ordinance is changed by ordinance after an advertised public hearing and a first and second reading by the City Council , followed by Publication in the press and a 30 day waiting period. THE CITIZENS PANTED, AND THE GENERAL PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE WILL: e Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents. ® Restrict development of the desert and mountains . A Preserve views of the desert and mountains . e Reduce average gross residential density in present City limits to 3 . 48 units/acre, from '7 . 0 units permitted under the previous County General Plan . Pact. ShecL #1 } Page 2 o Limit single family residence height to one story or 18 feet; , whichever is less; and multiple residential and commercial to two story or 30 feet , whichever is less. ® Restrict hotel height to 30 feet , and no larger than the L'rawan Gardens in Indian Wells . ® Maintain a village type concept throughout the area. The village concept is best illustrated by such areas that you are familiar with as the Palm Desert Property Owners area, Sandpiper , and Ironwood. It is a beautiful concept . m Confine the commercial area to an area between R1 Paseo and Alessandro�n 'tl'a-e4--nor-- � ` oL Tlig1a�vay ul 1�1-�Any ho els�w`11 be located in this area. There are no "convention type" projects envisioned . w Every development to be controlled from the standpoint of noise , air pollution , water quality and quantity, light pollution , and energy requirements. e Minimum lot size to be 8 , 000 square feet (5 lots to acre) . * No lot splitting below minimum. IV � automatically revert to the County General Plan which permits many , many undesirable developments such as 7 story buildings, 75 foot high buildings, 20 unit per acre develop- ments, etc .. A�T� a The Redeve loppment Plan , which will provide forgdra�nagel parking and traffic circulation in the commercial area .wikhale-+tea -Palm D-qort o over 0 wing ie e}:1 ec e rou t:-,year 1.. o le L{edeve� oprnent Agency . This is money that will. of ei se-go-to. the COIT=Y anc _ - )exert . ® iJo additional Countybecause of the formation of the Redevelopment Age.:cy and the allocation of tax increments to the City . OCT ,`.3UIET NO. 1. May 29 , 1975 WIiAT IS A GENERAL Y GN? 1 . A de,. ripti.on of the vision of the citizens of Palm Desert for th future character of their. City; and 2. A definition of the City policies to assist public. and privatedecisi.o� making over many years. EOW WAS OUR PLAN DEVELOPED? This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 mem- ber Citizens ' Advisory Committee; Planning Commission ; and City Council ; as well as hundreds of citizens contributing their opinions at 42 open meetings . There was also communication with 70 organiza- tions, agencies and groups soliciting input before City Council adoption. WHAT IS A ZONING ORDINANCE? The Zoning Ordinance is the legal tool through which the elements of the General Plan are implemented and the quality of building controlled. Thus, the General Plan gives the direction and the Zoning Ordinance spells out the specifics . CAN THE GENERAL PLAN AND TIIE ZONING ORDINANCE BE CHANGED? The General Plan is changed more easily that: the Zoning Ordinance. By State law each of the nine ( 9) elements in the General Plan can be changed three (3) times a year and must be reviewed at least once a year . The Plan is amended by simple resolution after one advertised hearing and becomes effective immediately. The Zoning Ordinance is changed by ordinance after an advertised public hearing and a first and second reading by the City Council , followed by publication in the press and a 30 day waiting period. THE CITIZENS WANTED, AND THE GENERAL PLAN & ZONING ORDINANCE MILL: ® Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents . w Restrict; development of the desert and mountains. m Preserve views of the desert and mountains. o Reduce -average gross residential density in present: City limits to 3 . 48 units/acre from 7 . 0 units permitted under the previous County General Plan . i Fact :Sheet #1 RL e 2 o Limi.t: si.ngle family residence height to one stony or 18 feet , whichever is less; and multiple residential and co;umerc:i.a]- to two story or 30 feet , whichever is less. u Restrict hotel height to 30 feet , and no larger than the Era.�han Gardens in Indi-an Wells. ® Maintain a village type concept throughout the area. The village concept is best; illustrated by such areas that you are familiar with as the Palm Desert Property Owners area, Sandpiper , and Ironwood. It is a beautiful concept . a Confine the commercial. area to an a:.ea e goon El Paseo and � � gh Alessandro n the ��-' f Highway ll . An,y hotels will be located in this area. There are no "convention type" projects envisioned, Every development to be controlled from the standpoint of noise , air pollution , water quality and quantity , light pollution, and energy requirements. ® Minimum lot size to be 8 , 000 square feet (5 lots to acrre ) . a No lot splitting below minimum. \YIlYT 1S 1.iLT P A TRIP -7'I� _GENERAL PLAN IS DEFEATED AT THE POLLS ON JULY 8? ® We would immediately and automatically revert to the County General Plan which permits many, many undesirable developments such as 7 story buildings, 75 foot high buildings, 20 unit per acre develop- ments, etc. ® The Redevelopment Plan , which will provide for drainage, and improved parking and. traffic circulation in the commercial area will have to be cancelled. ® This will mean a loss of income to the citizens of Palm Desert of over $1 , 000, O00 during the expected multi-year l-i.fe of the Redevelopment Agency. This is money that will otherwise go to the County and not� one penny of which will return directly to Palm Dese;.t . No additional County taxes will tie essary��because o th,e formaci.on of the Redevelopment. Agee and the a.11o lion off ta�cren,e:its to the City. j� � 0 _ 11 ROUGH DRAT�'I' - 5/28, WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN? 1. A description of the vision of the citizens of Palm Desert for the future character of 'their City; and 2 . A definition of City policies to assist public and private decision making . HOW WAS OUR PLAN DEVELOPED? This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens ' Advisory Committee; Planning Commission; and City Council ; as well as hundreds of citizens contributing their opinions at 42 open meetings . There was also communic- ation with 70 organizations, agencies and groups soliciting input before City Council adoption by majority vote on January 20, 1975 . THE CITIZENS WANTED, AND THE GENERAL PLAN WILL: o Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents. o Restrict development of the desert and mountains . o Preserve views of the desert and mountains. o Reduce average gross residential density in present City limits to 3 .48 units/acre from 7. 0 units permitted under the previous County General Plan . o Through the proposed Zoning Ordinance : - limit single family residence height to one story or 18 :feet , whichever is less; and multiple residential and commercial to two story or 30 feet , whichever is less . - Restrict hotel height to 30 feet , and no larger than. the Erawan Gardens in Indian Wells . o Maintain a village type concept throughout the area. The village concept is best illustrated by such areas that you are familiar with as the Palm Desert Property Owners area, Sandpiper , and Ironwood . It is a beautiful concept . o Confine the commercial area to an area between E1. Paseo and Alessandro on the north side of Highway 11.1 . Any hotels will be located in this area. There are no "convention type" pro- jects envisioned . o Every development to be controlled from the standpoint of noise, air poll.ution, water quality and quantity, light: pollution , and energy requi.remcnts. Page 2 HOW OFTEN CAN TIIE GENERAL PLAN BE CHANGED? By State law, each of the 9 elements in the General Plan can be changed 3 times a year, and must be reviewed once a year . The General. Plan is implemented by Zoning and Subdivision Ordinances. This is the legal tool through which the elements of the General Plan are implemented and building controlled . HOW CAN THE GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE BE CHANGED? The General Plan can be changed by action of the Council after one public hearing. The Zoning Ordinance can be changed by action of the Planning Commission after a public hearing and after a first and second hearing by the Council , followed by a public hearing and a first and second hearing by the Council . WHAT IS THE PENALTY IF THE GENERAL PLAN IS DEFEATED AT THE POLLS ON JULY 8? We would immediately and automatically revert to the County General Plan which permits many, many undesirable developments such as 7 story buildings, 20 unit per acre developments , 75 foot high buildings , etc. The Redevelopment Plan, which will. provide for drainage and improved parking in the commercial. area will have to be cancelled. This will mean a loss of income to the citizens of Palm Desert of over $1 , 000, 000 during the expected 20 to 25 year life of the Redevelopment Agency. This is money that will go to the Councy and not one penny of which will return to Palm Desert . No additional County taxes will be necessary because of the formation of the Rdevelopment Agency and the allocation of tax increments to the City. REBUTTAL OF REFERENDUM STATEMENTS Proper public participation is impossible. The General Plan can only be changed three times per year . Page 3 Basic land use pol.ici.es should be incorporated in the General. Plan. They are (see above) rl OFFICE OF DONALD D. SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK COUNTY CLCRK ELECTION DEPART14ENT P. 0. BOX 431 H. F. SAMMIS RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 RCGISTNAN OF VOTrR5 ;i j6? May 28, 1975 Harvey L. I-Turlburt City Clerk , City of Palm Desert P .O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca . 92260 Dear Mr. Hurlburt: Enclosed are copies of letters sent to four persons who apparently represent groups active in connection with the Special Referendum Election in your city on July 8 . If these groups meet the definition of "committee " given in the information manual, they are required to file a series of three campaign statements reporting their receipts and expenditures . Forms and information were enclosed with the letters . I All of these persons have been instructed to file their campaign statements with the City Clerk , and any late filing penalties will be assessed by, and paid to, your office . We assume that you have a supply of interim forms and manuals on hand . If you know of other persons or groups active in connection with this election , be sure to give them the necessary information in time for them to meet the filing deadlines . Very truly yours , DONALD D. SULLIVAN County Clerk By Deputy Enclosures 4175 Main Streel (Twol(th 01 Main) Telephone 787-2921 r + CAMPAIGN DISCLOSURE INFORM)AVON For Committees - Referendum Election, City of Palm Desert, July 8 , 1975 Definition of Committee . See Section l .c of the manual. Your group is required to file if it meets this definition of "committee . " Statement of. Organization. File Form 410 (one copy) with Secretary of State . Campaign Statements . File Form 420 (six forms enclosed) . In each filing period , file one original and one copy, or two originals . Follow instructions in manual in preparing your statements . Observe this filing schedule: 1st Period File June 1-3 inclusive . (Statement covers period from Jan. 7 through May 31 . ) 2nd Period File June 29-July 1 inclusive. (Statement covers period from June 1 through June 28 . ) 3rd Period File July 9-September 16 inclusive . ( Statement covers period from June 29 through closing date of your own campaign, no earlier than July 8 and no later than September 9 .) Statements must be filed during the three-day .filing period . They will not be accepted earlier than the first day of Lhe filing period; and statements filed after the last day will result in a late Piling penalty of $10 per day. Late Filing Penalty. A penalty of $10 per day will be charged for each day a statement is late , up to a maximum of $100 , or the amount of receipts on the late statement, whichever is greater. (See Section 10 of the manual .) Where to File Campaign Statements . File with Palm Desert City Clerk . How to File . Statements may be filed in person or rrailed . See Section 2 .h of the manual - Statements are considered filed on the date of receipt unless they are mailed by registered mail, in which case the date of postmark is the date of filing. Further Information . Write or call the Election Department (phone 787-2921) or the office of the City Clerk . '�C(<,..,.,.l y'-.i i.l, J,:y. �,•��,1 ;_;� OF FICG 'O- cOuN DO D. SULLIVAN :`', ..1 f.o G.'�TT ?•.,;.: �_-� COUNTY CLl°RIC wuTv c�cRr, 11�14-,'x' ItIITUSIDi i'i ::.i' ELECTIOtd DEPARTIAENT P. 0. BOX 431 H. F. SAratr,iS "ti,4-�• RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 RF.GI5TRAR of VOTLnS May 27, 1975 David Bond, Chairman Palm Desert Referendum Committee P .O . Box 444 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Dear Rdr. Bond: We want to remind you of the campaign disclosure requirements as they apply to committees actively supporting or opposing ballot measures at an election. Since your group is apparently active in connection with the Referendum Election scheduled for July 8 in the City of Pah-n Desert, you will be required to file a series of three campaign statements with filing deadlines of June 3 , July 1, and September 16. (.Additional information will be fouled on the enclosed sheet and in the information manual.) You notified us in March that your group would not be filing in connection with the circulation of the referendum petition since it had not yet reached the $500 level in contributions or expenditures . Remember that the first campaign statement in connection with the July 8 election will ao back all the way to January 7 , 1975 (the date the campaign disclosure law became effective) and should cover all transactions from that date through May 31. You should remember also that any fees for legal services during that time period must be reported as campaign expenditures . (If such legal services were donated , they must be reported as a non-monetary contribution.) Section 9 .d , of the manual is in error in stating that you must file with both the county clerk. and the city clerk . You need file only with the city clerk for a measure to be voted on wholly within a city. The Statement of Organization (Form 410, enclosed) should be filed as soon as possible, with the Secretary of State at P .O. Box 1467, Sacra- mento 95807 . Let us know if you have any questions . Very truly yours, DONALD D. SULLIVAN, County Clerk By H . F. Sammis Registrar of Voters HFS:bn1 Enclosures 4175 Moon 51,o01 (Twolft6 m Moin) Telophnnn 787-2921 I OFFICE OF DONALD D. SULLIVAN COUNTY CLERK COUNTY CLERK ELK'! IOhi DEPARTh4ENT P. 0. BOX 431 M. F. SALAMIS 4 1� RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS 1� May 27, 1975 Warren Bailey 1.303 Sandpiper Palm Desert, Ca . 92260 Dear Mr. Bailey: Enclosed you will find information and forms concerning campaign disclosure for committees supporting or opposing ballot measures at an election. Since you apparently represent a group active in connection with the July 8 Referendum Election in the City of Palm Desert, you will be filing a series of three campaign statements with the filing deadlines of June 3 , July 1, and September 16. Your group is not required to file unless it meets the definition of ''committee" under the campaign disclosure laws - that is , unless it has received contributions or made expenditures at the level of $500 or more . . If you have reached that mark, you should immediately file a Statement of Organization (Form 410, 'enclosed) with the Secretary of State at P .O . Box 1467, Sacramento 95807; and you should file campaign statements on the schedule given above . Please note that Section 9.d . of the manual is in error in stating that you must file with both the county clerk and the.city clerk. You need file only with the city clerk for a measure to be voted on wholly within a city . Let us know if you have any questions . Very truly yours , DONALD D. SULLIVAN, County Clerk By H. F . Sammis Registrar of Voters HFS:bm Enclosures 4175 Main Strant (Twe HrB of 61oin) Tolephono 787-2921 -- ------------ e ,�•., OFFICE OF ,,,-y 00 h:M_D D. SULLIVAN r•01IN7'1• 1d '-�.�:n:�.F�=___ o,_,._.-•:' ii•'l'c:�l COUNTY CLf RY, co�uTv c�rnK remt:•Ir.st7iti": - ELECTION DEPAP.Tt E14T P. o. nor. 491 H. F. snntmis ..=.3 RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS May 27 , 1975 Jack MacFadyen P .O. Box 1275 Palm Desert, Ca . 92260 Dear Mr. Mac Fadyen: We understand that you represent a group active in connection with the Referendum Election scheduled for July 8 in the City of Palm Desert , and are therefore subject to the campaign disclosure requirements which apply to political committees . Your group is required to file a series of three campaign statements in connection with this election (filing deadlines: June 3 , July 1, September 16) if it meets the definition of "committee" under the lave - that is , if it has received contributions or. made expenditures to the amount of $500 or more . If you have reached that level, you should immediately file a Statement of Organization (Form 410, enclosed) with the Secretary of State at P .O. Box 1467, Sacramento 95807, and you should file campaign statements on the schedule given above . Please note that Section 94 , of the manual is in error in stating that you must file with both the county clerk and the city clerk . You need only file with the city clerk if the measure is to be voted on wholly within a city. Forms and information are enclosed . Let us know if you have any questions . Very truly yours , DONALD D. SULLIVAN, County Clerk By H . F . Sammis Registrar of Voters HFS:bm Enclosures 4175 Moin St,.oi (Twelfth of Moro) Tolephono 787.2921 OFFICE OF DONALD o. SULLIVAN � `\`�°0J,' '•' ' CO U1:Tr "".n COUNTY CLERK COUNTY CLERK Y�.;ih'rin-rrrsriii>Y,rr,:; t ELECTION DEPARTMENT P. 0. BOX 431 H. F. SAMMIS RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92502 REGISTRAR OF VOTERS May 28 , 1975 Edward W. Peck 73610 Buckboard Trail Palm Desert, Ca . 92260 Dear Mr. Peck: We understand that you represent a group active in connection with the Referendum Election scheduled for July 8 in the City of Palm Desert, and are therefore subject to the campaign disclosure requirements which apply to political committees . Your group is required to file a series of three campaign statements in connection with this election if it meets the definition of "committee" under the law - that is , if it has received contributions or made expenditures to the amount of $500 or more . If you have reached that level , you should immediately file a Statement of Organization (Form 410, enclosed) with the Secretary of State at P .O . Box 1467 , Sacramento 95807 , and you should file campaign statements on the schedule given on the enclosed information sheet . Please note thaL Section 9 .d . of the manual is in error in stating that you must file with both the county clerk and the city clerk. You need file campaign statements only with the city cleilc if the measure is to be voted on wholly within a city. Forms and information are enclosed . Let us know if you have any questions . Very truly yours , DONALD D . SULLIVAN County Clerk By Deputy Enclosures 4175 Main St,W (Twelfth at Mom) Talophono 70.7-2921 MINUTES CITY COUNCIL MEETING TUESDAY, MAY 27 , 1975 PALM DESERT CITY HALL T . CALL TO ORDER The Adjourned Session of the Palm Desert City Council was called to order at 5: 00 P.M. on May 27 , 1975, by Mayor Clark at the Palm Desert City Hall. II . PLEDGE III . INVOCATION IV. ROLL CALL Present : Councilman CHUCK ASTON; Councilwoman JEAN BENSON; Councilman JIM McPHERSON; Mayor HENRY B. CLARK Absent : -Councilman NOEL BRUSH Others Present : Harvey L. Hurlburt , City Manager Dave Erwin, City Attorney Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services Council adjourned to Executive Session at 5: 05 P. M. , and reconvened at 6 : 05 P. M. , at which time it was moved by Councilman Aston and seconded by Councilwoman Benson that the 300 word statement for inclusion with the sample ballots for the General Plan Referendum Election be approved and be signed by the entire City Council ; carried unanimously. V. ADJOURNMENT Meeting was adjourned at 6:10 P. M. • � �',. � �?!� 'vim �.�,��. HARVEY L. HURLBURT, City Clerk ATT ST: HENRY B. CL 'I2K, Mayor City of Paln Desert , California MINUTE'S CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 22, 1975 PAL" DESERT MIDDLE SCIIOOL I . CALL TO ORDER The regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council was called to order at 7 : 03 P. M. , on May 22 , 1975, by Mayor Henry B. Clark, at the Palm Desert Middle School . II . PLEDGE III . INVOCATION IV. ROLL CALL Present : Councilman CHUCK ASTON; Councilwoman JEAN BENSON; Councilman NOEL BRUSH; Councilman JIM McPHERSON; Mayor HENRY B. CLARK Others Present : Harvey L. Hurlburt , City Manager Dave Erwin , City Attorney Paul Williams, Director of Environmental Services V. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Councilwoman Benson moved and Councilman Aston seconded that the minutes of the City Council meeting of May S , 1975, be approved as submitted; carried unanimously . VI . AWARDS , PRESENTATIONS AND APPOINTMENTS A. Appointment to Citizens' Advisory Committee to replace Ronald S. Gorman . Mayor Clark moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that BILL IiOBBS be appointed to the Citizens ' Advisory Committee f vacancy; carried unanimously. /'/ COUNCILMAN BRUSH MOVED AND COUNCILMAN ASTON SECONDED THAT COUNCIL 1 ADJOURN TO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 7 : OG P.M. , TO DISCUSS PENDING REFERENDUM LITIGATION; carried unanimously COUNCIL RECONVENED TO REGULAR MEETING AT 7 : 51 P. M. Mayor Clark requested City Attorney, Dave Erwin, to summarize the results of the Executive Session regarding the referendum on the General Plan . Dave Erwin advised that the judgment rendered in Superior Court , Indio, determined that the General Plan was a legislative act and subject to referendum, and that the judgment did suspend the General Plan . The three alter- natives open to Council were 1) rescind the General Plan resolution ; 2) call a special election for the purpose of placing the General Plan on the ballot ; 3 ) appeal the judgment . He also advised that the only way the City could be eligible for the funding available to them this year was by a successful. vote on the General Plan . To accomplish this , an election must be held within a certain time frame, which calls for an early election . Mr . Erwin advised Council that action should be taken tonight . ^ City Manager , Mr. Hurl.hurt , advised Council that if they approve the election by ordinance tonight , it would be reported to the County tonunrow, May L3 , and the earliest election date would be July 8 , 1975. As a special favor to the City , the County would count the votes on July 9, and put the City in a position to canvass the votes on July 10. The first reading of the Redevelopment Agency Plan is scheduled for July 1.0; the second reading for the 16th of July; filing of the Plan on July 17 . This is an absolute minimum time schedule and would require special meetings prior to May 27 , to firm up on arguments to be sent out with ballots. May 27 , is the last day the Elections Department will accept that information from us. Councilman Aston moved and Councilman Brush seconded the adoption of ORDINANCE NO. 77 , ORDERING, CALLING, PROVIDING FOR AND GIVING A NOTICE OF A SPECIAL ELECTION TO BE HELD IN TILE CITY OF PALM DESERT ON THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 1975 , FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUB- MITTING TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, A PROPOSITION REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN OF SAID CITY, and authorized the City staff to proceed with necessary business to be conducted with the County to handle this special election ; Mr. Erwin read ORDINANCE NO. 77 in full for the benefit of the public and the press present . MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY. VII . CONSENT CALENDAR A. Request by SMITH ELECTRIC for an in-progress payment for installation of traffic signals at the inter- sections of Portola and E1 Paseo, and Portola and Avenue 44 Bee : Authorize City Manager to make in-progress pay- ment to Smith Electric B. Case NO. TRACT 5357/HOME BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT CORP. , consideration of a request for time extension of one (1) year to file final tract map Bee: Set for public hearing on June 12, 1975 C. Notice of intention to circulate petition seeking INCORPORATION OF THE CITY OF LA QUINTA Bee : Receive and file D. Letter from Riverside City Hall advising adoption of their resolution supporting the creation of a South Coast Air Quality Management District as proposed by Assemblyman Lewis on Assembly Bill 250 Bee : Receive and file Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Aston seconded that the Consent Calendar be approved as presented; carried unanimously. VIII . PUBLIC HEARING A. Application of the PALM DESERT CAB COMPANY and the CARAVAN CAB COMPANY for a permit to operate a taxi cab business Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that the hearing for a taxi cab franchise be continued to the meeting of June 12, 1975; carried unanimously. -2- B. Case NO. CUP-03-75/LU]lIA DEVELOPMENT CO. , consideration of an appeal fil-ed by applicant to rescind the require- ment of an _ EIit for a 100--1111i.t plhnncd residential development on a 20-acre site located, east or Portola, L north of El Cortez , and approximately 400 feet south of Goleta Avenue (11-1 ) Paul Williams advised Council that this item had been continued from the meeting of May 8 , to allow the applicant to provide response to findings of the staff that the project be submitted to the City for evaluation and then to Council for review. The question is whether the project proposed requires an EIR. Mr . Williams advised that staff notified the applicant that staff is of the opinion that an EIR is required because 1 ) of the effects of the development on the date grove in which the project is to be constructed; 2) traffic circulation effect of the development ; 3) number of school children generated from the development ; 4) effect on the animal habitat in the date grove. The response from the applicant is so long that in order to be properly reviewed by staff and Council , the request was made to continue the matter to the meeting of June 12. GEORGE RITTER, 73-109 HIGHWAY 111 , Architect , advised that LURIA was willing to continue the matter as requested by staff ; however , he requested that any further requirements be mentioned so that expedition of reply could be accomplished. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded that CASE NO. CUP-03-75/LURIA DEVELOPMENT CO. becontinued to the Council meeting of June 12 , 1975; carried unanimously. C. Consideration of a proposed ADANDONMENT OF A PORTION OF NORTH PALM DESERT DRIVE - located at the northeast corner -of the intersection of De Anza Way and north Palm Desert Drive (San Carlos Avenue) Paul Williams stated that after discussion at the last meeting, it had been found that a number of steps would have to be taken before. Council could act on this matter. Mr . Williams requested that the matter be con- tinued to the meeting of June 26, as this item needs review by the -Planning Commission before Council , for compliance with the General Plan. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded that this matter be rescheduled for the meeting of June 26; carried unanimously. IX. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 75-42 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT , CALIFORNIA , APPROVING CLAIMS & DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY Councilman Aston moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded that RESOLUTION NO. 75-42, approving claims and demands against the City Treasury in the amount of $50, 701 . 68; carried unanimously. X. ORDINANCES For Introduction : A. ORDINANCE NO. 76 - AN ORDINANCI OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 6 OF ORDINANCE NO. 24 , TIME TO APPEAL Mr. Ilurl.burt advised that action on this Ordinance would be broken up into two actions; one to pass Ordinance No. 761 changing the notification time from seven (7 ) clays to ten ( 10) clays; and two , passage of Resolution No. 75-45, to split the 25 percent overhead costs into three portions , as stated in the Resolution . Regarding Ordinance No. 76, Mr, Hurlburt advised that all Coachella Valley .cities have an abatement time of ten ( 10) days, and that for purposes of standardization , Palm Desert should also allow ten ( 10) days . However , with an administrative extension of from two (2) to five (5) days, plus the time involved in getting the contractor on the job, the actual time lapsing until the work is commenced will probably run into .18 to 25 days total. Regarding action on Resolution No. 75-45, splitting overhead costs into three portions as stated in the Resolution. Mayor Clark also advised Council that Frank Allen, Code Enforcement Officer , has stated that 50 percent of the lots needing abatement in Palm Desert have been taken care of , and that within the next six (6) months to one year, the rest of the unattended lots will be in order. Councilman Aston moved and Councilman Brush seconded that ORDINANCE NO. 76 be passed to second reading; carried unanimously . Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded that RESOLUTION NO. 75-45 be adopted ; carried unanimously . For Adoption : A. ORDINANCE NO. 75 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CHANGING THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SAID CITY Mr . Hurlburt advised that Council Chambers would be completed about the middle of June, and that adoption of this Ordinance at this meeting would enable Council to meet in new Chambers at their meeting of June 26. Mayor Clark informed Council that the Desert Sands Unified School District is interested in holding their school board meetings in ' new Council Chambers , and that since they have let Council use their facilities, a reciprocation would be in order . Councilman Aston moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded that ORDINANCE NO. 75 be adopted; carried unanimously. Councilman McPherson requested advice from the City Attorney as to the correct procedure to ban smoking from any meetings in the new Council Chambers. Dave Erwin advised that a resolution would be required. XI . CONTINUTING BUSINESS A. Consider matter relative to General Plan referendum Handled by Executive Session at start of Council meeting. B. CASE NO. 10C - Consideration of plot plan for the development of Phase III expansion of the Palms to Pines Shopping Center on property generally located at the southwest corner of the intersection of Highway 111 and Plaza Way Paul Williams advised that the applicant has further developed his plan and has submitted a new detailed plot plan . In addition , they have filed a sign con- cept for the total comples, which has been reviewed by -4- the Design Review Board. As regards the si{;ni.ng , Mr. Williams advised that the DR13 is the only. body to havc .revi.ewed that portion of the program, and they recommend that the sign program be adopted only in location. The DRB and Planning Commission will review as part of construction drawing. Mr . Williams further advised that it is staff recommend- ation that the City Council by RESOLUTION NO. 75-36 approve the applicant ' s plot plan and architectural concept including the sign concept for Phase III of the Palms to Pines Shopping Center , . subject to con- ditions attached. ROY CARVER, developer , Phase III , Palms to Pines , com- plimented the DRB on their professional knowhow and their understanding of some of the problems developers have. His only objection was with with he termed ".fine-tuning in conditions of approval. " Regarding Item #5, undergrounding of utilities, Mr . Carver questioned the reasoning behind it being required for their complex , when the rest of the complex has above ground utilities. Mr. Carver suggested that the rest of the complex should be undergrounded and that property owners should split the cost involved in undergrounding the entire complex, or that he be allowed to forego underground utilities as the rest of the com- plex had done. During discussion by Council in regards to this item, it was noted that the entire Palms to Pines is above ground (utilities ) , and that the project was originally County approved . Mr. Carver stated that he would be willing to pay for his share if a district were formed by the City . Mr . Hurlburt advised that it would be many years before there would be sufficient monies to spend on that particular area, and the City would stand the chance of overground lines for a long time, if they weren 't undergrounded now. Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that RESOLUTION NO. 75-36 be approved subject to the conditions as set forth in the attachment ; carried unanimously. C. Consideration-of petition filed by J. E. SIMPSON indica- ting an objection to the operation. of ELLIS J. BRACE, 45-896 San Luis Rey; acupressure and physical therapy. Paul Williams advised that Ellis Brace is in full com- pliance with the City ordinance, and that Mr . Simpson should be so advised. Mayor Clark informed Council that the restrictions are being worked over and that they are being tightened and strengthened. Paul Williams stated that the PC is trying to clean up residential zones. Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that the Council find the operation in conformance with the present zoning ordinance and directed the City Manager to notify Mr . 'Simpson ; carried unanimously. XII . CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None -5- XIII . NEW BUSINESS A. Consideration of acceptance of a Deed of Easement from PACIFIC SOUTHWEST H]:IALTY COt,tl'ANY for a 1.4 ' wide portion of. Portol.a Avenue between E1 Pasco and Larrea Street: to be utilized by the City for installation and maintcn- ance of traffic signals at the intersection of El Pasco and Portola Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that the Deed of Easement be .accepted' and directed the City Clerk to ;record the easement agreement and payment of.. $1 be authorized; carried unanimously. B. Consideration of bids received for the City ' s FOG SEALING PROGRAM for this year Paul Williams advised that 24 streets in Palm Desert were being sealed under this program, and that the estimate from Crown Asphalt Coating Company is $500 under the estimate as outlined in the City ' s budget . Councilman McPherson requested that the program be coordinated with the Water District until water work is completed on any roads to be sealed , rather than seal them and have to do it over . Councilman Brush moved and Councilwoman Benson seconded that the City accept the low bid of $5, 700 from Crown Asphalt Coating Company for the City ' s Fog Sealing Program and authorized the Mayor to sign the contract ; carried unanimously. C. Request from RETIRED SENIOR VOLUNTEER PROGRAM for City support in the amount of $1, 514 Councilman Aston moved and Councilman McPherson seconded that until such time as the City has established an inventory of: sociological needs and a policy relative to financial support of non City services , the City not approve requests of this nature; carried unanimously. D. Letter from IMPER-iAL, RIVERSIDE & SAN DIEGO COUNTIES COMPREHENSIVE HEALTH PLANNING ASSOCIATION requesting allocation of funds in the Palm Desert 1975-76 budget to them, based upon $. 03 per City resident ; such funds to be used as "matching" funds Councilman Aston moved and 'Councilman McPherson seconded that until such •time as the City has established an inventory of sociological needs and a policy relative to financial support of non City services, the City not approve requests of this nature; carried unanimously. E. Request from WILLIAM J. ELLIOTT, COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION, Beaumont , regarding parking relief at 73-820 Avenue 44 , where dwelling was destroyed by fire Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Brush seconded that Council take no action and that William Elliott be notified that this request must be filed as a variance to be processed through the Planning Department to the Planning Commission ; carried unanimously. F. DONNA E. DREWS, Parcel No. 625-021-001 , Goleta. Abate- ment costs in the amount of $692 'pl.us administrative charges of $1.73 . Check received from Donna Drews for $692, requesting waiver of the $173 administrative costs, as she was out of town when Notice to Abate was received and her landlord signed registered letter Mr. Hurlburt requested that this item be removed from the Agenda to be handled administratively , in view of the fact that Council approved RESOLUTION NO. 75-45. -6_ r XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS A. ROI-;AND P. SWEET, 75-537 PINYON STREET, PALM DESERT, delivered a statement regarding the ridiculousness of the situation wherein a splinter group was trying to represent the majority of citizens in Palm Desert in demeaning the value of the General Plan . Mr . Sweet stated that he has three developers interested in build- in Palm Desert , but because of the suspended status of the General Plan , they are unable to go ahead with their plans. Mayor Clark asked Dave Erwin to reply to this statement by Mr. Sweet , and Mr . Erwin advised Mr . Sweet that there was nothing to restrict his developers from pro- ceeding. Mr. Sweet advised Council that the general public is not qualified to decide on the validity or correctness of a General Plan ; that the City has qualified , competent personnel , with the best interests of the City and citizens in mind. The complete text of Mr . Sweet ' s comments are attached to the original minutes of this meeting . XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. City Manager None B. City Attorney None C. Mayor and City Council COUNCILMAN McPHERSON requested information as to what was being done about the flies and mosquitos in the Valley area, and asked whether or not staff could get in touch with the Mosquito Abatement District for a progress report . Mayor Clark stated that six or eight months ago the City appointed a member to the Mosquito Abatement Commission and suggested that a question of this sort be directed to our appointee. Councilwoman Benson advised that there is a report on file as to the progress made last year and what will be done this year. Mayor Clark requested that staff get a report from the Commission and/or the Mosquito Abatement Board. COUNCILMAN McPHERSON requested that staff prepare a resolution prohibiting smoking at any meetings held in the new Council Chambers. COUNCILMAN BRUSH expressed concern about bike riders on Portola Avenue north of Haystack Road , where the road narrows and riders are too close to cars traveling north on Portola. Paul Williams advised that the narrow part of Portola is Indian Wells property , and that staff would look into the poss- ibility of an agreement with Indian Wells to widen the road at that point . _7_ COUNCILMAN BRUSH commented that in connection with the referendum and the letter circulating in the community wherein the Referendum Committee suggests that certain changes can be made in the General Plan , and that all the City need do is sit clown with the Committee and make those changes; it is his opinion that if Council makes changes to accommodate three or four people , the acceptability of those changes to the balance of . the community is questionable , and that the Council is . agreeing to government by a very small minority in the community. It is his feeling that Council had no other choice than to set an election , and that not it is up to the citizens of the community to decide who is to run the City Government - the elected officials or a splinter group such as the. Concerned Citizens. The complete text of Councilman Brush ' s comments are attached to the original minutes of this meeting. XVI . ADJOURNMENT Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Aston seconded that the Council adjourn at 9:20 P. M. , and reconvene Tuesday , May 27 , 1975, at 5 : 00 P. M. , in the Palm Desert City Hall , for the pur- pose of Executive Session to discuss the referendum election on the General Plan ; carried unanimously. 3� HARVEY L HUHLBURT, City Clerk ATTEST: � c HENRY B. 'ARK, MAYOR _g_ fl'OPERWR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE T1 TL E: DATE E O_VT. NUM OI:R: PI�B P il' REP ti li? 7 i CITY OP P.:1 , vs 5/16/75 D Ir:D ly++?_� CCL,.ITT:,E, etc. , et al Ds7.S1-tT, et al COUNSEL: REPORTER: SEE BEWW None P ROCE EOIN G: Motion for Special Findings John McCarthy by: Erwin, Anderholt & Scherotter by: T. Burrell J. Patterson (City of Palm Desert) Attorney General by: Reed, Babbage & Coil (Ironwood C.C.) Janet Judy, Deputy Cal McIntosh (P.D. Board of Realtors) Best, Best & Krieger by: Paul Selzer (Narakesh C.C.) Carrick & Bolas (P.D. Citizens Action Coa-mittee) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - AMENDED 2010RAIdDLPM OPINION NO. 3 1. The Status of the General Plan Whenever feasible statutory language should be interpreted to uphold the consti- tutionality of legislative acts. (County of Hadera v. Gendron, 59 Cal. 2d 798. ) The issues presented in this case would require this Court to rule in areas of possible vested rights or extraordinary governmental loss of funds and expenses if the General Plan is now found to be no longer extant. However, predicated on a strict interpretation of referendum procedures, the ambit of such issues can be limitied if judicial restraint is exercised. Section 65357' of the Government Code mandates the adoption of a general plan by • "resolution." One sees the light of reason behind this requirement by recogniz- ing that a general plan is the result of many legislative acts of creation, i.e. , many studies, many hearings, planning, and citizen participation (Sections 65350 et seq Government Code). On the other hand, the simple adoptive act by resolution constitutes the final culmination only. Section 36935 of the Government Code allows resolutions to be adopted at a regular or special meeting with notice. Therefore the City Council properly adopted the General Plan now in question by an agop ive resolution at i s r - ar mee ing of January 20 1 75. s a consequence, the General Plan then an ere came into force and effect. e o er-wise would be to invite possible error i3 a minority--10% or more--of the voters could repeal a valid legislative act or override vested rights. Judge R/A CAL. I ATTY(S). Clerk Il FORM NO. 171, vca MINUTES OF SUPERIOR COURT PAGE ONE Or TtREE PAGES A SUPERIOR COURT OF THE. STA7 jF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVEF. JF. PAGE 'I110 " C? Ti TLE: _ nnT[ a uev T. Nv.�rn c.n: PlSI i Di:Si d. tr PIS'i t, 1ULYVl CITY OF R4LM COi•uaiTEE, etc. , ct al vs ITS F.T, ct al 5/16/75 n Iin) 19427 C OUNSF_l.: "' R EPORTEn: P HOC E F.OI"O: Next, Section 4051 of the Elections Code requires the filing of the relevant petition within 30 days of the adoption of the ordinance. This reouirement was met on February 18, 1975. Following this the clerk must examine the content and examine the signatures on the petition and accept the signatures for filing (Sections 4051(a) and 4051.1, Elections Code) . Having made a successful deter- mination the clerk filed the petitions on March 18, 1975. Thus, pursuant to Section 4051 of the Elections Code, on March 18, 1975, "the effective date of ordinance" had and did become suspended--not the General Plan, Igor can anything be suspended until it has first become in full force and effect. Thus, it is abundantly clear from the language of Section 4051 of the Elections Code that it is the effective date of the General Plan which is suspended and not tle G=_neral Plan. Having found that the General Plan is a legislative act the language in the Elections Code sections cited must have "general plan" substituted for the word "ordinance" in all places where "ordinance" is used. Thus, under Section 4052 of the Elections Code, the City had to either repeal the General Plan (a legislative act) or submit it to anelection (a legislative act) the same as if it were an 'ordinance." As indicated, the General Plan has not been repealed. Therefore, according to Section 4052 of the Elections Code "the legislative body shall submit the general plan to the voters. . .at a special election called for the purpose and held not less than 74 nor more than 89 days after the date of the order." If a city council fails to make such an order, the time for such an election shall commence when a city council should have so ordered, i.e. , on I•iarch 19, 1975, (Goodenough v. Superior Court, 18 Cal.App. 3d 692) . If time for processing does not permit, the election must be held as soon as practically possible. Finally, Section 4052 of the Elections Code tells us what happens until the election. The pertinent part provides: "The ordinance shall not become effective until a majority of the voters voting on the ordinance vote in favor of it." Again you must substitute the words "general plan" for the word "ordinance." At this point any concern for the status of the General Plan should be laid aside. Although Section 65362.11 of the Government Code recuir_ es new cities, such as Palm Desert, to adopt a general plan by June 30, 1975. PaL�i Desert has met this requirement. Moreover, since the City's zoning ordinance need not be =, de con- sistent with the General Plan until December 31, 1975, only time is of the essence. The last area of confusion concerns the possibility that the electors might vote against the General Plan at the forthcoming special election. Assuming that Judge R/A CAL. ATTY(S). Clerk FORM NO. 171, 2/64 MINUTES OF SUPERIOR COURT J , SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CAL WORNIA, COUNTY OF RIVFRSID'c PAGr 'iiv?Ei OF IPJr,L TITLE: DATE e DEPT. NUK UER: —_— PA I DE SDIT PWf ? ti U. CITl OF PA11"I 1G C0;3I=F_E, etc. , et al vs D3SiRT, et al 5/ /7J D ETi) 19427 COUNSEL: — -- it[PORTLft: PROCEEDING: " possibility, the General Plan and the resolution adopting it would simply be repealed, and, as a consequence, the County's General Plan previous to incor- poration would be reinstated, conceptually, by operation of law until a new General Plan could.be created. 2. The Effect of This Judrment Through the exercise of judicial restraint. and strict construction, keening foremost in mind the separate duties and responsibilities of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, I must find there are no specific issues of private property rights or interests before this Court at this time. There- fore no such rights or interests Trill be effected by this judE;ment except as specifically included in the issues, findings and conclusions set forth in the Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law and the memorandum opinions in explanation thereof. You must also keep in mind that no other Palm Desert ordinances, laws or regulations can be effected by this judgment. The writ of mandate shall issue accordingly. DIEPf�hY Judge R/A CAL. ATTY(S). Johnston Clerk =ORM No. wl, 2/64 MINUTES OF SUPERIOR COURT N+ INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: Evaluation of the Latest List of DATE: Revisions Submitted by the May 15 , 1975 Referendum Committee through Mr. Hobbs The latest list received through Mr. Hobbs from the Referendum Committee, not only deals with the General Plan but deals with the Redevelopment Plan: 1. Add a hrase statin that the core area as de ine is the ermanent area tor the Redevelopment Agency and that it cannot be expanded. Comment : It appears the Referendum Committee wishes to have this added to the Redevelopment Plan . I believe that such a statement could be added to the Redevelopment Plan, however, it does not prohibit the city from amending the Plan at a future date under the State law. Therefore, it is my opinion that we would lose nothing by adding such a phrase. 2. No commercial buildings over two stories . Comment : I assume that the Referendum Committee wishes to have this added to the General Plan. In our develop- ment of the preliminary Zoning Ordinance, the Planning Commission has limited building heights in the com- mercial area to a maximum of two story. Therefore , through the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, this requirement will be established. On this basis , therefore, it is my opinion that this request is being complied with. 3 . There cannot be an chan ;. made to the General Plan or t e Re evelo went A enc P anduring June, Jul , August and September . -2- 3 . Comment : The City Council , in their development of the appropriate public hearing times , three times a year on the General Plan, could establish a program by resolution under which no General Plan amendment could occur during this four month period. In addition, the Redevelopment Agency, on their own perrogative, could establish a requirement that the Redevelopment Plan not be amended during this four month period. Therefore if the Council and the Redevelopment Agency wish to comply with this request, it could be very easily done. I am assuming that what is being requested is that no public hearings be held during these four months on these two items . This would not prevent the city from doing the necessary preparatory work to accomplish these amendments during this four month period. In my opinion, this would have a very small effect upon the processing program within the city; and therefore it could be accomplished if the Council and the Redevelopment Agency so desired. 4. Define property owners 2articipation for improvements . Re evelo went Agency) Comment : As you are aware, the city through its Planning Priorities Committee and its Project Area Committee is in the very preliminary stage of developing the -program for the types and scope of improvements that are to occur within the core area, either as a part of the Redevelopment Plan or through other types of funding. It does not appear feasible, to me, to culminate this work at this very preliminary stage. I believe that many months of work will have to occur before the definition of the amount and type of property owner participation is developed. On this basis , therefore, I cannot see how such a des- cription could be added to the Redevelopment Plan which is scheduled for public hearing on June 12. 4A. Re uest State to make Hi hwa 111 three lanes on each si e w ich wou provide a turno ane. Comment: If the Referendum Committee is speaking of turn off lanes at the various intersections with Highway 111 it seems to me that such a request would be feasible and appropriate. Again, this request should not be in either the Redevelopment Plan or the General Plan. -3- 4A. Comment (continued) : It seems to me such a request should be processed through the Technical Traffic Committee and an official request be made to the Cal Trans office. 5. Incor orate new parkingand traffic plan at the time o adoption o ' Redevelopment F an. Comment: Again, it must be stated that the Planning Priorities Committee and the Project Area Committee will be in the process of developing such a plan and many months of additional work will be required before the Plan is finalized. Therefore, it is not feasible, in my opinion, to attach such a Plan to the Redevelopment Plan. It seems appropriate to me to allow the committees to com- plete their work to adopt the specific plan at that time , which would establish the parking and traffic plan for the core area; and in addition would further define the role of the property owners in terms of participation in any development of improvements within the core area. It seems to me that many meetings will have to occur with the property owners before such a program could be approved. In addition, it should be stated quite clearly that no participation financially by property owners within the core area could occur without their expressed approval in terms of a majority vote. 6. Densit for housin cannot exceed five per acre anywhere_ in Pa m Desert. Comment: As I have indicated in previous memos , the existing density character of Palm Desert ranges in areas from 1 to up to 46 units to the acre; and as a part of the development of the General Plan, an attempt was made to correlate the density to the existing density of the community since this is a key element to the existing character of Palm Desert. On the basis of a review of the existing density in Palm Desert , the ranges of 5-7 and 7-18 were developed to be utilized in those areas where the existing densities were greater than 5 units to the acre. To limit density to a maximum of 5 units to the acre on any property within Palm Desert does not appear realistic based upon the existing density character. On this basis , therefore, I cannot support this request in any manner. -4- 7 . Improve system of notification of meetings to the general public. Comment : The city, in developing its procedures for notifying property owners of actions pending before the Planning Commission and City Council, have established a lead time of six days before the meeting of both the Planning Commission and the Council for completion of the agendas . If a property owner desires to obtain a copy of an agenda of the Council meeting, it can be obtained on the Friday before the meeting in the Administrative Offices of City Hall. If a property owner desires to obtain a copy of the Planning Commission agenda, it is available in the Department of Environmental Services office on the Tuesday, six days prior to Planning Commission meeting. In addition, the city presently publishes in the Palm Desert Post, ten days before any Planning Commission or City Council meeting, a legal notice for any public hearing that is coming before either body. Also, any item requiring a public hearing includes a legal notice going to all property owners within 300' of that property. Finally, the city, on each Saturday, has in the Desert Sun, a list of the meetings for the subsequent week which includes a list of all the items on each agenda. It appears to me that with all these possible notifications , the property owners in Palm Desert are adequately noti- fied of the actions pending before the city. 8. Leave the sphere area out of the General Plan. Comment : As I have previously indicated, the whole purpose of the General Plan process is to look at the city 40-50 years in the future. To leave the planning of the city to only the existing 8. 8 square miles would negate this concept; and would not be compatible to the State law. In addition, the total effects of the General Plan cannot be adequately measured unless you look at the ultimate area of Palm Desert. Therefore, in my opinion, this request is not compatible with the present planning concepts that exist in the State. In reviewing the Cove Community' s General Plan, where it covers the area outside the present city of Palm Desert and within the proposed sphere of Palm Desert, I believe that there are many weaknesses in the Cove Community' s General Plan with regards to concerns in the area of seismic hazard, scenic preservation, ade- quate control of the hillsides , adequate circulation, .preservation of open space , and appropriate densities . -5- 8. Comment (continued) : All these elements were evaluated in the Palm Desert General Plan and were key considerations in developing all the elements which covered the sphere area. To go back to the Cove Community' s General Plan for the sphere area would negate all of these concerns ; and in my opinion, would not be good planning. SUMMARY: In my opinion, the city could possibly concede on items 1, 2 , and 3 . In addition, I believe that we can adequately explain the city' s proposals on items 4, 4A, 5 , and 7 to satisfy the Referendum Committee. I do not believe the city can concede on items 6 or 8, in any form. If the Referendum Committee will accept the city' s position on 6 and •8 and an adequate explanation is given on the other described items above, it appears to me that the Referendum Committee has no major concerns with either the Redevelopment Plan, the General Plan or the city' s processing procedures . If Mr. Hobbs can adequately explain the city' s position on all these matters , it seems to me that there is no difference between the city' s and the Referendum Committee' s position, as long as the Referendum Committee concedes items 6 and 3,. N i PRESIDENT j { I flay 14,1975 + Harvey & Paul These are the primary paints of opposition that I was able to learn after several hours of discussion with what I consider to be the major forces. I feel very strongly that if a meeting were called and the Mayor,with the full approval of the Council,would appoint a knowledgeable group not to exceed five people and limit the opposition to five ,that these differences could be rosol.vgd. I strongly feel that the Council and the City Management cannot and should not permit any group to interfere with their duty to function and the discharge of their responsebilities. There are some suggestions that are good but time will not permit there incorporation. In that instances I would seek approval with the clear understanding that we would have a full review beginning in October and would consider a specific 'list of subjects. The following is a list of those which appeared to be of major, importance. This deals primarly with the redevelopment Agency but also covers the General Plan. (. - 1. Add a phrase stating that the core areR as defined is !!!! the permenant area for the Redevelopment Agency and that it cannot be expanded. 2. No Commercial buildings ever two stories. -n.-3. There cannot be any changes made to the General Plan or- Redevelopment Agency plan during June,July,August & Sept. �4. Define property owners participation for improvements(Re- development Agsrcy) - 40L. Request State to make Highway 111 three lanes on each side which would provide a turnoff Incorporate new rking and traffic plan at the time of adoption of Q aPlan. 16. Density for housing cannot exceed five per acre anywhere in Palm Desert. `"7. Improve system of notification of meetings to the general public. The Council and yourselves will have a much better overview of the total picture than the individuals submitting these or myself. However I feel that this can be resolved,with out loss of position and excessive cost to all concerned. I will gladly help in any way you feel that will he productive. Sincerely Bill r f: r R ' INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Faun Desert TO: City Manager FROM: Director of Environmental Services SU3.iECT: Review of the Latest Submittal of DATE: the Referendum Committee May 12 , 1975 1 . Limit the density classifications in the General Plan to two categories , 1- units to the acre an -.) units to the acre , wit a one storms construction not to excee _ 15 in hei t . Pao re coon in lot' size or currently subdivided residential lots . Comment : A. As you are aware, the adopted General Plan has two classifi- cations greater than requested by the Referendum Committee, with those being medium density 5-7 , high density 7-18 . The General Plan was developed on the basis of retaining the existing character of Palm Desert- . As a result , the existing densities were analyzed in the community. These densities range from l unit to the acre up to as high as 46 units to the acre. In order to make the densities in the General Plan compatible to ibis existing character, the additional ranges of 5-7 and 7-18 were developed to make subsequent development compatible to the existing character . To limit the density ranges in the General Plan to two classifications of 1-3 and 3-5 would be highly restrictive and would not be logical on the basis of the existing character in Palm Desert . Therefore, I must strongly state that such a restriction is not realistic in relationship to the existing development and would adversely affect the character of Palm Desert that would result from such. a restrictive requirement . The staff has just completed the development of the proposed Zoning Map and the analysis of the results of the density that is proposed within the Zoning Map . On a gross net residen- tial acre in the present city limits , there are a total of 4, 346 . 7 acres . Under the General Plan on a neighborhood basis , a range of 3 . 87 units to the acre to 5 . 95 units to the acre would. be permitted . Under the proposed Zoning Map , the density proposed is 4. 15 units to the acre overall . This density is well within the range of the maximum of 5 units to the acre as proposed by the Referendum Committee . Therefore , on the basis of their indicated maximum of 5 units to the acre, the adoption of the proposed Zoning Map would conform to this limitation. -2- w n B. One story construction not to exceed 15 ' in height . This view is not an appropriate item for. the General Plan as indicated previously. . However, the Planning Commission, in their review of the Zoning Ordinance, has thoroughly analyzed this limitation and feels that in some of the residential zones , a maximum of heights should be limited to 18 ' in height. In addition, in other_ zones such as the R2 and R3 and the Planned Residential , the Commission has indicated that a maximum height of 30' or two story in height , whichever is less , is the logical_ requirement. This is based upon the believe. that there should be architectural flexibility in the development of residences and therefore the additional height is' necessary to provide for architectural variety. In addition, the topography . is a major consideration and since a majority of the city, particularly on the south side, does have some slopes to contend with, the greater height was felt to be necessary in order to make the designs of the buildings compatible with the topography. Finally, the Commission feels that the maintenance of the views are essential and in order- to accomplish this , the Commission has included in the :requirements that the height can either be restricted where viewsa ma bebe a ec e v ica -10 o t e height in each specific zone . T ere :ore, where views area ec 7 , i'he .ieigh _ car. e redo e3 to make the residence compatible to the existing area. I cannot overemphasize the feeling of t'-,e Commission that: there should be some flexibility in height so that there can. be some variation, particularly in. the roof design and that: houses not be limited to just flat roof development . In the residential zones , the Commission has not allowed a greater height than two story. In fact, in all the zones the maximum height has been limited to two story. C. The Planning Commission and the staff in their revim, of the Zoning Ordinance and subsequent development- of the Zoning Map. have attempted in all instances to preserve the existing lot sizes throughout the community, and therefore , with the adoption of the Zoning Map , the limitation of preserving the existing lot sizes will be implemented. 2. Wh regards to commercial limiting_height to two story not toit exceed 5 feet in hey ht and requiring proper Uufrer area etween residenti_a and commerc al . Comment : A. The Commission in their review of the commercial zones felt that two story not to exceed 30 feet in height in all commercial zones with one exception was the appropriate height to establish to permit flexibility in terms of design of buildings . In the area of planned commercial , they felt that a limitation of two story in height was sufficient to require. -3- .2. Comment continued : B. The staff and the Commission in the development of the Zoning Ordinance totally agrees with the Referendum Committee that . .there should be a proper buffer area between residential and commercial and such a concept has been implemented. 3 . No processing occur during the months of June , July, August , or September ot each year. Comment : A. In my view the requirement of no processing occuring during a four month period of the year is totally unrealistic , and in my opinion, something that no city should adhere to . As indicated by the Postmaster, during this period , approximately 10io of the population is out of the city for some extended time. To stop the processing on the basis of 4, 000 people leaving the city in my view, is totally unrealistic. It appears to me that this is a concern that these people had wb en the County was processing developments here in Palm Desert, and with the incorporation and establishment of a qualified Counci_1, which brings th:: decision making closer to home, it appears to me that these people shou!.d be confident with the Council and to realize that they repr,:!sent the total community and will be doing their job durinp, .this four month period, the same as they do the rest of the year . and that to tie the hands of the Council during this period is totally unrealistic . On this basis , therefore , I would that we indicate strongly to these people that development cannot stop during this four month period. 4. Requirement that hearings_ be public before the Commission and Counc--1 and thiat Agendas $e gublishe�C and availabi>^hdays prior to hearing Comment : A. All hearings and considerations by both the Commission and Council have been open and public since the inception of the city, and will continue to be in the future . Therefore, the comment made is not relevant. B. When the city first established this processing procedure, they reviewed the various cities in the valley and based upon that review, and based upon our knowledge of other cities that • operate in the state of California., we determined that the lead time for the Council Agendas and Planning Commission Agendas of at least six days is the longest of any in the valley and any, to our knowledge, in the state of California . Therefore, we feel that the existing length of time of six days is' sufficient for any person to find out what is on the Agenda and what are the recommendations of the staff . In addition, any person wanting to know what the major items are on either the Council or the Commission Agenda can pick up a Agenda on Friday prior to the Council meeting or on Tuesday prior to the Planning Commission meeting. In addition , they can read the Palm Desert Post in which all the public notices are published. Finally, the 4 8. (continued) property owners within 300 ' of al.l. projects that are going to public hearing, are notif.I.ed ten days before the meeting. It is on this basis , then that I must indicate that a 14 day lead time is totally unrealistic for us to adhere to and would greatly complicate both the staff' s processing of projects and would drastically hinder the applicants who are trying to process things through the city . 5. Hotels and motels limited to 100 rooms with meeting and dining facilities not to excee 30 people. Comment A. While such a limitation could be placed within. the General Plan and/or within the Zoning Ordinance , it is my feeling that such a requirement should be based upon logic. It appears to me that- placing this limitation would. drastically affect the economic feasibility of any hotel development of the type that we would like to see of low rise bungalow type development . For example, the type of development that we have been promoting ;,7ould be similar to the Erawan Garden Hotel_ or. the Indian Wells Hotel in Indian Wells . . These hotels have the following number of units and capacity for meeting and eating: (a) Erawan Gardens Number_ of Units 224 Capacity for Eating ,�`µKK- � �D'" and. Meetings 740 (b) Indian Wells Hotel. Number of Units 118 Capacity for Eating and Meetings 300 When the City applies such constraints to a hotel complex, it must be based on a very logical consideration. In my opinion, the limitations proposed by the Referendum Committee do not have such logic . 6 . No non-residential activities of any kind will be permitted in residential areas . Comment : A. Such a limitation is appropriate to be placed in the Zoning Ordinance and it is the attempt of most Zoning Ordinances to keep definable non-residential activities out of residential. areas . However , there is a large gray area between residential and non-residential activities which includes home occupations , governmental operations , and schools , etc. which must be reviewed as to their appropriateness to be placed in residential or non- -5- 'A. (continued) residential areas . For example, a home occupation such as a mail order business or a contractor who works out of his home where his home is strictly limited to mail and telephone operation has no affect on the residential activity , but could be considered a non-residential. activi.ty. Therefore most Zoning Ordinances indicate that such types of uses are permitted under very stringent conditions . Such requirements have been included in our proposed Zoning Ordinance . In addition, there are other uses such as governmental operations and schools which can be permitted in residential areas but must be very strongly controlled. . Therefore , these types of uses are permitted only by a conditional use permit under which the Planning Commission can attach conditions to guarantee that these uses will be compatible to the adjacent residential areas . It is my opinion that Co totally restrict residential areas to totally non- residential uses is unrealistic . 7 . No regional shcp�n:ina centers . Comment: A. The General_ Plan does not indicate a regional shopping center in terms of the normal nomenclature for a regional center . A regional center is defined as a shopping center that has two or more large major department stores . It is located at an inter- section of an expressway and/or freeway. It has a service area of four miles in which .a minimum population of. 150 , 000 exists and is of the size of 100 acres or more . The said center should contain between 400 , 000 and 1, 000 , 000 square feet of gross floor_ area amci have 40-80 shops , with 4, 000 parking spaces or more. Such a definition does not fit what is being proposed under the General Plan. As you. probably remember, the proposed shopping center designated as regional in the General Plan has 35 acres , .could contain a maximum of 325 , 000 square feet , and is more towards the concept of a community center or an area wide. center. . Therefore , on that basis , the statement that no regional center be allowed is being complied with by the General Plan. 8 . Delete all references to subsidized housing from the General Plan. Comment : A. As far as I can determine, the only reference in the General Plan is that subsidized housing programs under the federal government and state government exist and that if it ' s deemed appropriate by the city, they could be utilized. Such a reference could be deleted from the General Plan and it would not prohibit the city from utilizing such programs . Philo- sophically, .I believe that the city at some point in the future will have a need to embark upon some form of subsidized housing and to ignore that in the. General Plan is not , in planning terms , considered to be appropriate. -6- V .9 . Change the _classification and zoning in the "Sphere of Influence" to com�l�withRiverslde. County cl.assi.cati_on . Comment: A. This request is in essence saying, do not plan beyond the city' s present boundaries , which is opposite of the planning process as visioned by the state law and is commonly carried out within the state of California. On that basis , I strongly suggest that such a request not be implemented. As you are aware, the consultants and the city staff , the CAC, city Planning Comnission .and City Council gave substantial thought to the develop- ment of the Land Use Map and other elements of the General Plan with regards to areas outside the present city boundaries . To ignore that at ;he request of a limited number of individuals would, in my opinion, be ualappropri.ate . 10. Remove all reference to Pil.laf>e T es , 7.5 1eighborhoo(13 and Planned Residential Districts . Comment : A. The neighborhood concept was developed or. the basic that the community has historically developed with different characters being established for specific areas of the community. For example, the character of the area of the Palm Desert Property Owners is in many ways distinguishable from the area known as the Silver Spur Ranch. The General Plan indicates that these differences in neighborhoods should be amplified and preserved sin.ce they are an element Of the character_ of the community. Such a concept is innovative, in my opinion, and required in a community such as Palm Desert . In addition, through the establishment of neighborhood concepts , the areas for example around the college could be developed in a manner to amplify the character of the college and to improve upon that character . The Referendum Committee feels that the planned residential districts is not appropriate. This is not the way the recent development has occurred in Palm Desert . Planned residential developments such as Marrakesh , Ironwood, Palm Desert Tennis Club , Mountainback, Indian Hills , I:ings Point , Sandpiper, Sands and Shadows , are a substantial part of the community and to Limit . that type of development in the future does not appear appropriate. Particularly since the amenities provided- in such developments and the improvement of a community by the utilization of such a process appears to be the most appropriate way to develop the remainder of the community. SUMMARY: A number of the additions and deletions as recommended by the Referendum Committee are either presently embodied in the General Plan or not appropriate. The bottom line of this list that has been provided, in my opinion, is an indication that the recommended changes have not been well thought out . t I P130PO3 1) CHANGES TO 'JHL CEiiERAL PLAN ' f Notes These oro nupgented policies„ Procise languago to be drafted if' thero is agreement in principle, ADD TO THE G's'il RAL PLAN'. 1.. Residential — Two classification:, 1 to i and j to j per store with one story construction not to exceed lj feet An height. No reduction in lot size for currently subdivided residential lots. 2. Commercial — Hotels and Motels --lbcs.ted along Highiaay Ill (including area fro!a iionterey to Ah th avenue), E1 Paseo, and other areas adjacent thereto presently peed co;mmerciel. a. Two story not to exceed 2j feet in height, b. Proper buffer area between residential and commercial, 3. No city agency shall process or approve any subd'iviai.on, plot plan, variance, zone change, or change in General Plan in the months of June, July, August or September of each year. 4. Bearings before the Planning Commission and/or the City Council on subdivisions, plot plans, variances, zone changes, or changes in the General Plan shall be Public with public participation through documentation or oral presentation. Agenda for meetings dealing with land use shall be available 11I calendar days prior to hearing, . j, Motels and hotels :;hall not be larger than 100 roo.ps and with Meeting and dining facilities to accomodate not more than j00 pedple,. 6. No non—residential activities of any kind will be permitted in residential areas. 7. No regional shopping centers. DL'L) E JTRO:�, THE Gs1,ERAL PLAN. 1. All reference to subsidized housing, i , 2. Change the classification and zoning in the "Sphere of Influence" 4 to comply withjiversido County classification. 3. Remove all reference to Village Types, 25 Neighborhood and Planned Residential Districts. ❑ATTORNEY ❑MANAGEMENT SERVICES ❑BUILDING OFFICIAL ❑ FOR: INFORMATION ❑REVIEW&COMMENT ❑ACTION&DISPOSITION ❑INITIAL&CIRCULATE ❑FILE REMARKS zeu�5, a LJ hat c o n� �1'0215 � rL� 1 -7 � poi r A1-9/74-4M FROM -5/7/75- INFOR•1ATION STATEMENT CONCERNING SUSPENSION OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN 1 . Statement Prepared by: Paul A . Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert VALUE 2 . Total Amount of Development Under Construction - $9,043,646 3 . Total Amount of Development in Plan Check - $ 785,000 4. Total Amount of Fees Paid for Development Presently Under Construction or in Plan Check - $ 146,957 5 . Total Number of Units Receiving Preliminary Approval - 435 units 6. Other Projects Affected - Expansion of Palm Desert Middle School - Water & Sewer- Line Extensions - City' s Redevelopment Program THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. PAUL A. W LLIAMS i �Y II '4 grS�� If '•,ry ;.'C..C:i1311mi_`:�4! I'_:1�W::xuulllyMcssvvuo..:..cm s emuflgff� r 45175 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Cc 92260 Ph. 3461611 May 7 , 1975 Honorable Fred Metheny Judge of the Superior Court 46-209 Oasis Street Indio, CA '92201 Reference : Palm Desert General Plan Referendum Dear Judge Metheny : As the City Manager. of Palm Desert , California, the technical staff and I have very carefully evaluated the impact of the absence of a General Plan on numerous City projects and activ- ities. We have concluded that the following hardships would be suffered : 1. Without a. General Plan , the City would not be able to adopt its Redevelopment Plan in June as scheduled, and would be unable to file the Plan with the County by early August . Failure to file as scheduled would preclude the City from establishing the 1973-74 fiscal. year as a tax base for tax increment financing, and would consequently lose the City approximately $57 , 000 per year for tho life of the project . Assuming that the lire of the project could range from 25 to 35 years , this would indicate a loss of approximately $1 , 500, 000 to $2 , 000, 000. 2. Since absence of a General Plan would mean absence of an open space element , the City would suffer a one year slippage in the $47, 000 to be realized from State Park Bond Act monies in early :fiscal 1975-76. This would mean a one full year setback in developing an access road and parking lot for the City ' s new Community Park. 3 . The City would lose its qualification for federally subsidized flood insurance for Palm Desert property owners, since there would be no legally established identification and control of flood prone areas without the General Plan . Honorable Fred Metheny Page 2 May 7 , 1975 4. The City would experience a. loss of approximately $15,000 to $24 , 000 for duplication of consultinV service and staff time to develop and process a new General Plan and E. I . R. 5. The various commissions , committees , and other bodies of the City would suffer a time loss of over 100 hours in duplication of meetings in preparation of a new General Plan and E. I . R. 6. The City would not be able to comply with State man- dated requirements for a General Plan by June 30, 1975, and the zoning ordinance by no later than December 31 , 1975, The entire set of documents from the General Plan through the zoning ordinance, subdivision/grading ordinance , ocre area precise plan, and redevelopment agency plan would suffer a minimum setback of approxi- mately six and one half months from its present schedule. 7. The City would suffer a total building moratorium and termination of most planning activities for a period of three to four months, subsequent to July 1 , 1975 . assuming that legal action would be initiated by a citizen of the community. Very truly yours , CITY OF PALM DESERT HARVEY L. HURLBURT City Manager HLH/jt �7 nn (e l4 F'i al PROPOSED CHANCES TO THE GENERAL PLAN PA�' 1 yNote ; These are suggested policies. Precise language to be drafted if there is agreement in principle, ADD TO THE GENERAL PLAN; 1. Residential. - Two classifications, 1 to 3 and 3 to 5 per acre with one story construction not to exceed 15 feet in height. No reduction in lot size for currently subdivided residential lots. 2. Commercial - Hotels and Motels ---located along Highway Ill (including area from Monterey to 440 avenue), E1 Paseo, and other areas adjacent thereto presently ,zoned commercial. a. Two story not to exceed 25 feet in height. b. Proper buffer area between residential and commercial. 3. No city agency shall process or approve any subdivision, plot plan, variance, zone change, or change in General Plan in the months of June, July, August or September of each year. 44 Hearings before the Planning Commission and/or the City Council on subdivisions, plot plans, variances, zone changes, or changes in the General Plan shall be Public with public participation through documentation or oral presentation. Agenda for meetings dealing with land use shall be available 14 calendar days prior to hearing. r�. hfot.,A ls and hotels shall not be larger than 100 rooms and with meeting and dining facilities to accomodate not more than 300 pebple. 6. No non-residential activities of any kind will be permitted in residential areas. 7. No regional shopping centers. DELETE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN; 1. All reference to subsidized housing. 2. Change the classification and zoning in the !Sphere of Influence° to comply with Riverside County classification. 3. Remove all reference to Village Types, 25 Neighborhood and Planned Residential Districts, WILSEY & HAM... M[MORANUUM May 5, 1975 2-2189-0602 TO: Paul Williams cc: LBM FR: William H. Garrett RE: Agency Report to Council Enclosed are ten copies of the Agency Report to Council as it now stands, which can be distributed to the Council for review. Bob Joehnck notified me today that we need to include as part of the official Report the DRAFT EIR and a summary of the PAC activities to date. I will add these as Appendices and have them as part of the report on Thursday. /kp Sa Si U O O N 0 O �, R •1 U ... O •rA Cd SL U cd a) •r7 U) 'd bA r.. q Cd O O QL t�1/ O d -H O ® h m U a) U ^ w 0 0) E O a m /O7�SS r-( o ' '0 R- j 69 N -0 u b m s♦ H d' /u o ;>, LLI 6 O O N O C -ri O Cd zR co - 0) •� •� in a � O o LO r4 � < m 8 a) o o (1) U U^) N O a) bb N H uZlEi vi 'H £+ (d •rl .0 ri •r{ .ri a ri > a) > ov > +3 a > �-4 d' 0 O r Ca O .0 O +� O Cd � � to w 0�I s P, -P a P, o m P, R U P, L) E! H r., rl N m d) )O a_ W D, 7 d s~ O O )O 00 pq 0 A a H 5 ad ALO LO O co w d W 4> cd A H J O O w 4) d H m F SA O H W P O Cd z Cd N a a + m o `� x a z W A. H C 4� 4-3 H Cd H H [d •ri w W Cd A a) Cd 'd •d 4� . N >~ a) U H F x Fi p i~ F, a) a) •ri W .0 O w W .0 d 1 0 U] C 1l P 5:4 Cd •r>i 3 dJ U bD-t3 U 0�3 U O to a) D a) N`w -Ha) ri a) •ri z ri U t~ x U' -14 �J S-4 z H •ri r P, C r-I •14 d v P, a) Cd r p Cd cd ,o b1 H A U 3 F a) L E H H 0 U Cd H N r1 d +3 Cd Ao U a) w w • -ri H P, P (1) P, 4 P, P,-ra (1) 6 z a) o x U a (1) a .c +3 U x 5:1 •o a) i +>ffii ri z ri H :i o m Sa +j a) H g� cd O a) U d (1) Cd O (1) U •rl p, co O O d U G: (1) H t, w p •ri F, S, F4 w i4 •ri 41 � z .N 4J •ri W (A EE Cd O O H a) O a) O H P, A O -0 Cd +� H A 6 z [ +) 4-1 •O q w G N (H ,O O H a) U) 41 O w Cd O 'rl a) a) a) 7 (1) a) N O N U 'd F-1 F "Cn Z O W d U w C7 u) .n S� 0 A C7 N A P, F 4 O N m •d' CO C9 L-COD F cn a c, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORPlfA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TITLE, P.D. RLFF 9E'1%LTJ1% DATE S DEPT. IN UMUER� GoEl.'ITTEF., Et al -vs- CITY OF PALM DESERT, t}-21-75 D IF,D. 10427 Et al COUNSELT Lrivin, -incernoit-&bcTi-er—o-c-T-c-i. REPORTERI John C . McCarthy Carnic}c & Bolas Attorney General Bone PROCEEDINGT RULING: Petition for Writ of Mandamus and Declaratory Relief ME40RANDUM OPINION Section 65030 of Government Code lays out the State-wide goal of continuing community development through planning. Section 65300 of Government Code transfers this awesome responsibility for the future to the legislative bodies of each county and city so far as a long-term, comprehensive general plan is concerned. While it has been argued that the State's delegatory edict reduces the City Council's act of creating a general plan to a simple administrative shuffling of priorities, such a conclusion could not be less true. The act of structuring a general plan involves creating the chromosomes for a community's growth and development. The referendum rights of the people are constitutionally guaranteed in Article IV, Section 1 of the California Constitution. It should be liberally construed (Dye v. Council of the City of Compton, 80 Cal.App. 2d 486; Duran v. Cassidy, 28 Cal.App. 3rd 325; Farley v. Healey, 67 Cal. 325) . Although O'Loane v, O'Rourke, 231 Cal.Appl 2d 774, came down before the 1965 revisions of the State Planning Act, the semantics have not changed. The change in words cannot transform what is legislative in substance into a purely perfunctory administrative act. Regardless of the word structure of a local ordinance or the general plan itself or the adoptive instrument, the adoption of a general plan is a legislative act, (Selby Realty v. City of Buenaventura, 10 Cal. 3rd 110, 118; Hopping v. Council of City of Richmond, 170 Cal. 605, 11). Therefore, O'Loane controls; and since the function of adopting a general plan and the substance of a general plan is legislative, it must be subject to referendum. The law, as stated above, mandates this Court's ruling on the case at bench. In reach- ing the right for referendum the Court is not unaware of the economic and social impli- cations involved. But these are political factors which should be decided by election. I find that monetary costs involved could be substantial but paying the price of repeal is a decision for the people to decide at the election polls. Moreover, I am aware that a referendum can be used as a sword rather than a shield to protect against a decaying future. But the processes of the courts can and will pro- tect against such an abuse of process. In sum, the City Council must have, and deserves, the guidance of the citizens of Palm Desert through an election. Unless one is held the ultimate issue will only be delayed. The vote of the people will provide a vote of confidence for the existing policy or point up new guidelines for the future. Let the Writ of Mandate issue. Pursuant to Sections 4050, et.seq. , of the Election Code, the time for any such election shall start running from March 19, 1975. METHENY Judge R/A CAL. ( ( ATTY(S). Riordan Clerk FORM NO. 171, 2/64 MINUTES OF SUPERIOR COURT t t I 11 1 H G. H w'd H H Froth w w yy R roH m C M G (D O r .7 n r (D r (n m o m m w m M r m M m m m z r• :d p o 7d x7 m O � E 7d 'd 7y H rt (D H. w (D (D fD W (D w (D M w. m (D M M R w M M (D r• M (D w a (D (D 1 . (D M (D m n (D W M M M F'• M (D M (D M M LD fD 'd N (D m n (D N (D p w (D 10 p m O 0 q w a r• d rt rt 0 N GGa R a P• w (D P• w 8 a m 2 5 M m to n n �m'I � n n 8 n FR'• n H W o m o 0 o w o w C: (D 0 o G m x w w n o H. N rt Lr'D R rt G rt M rt (D 0 rt ? rt rt R rt (D o (D �J m m m w m n G (D to 9 G m n m m a' m N m o Op m z G• m m N O H. N E N ^J rt N O' w rw v. fyw rt w H• w w k m m O m n F1 (D m w rt m H In w E N rt 0o to r w 9 m n W N w m w o N 7' C ? C' �+0 '1 W w O w O F. w p m O' w H R rt rt rt Op rt W (D R H !n N rt r rt O m rt w (D 00 m [T] 9 rt w C' E (n 7' 7 M 7 C21 O m E m O m O rm•I p m wr CD n G M N rt Fw' N N m X x m p ? a P r• r• m m 'd m co n � 00 14 P3 m � W r4 D� d rn � F w N r M M�' M G In rt w n z r'I R a, w w 'd z M 'O O o. H 'd rt rt !." rt rt H rt 00 O' E z m m ZI 6r r 0 0 m C' m r n m�'j 0 O w R m �' M 7 O O C• R' M 7 m m C' O z N. rt r m d � R QO m O r (D B rt E Y• m n m n m (D rt m m m m m W rt rt tz O. N F'• m UO G 'd 5ro MY7 r• rt lT' W M M n r• N'd rt aw NM m rt m rt Y. 17 0 O• r m m P. rt M O p H. O M O m M m n O w rt M 7 'd m W a W w O w O 0 G G Op E C' d m G n G 4 M 1 G r F 7 C n n m w tY R N M C R 'd m N µ m n r F'• W m m m W O m m O m M rt rt M 14 r• :I- �r r rt C' W R rt w m �i G M r . '.D n I (((3SSS O W O - V O w m m E O 1 q 0 R' 'd 00 H. O rt Op w 1n a n w d 7 r O p O R 0p rt rt w. n 1 t 7 rt 0 7 I H O n " m µw m a. o. ror m - R rt G' m 0 9 Hm Om 14 G M 7 w G r W N r R r3' 7' m 0 M M G• m V M Op 14 w H r m m w. n O w Cr W m m M F'• W m rt 0 m O P. O m W rt f� P. m H 7' I a' P W "J' m rt M w W W a' rt m H. M w n ar � E w 4 M m z d m E M 9 m M an d Op (D 'd d G FH• M w m C O n m w w W m w H. N m w r 0 a w VR M m w m N r m G M r r• CO rt n d R O w H. w E G rt 0 O O M p m . 0 r fD O r x O W 0 7 G 1.4 M G R n w m 'd w n P• m 7 P. • 'd w m 0 m H. W 7' m p w O r m 0 m p ro G r M 'd Cl) w to w d 7 m 0 0 W m w M y e (D .� W 9 m E O m r O M 14 m O 0 CD G rt p M 9 m ro 7' m M n r m H CD V 0 m 9 rt t=� rt N w d' w w a r G m r w H R w O rt W Op (D X w M w 0 m M C' H. w rt r X w w O r d n X W m X M Cr'0 w W C R C' H. N O m 010 O r W C' w W 5 w 'd .m H. a m m C 'd Op m ro 9 o w m 9 ro v (n G w M G 9 H. d o cr r G 7 9 Z m r w rt w W 0 r• G C O a m O W G n w 9 W w E m a w rt w W w w CL w rt O 'd M 9 w lY H. w M w H. O O p `C P' M rt w 17' rt rt 'd 4 O d O W d v :5 O Op W w m w (D E W C N d O n m UO rt M w a M w n r O W w O rt m R m o0 M m n O m W G w O w X M d m C rr R M r"{ O P. m G w Op CD G x w M 14 ro a r (D 9 m O C n w w'd 1--0 M r• m Op W m a w r rt W G w O w N ON m 0 0 ? P. d R w 7 P. w M w R' n m C 7 G M 9 d F• m m d m m m 0114 O d I m 0 m w E w w rt 4 rt W •C m rt -0 G . w rs M (D - Fi' C w In R n w w w O w w m m G r• o' R M n w H. O an d M m n m 4 N w n H. C rt 'T•' n W rt r C' M m r Op m n 7 m R F'• w O w W CD O w 0 w H. n W rt w m m O N 7' H N w m 0 M w rt F n d rt M 0 C' M Co w m .7 rt rt fY R G F . rt 14 H. \ D) Op R ty m r m p r C' R. rt R m In w rt m G m a r G r r Op M M m M R 14 m O '$ W rt O m m (A N (D V rt m O M r H. m w w 'd O m w 9 w N m `4 N m P• w \ R m 0 4 w rt M 'd m w W CD m M 9 rt O r V F-' M w w rt m w O P. a 9 rt 00 w• w E m rt m ? M rt tY C r In rty M, m G n ? C' d m m 0 14 r•4 w rt (RD w w 0 M 7• N r• m 'd 7 H. M (b W. O M w w M C'Op M R m O n O w rt • r d P. m n M 7 C w n M 14 v, a 7 N N 0 A) m r rt O co V Cn y 9 H robw07H OroH H• OH H h7 w H p H w C r T '.7 H rw C (D a w H• w w am m m Cr F- (D x CL 7d Z, z td a w H• r 8 m W m w w w m cn 0) rt r ov £ C m w twi m n n m ( ro w n w H w O H O m H H w C H• Zr a w C m g m r rt r P• rt µ P W H 0 B w ❑ td 14 0o M P. P w 1 • w H P. ID ryaw w b n 0 m w w W w w rt g O 7' a• aOa r O x Fl rt rH• C• m B HOG B w w P. N H• P. m P' I H H H. w w w P G] rt w rt m W rt t '.d 4 rt UG m rt K CL rt w w rt �=y r 0 m m m P w H• O P r H P m C tj1 P 't1 w H rt W CO H. to z B rtH �' m H. rt rrt t7 rt m O.00 93 w W w P• w G' a• 0 w m ro C r m rt W rt 3 w rt rt W (D w m fmll W w n O d m LL P m CL C rt m rt O N T.• C (DD V rt n 9 w O W m P rt H. P' C rt rt H O 'd w BB V rt B rt rt m rt M H � m � E CO " i rD • m (Dm M 10 �C w C r Fl " 0 7' N rt E w w r w o w W O nn14 r14m ate• m ar MT 0 (D H N w rt 0 m w m r 7 H w w m rt w w �p CD V CT 4o w E rt w rt w m P. z 9 H M a• n C. z £ W M 0 z n 9 0 a' w aL w 0 0 P' H C' H• r rt O C ? O w W w 0 7 P m M 0 O w q P. C C 9 C w w w N C w rt r m H r rt p rt H. m rt x w P. 0 n m r rt w rt m CL B rt O -.0 w n rt r rt f!• w :x a m P. w rt W 0 rt £� W rt �' � :x rt P O w H• K O O - H I w ar £ rt H m m rt m H P G W a P. w 0. 0 M O M M 00 C w P m rt 0 14 C 4 ? C H• to 0 0 u. O C m rt w C' C - w m n m 0 m rt £ P H W w 9 ro M_ w 4L m" rt co rt O H n r H O H O �C a, - H n 7 w m 7 0 H w O P. BB w g9 w w n m ID m w r H. m n w I C r B yd H 1 µ B B 1 K P w D a rt 00 0 r B a K rt m O' .7 m m m m w m H. C m H w rt r m n w w V 'd M w m H P' H W m r 4 W `4 td W.P rt !? O r m rt r 0 0 0 rt P rt . LL m 0 C7 m rt rt C rt r C w H. H r w R' m K C H. 2' O •C I-H rt H. CL m w 14 w S' w w m .7 rt w w 4 w m w r w w rt rt '� O H. rt w m m H m `C 0 w m w r a r O ❑• O "0 O "+ 4 H H m rt 'd M m B CL (0 H f) 'd 'd M w rt B P - mrtnw (D (D w ID (D wCYwr O H m m r K 9 B rt M 0 'F' rt 00 P H m w w m In w O' P P H1 O H• rt w H• 7'• w m m v m m w n .7 01 M m rt 0 > �•�•'O w `C W r m H H w n w H w w rt P W C O w w n C 0 m m w O P P• w H. H. v C H O' In H H m p E w m n z r 0 8 w r O r 0 p r W w C m m rt rt C w rt C Id O µ w ro M 9 m m m V r 0 O P. S r r m rt zr W K 0 rt rt ? rt H• m P• H w rt rt O rt w O rt 0 0 rt 7 n H 0 rt rt w 0 p w m C 14 C w M B ? w w w rt 4 P ? 7O + rr m w M rt B H co 'a W G W O H. w 0 w - w rt CL m H. rt H. O r 'O O P P rt m 'd C 0 W B w w C• O m 0 tY w C µ M m p 0.00 '0 r H• 0 w H m rt P m w 00 9 w w m P. m w P. rt 0 m rt O w H. ::r• H. P H m H H• m W w rt P rt C O C 0 0 'd O O rt C. "d C d 4 N H m m 0 00 00 7 H M H P C w 'd H w 0 rt rt m m m rt m m 00 rt �' O O . rt rt H• m 00 P' 7' O r- w £ 0 m ?' O rt rt B 'd H. 'O w m m O rt 14 m w n Cn m C £ w 0 W. rt 0 m m w rt 7 rt C' m 14 O rt rt w O x w 0 �r 0 H O w fD 7' ? w w m C m w P H• m m P 7. O m w rt rt 0 w H P• n rt 0 m 9 a rt O w w O H C m rt w C w H .7 0 rt GG p• rt M P a,P P m H rt W m00 CL m m C O B O m O QL r art :3' rt 7 rt rtm W m H H H µ rt w m W`C w m V m m O w P C £ m w W 7' CL. H w M N O H m 1.4 w 00 m a• % 00 m m K r w O w M 'd U rt K K H• m m H. 0 H P H H m 0 w w m m m `C �' rt ? - ? p 4 w p - rt Co I-- w ? W P W " m m P• H• K 0 :) m w 00 V - E m rt m rt rt w H m Fl O H • a [H[�� w CL m x (DC 3 m CL p m m `C m to C. M ;dn H z H n m ro n n o n r aE w a Pw w 0 [a w p w H w n m m a ry• m o CLo C: o 0 ww n e H. rt (D 0 m w w (D rt (D tl x W. C] artnn om 7d m C rt rt G a m m t m wmm dm cD rt rt m wxx x M (D N 0 R H (D R (D x H (-I ti rt H R M rt H (D m m mew (ow W o rt m 0 n m 5 N `4 < m a i w rt rt Fl O H A m p O '4 r m ~ n D � 00 x n m w N• 0 00 H H H o rt m to m H rt 5 o 0 n 'd H m g w 5 H x a O X S O O g Og M I-- ti :r O (D O m x (DO0 w (D m x W m m 9 E n H O CL II R 'd (D H. n 'd O M W x G W w r m 1,. 0 m rt M m Cr w n rt n W W `C D) O O rt C] H (D CL H H• D) (D x rt .^3 00 M. x (D W n 'i P. 0 rt m (D D) W K m M x (D R n M W xwh' M p rt E D1 K D) 0 O O W 1c rt 00 x 0 d H It J' d R :;4 P) d M C rt m (D G r a a) 00 0 (D 0 m o m o CL H n H 5 'd n 'i m O n N •C H n O n w W H H `c m I n 'i rt 'i In N rt d o m W pp�� 00 C FI• 'd O R m O M x C v H O w 7 0 0 PI Oo 7 rt (DH w " m p G m O K D1 w W K O) H x W (D H• O f.] rt 0 w " G M N p W m 'i m M M m W K O (L rt m m 0 n m M :3 O rt r x W w 5 W N O v " C rt H x H . F•' rt D) :3 m 0 14 rt m m 00 N m m 0 rt m m rt w p x W HOJ rt d H C w H m M m m m (i K (D H• rt N 'd F-I m OO K ❑ P. 5 m 4 O •d m rt rt C N• c rt w N 0 W rt (D 0 p H O (S rt C m x o oD d m m �t K w x 5 H. x m m (-a 0 m W Q. 00 p O O D) v R w ro 5 r K 'i O W 0o rt T•• C) m R W P. O O 0 F3 n 7 d E m m 0 OO q p •o m OO x H. O N I-+ m I E N m 'L7 rt 'd w 0 rt N n m m 00 x R r xO E o ei m xw w 0 or• z n (n .'t x n P) 00 (D R N• P) O O n G O • rt K w M m W 0 0- x H rt G n H rt m w O D) O m R rt O p x d m 0 0 'd rt 0 0 W pi M00 nHmNmw PO m5ED) m 14 % n H. Hw m m rt C m o (D 5 E 5 m m m m o m E PI a � N pa 0 � rt ~• p• E co M 3 � rt xr .4 m m CO O 'CI i __ 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph, 346-0611 REPORT OF PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION DATE April 15, 1975 APPLICANT City of Palm Desert 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, California 92260 CASE NO. Proposed changes to General Plan from Referendum Committee The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of April 14, 1975 CONTINUED TO DENIED XX APPROVED BY PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION No. 47 PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF FOR CONCURRENCE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION xx PLACED ON THE AGENDA OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF April 24, 1975 FOR *M%M HEARING Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert within thirty (30) days of the mailing of this notice. Paul A. Williams, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission Applicant County Road Department CVCWD Referendum Committee April 2, 1975 OUTLINE OF KPLM PRESENTATION ON GENERAL PLAN REFERENDUM MAYOR: 1. Why General Plan required 8rxxxf�t ��xac�xt� 3 . How plan was developed 4. Opinion of referendum and Referendum Committee action 5 . Needless drain and waste of Council and staff time 6 . Disruption of orderly community economic development 7 . Damage to community image (possibly discuss impact of (Sphere of Influence) CITY ATTOR14EY: 1. Three actions available to Council 2. .Why referendum not legal 3 . Current litigation situation 4. Probable cost of future court action ($6, 000 or $7 , 000) 5 . Requirement for General Plan by July 1 PLANNING DIRECTOR: 1. Land use map 2. Density table 3. General Plan as a guide passed by simple resolution vs hard law of zoning adopted by ordinance 4. Method of future changes r 5. Availability of General Plan and land use map MAYOR: 1. What you view Palm Desert to be in the future under the adopted General Plan II Statements to be made by Paul Williams . 1. Land Use Map a. In reviewing the land use map , the first major thing that is evident is the substantial amount of green that is shown on the map. This represents the preservation of 60% of the total 74 square .miles as open space and particularly the preservation of the hillsides as undeveloped, which is a key element to the existing character of Palm Desert . b . Only 40% of the area is potentially developable . The re- sidential density for land is 1-18 units to the acre with 99% of the total area at less than 7 units to the acre which clearly indicates continuation of the existing lot density character of the city. C . The proposed commercial land uses which are shown in red were established with a major purpose of enhancing and preserving the existing commercial development along Highway 111. d. The creation of the land use patterns represents a balanced land use layout which attempts to preclude the potential of any future property tax. 2. Relating the adopted Palm Desert General Plan to the previous Cove Community' s General Plan which was enforced in Palm Desert , the number of units permitted have been reduced. In comparison of the two plans , the maximum average density has been reduced from the 7 units to the acre in the Cove Community' s General Plan to 3 . 48 units to the acre in the adopted Palm Desert General Plan. It is clearly evident that the ultimate density under the adopted Palm Desert General Plan is substantially below the 5 units to the acre that is being demanded by the Referendum Committee. 3 . I would like to indicate that a General Plan is a general guide to the physical development of the community which can be adopted or changed by the City Council by resolution up to three times a year. Whereas , the tools which implement the General Plan such as the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map can only be changed by the City Council after hearings before the Commission and Council and the publication of the changes in the local newspaper. Therefore, it is harder to change the Zoning Ordinance or Zoning Map than to change the General Plan. It is this reason, therefore„ that the specifics which are law are placed in the Zoning Ordinance and on the Zoning Map , rathern than placing them in the General Plan. 4. Method of Future Changes The state law in this city has established specific procedures for amending or revising the General Plan. These require the filing of an application for amendment with the city by a property owner or owners in the city and the processing of that application or change or amendment through the Planning Commission and City Council in public hearings at which time the merits of the revisions are reviewed with input from the public. It is my opinion that with the completion of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map and other implementation tools , such as the Grading Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance , that it would be a logical time to review the General Plan to see if any minor adjustments should be made as a result of these new tools . _It is expected that this could occur some time in the later part of 1975. 5 . Availability of the General Plan and Land Use Map I would like to indicate to the citizens of Palm Desert that the adopted General Plan and Land Use Map are available in my office at City Hall and all citizens are welcome to obtain a copy as long as the supply lasts . i April 1, 1975 Comments regarding the Referendum Committee's submittal of March 25, regarding revisions to the General Plan. 1. The statement^made that they have a marked up General Plan which indicates sago oow.+.�a'� All the changes as proposed by the Referendum Committee.ohould be reviewed by representa- tives of the Referendum Committee and the City Staff to obtain a full picture as to the proposed revisions by the Referendum Committee. I would recommend that I personally meet with as many members of the Referendum Committee as they might choose to have at the meeting at a time convenient to the Referendum Committee. 2. The statement that you can force a land use regulation through zoning can therefore be enforced also through the medium of the General Plan, does not make any sense since the General Plan is an administrative document and is not a law. Therefore, to take specifications that are normally in a zoning ordinance and placing it in a General Plan does not really seem to make any sense. A second question arises here is that which specific terms are appropriate to be taken out of the zoning ordinance and putting them in the General Plan and what effects does this have on the remaining standards that are spelled out in the Gene$ziar.. When one looks at a Oe flan one will find that there is an interrelationship from standard to standard and that the term of standards are the criteria under which development occurs. Therefore, to take for example building height out of the zoning ordinance and place it in the 4�ow�o �osd General Plan w this relationship to other development standards ismao&U-. 3. The Referendum Committee suggests that an addendum be made to the introduction N' ' m n? to the General Plan to indicate that oar development of business ^destroys the unique life style and envionment of Palm Desert, uld be permitted. I believe that the goals and objectives that are spelled out throughout the General Plan indicates such a state- ment. To accomplish what the Referendum Committee is inferring would require the adoption of the Zoning Ordinance as the General Plan and also as the Zoning Ordinance for the City of Palm Desert, which does not, in my opinion, meet the intent of the state law with regards to General Plans. 4. The Referendum Committee discusses the sphere of influence and indicates that the land use map covering the sphere of influence should be revised entirely and reclassified in compliance with the Riverside County General Plan and Zoning Map covering said area. They indicate that with substantial changes to the Riverside county plan would discourage the property owners in the sphere outside of the city of Palm Desert from seeking annexation to Palm Desert. It is the Referendum Committee's feeling that by accomplishing this, property owners that would desire annexation could participate in modification of the General Plan at the time prior to annexation, to obtain their desires as to development and that as a part of this revision of the ~Z whole General Plan, the,,community could have their input into the revision of the General Plan. This recommendation by the Referendum Committee negates the intent of the state law with regards to requiring cities to plan for those areas outside their boundaries which the council is of the opinion will ultimately be within the city boundaries. The purpose of the state law seems to me to be that the city's plan for the ultimate orderly assimilation of property into the city in that the city set up the criteria in the zoning ordinance under which development could occur in these areas. It seems to me what the pxxpaxxg Referendum Committee is indicating y� o -is that the city now has these tools available and that they be devised as a part of the annexation of these properties. This would seem to negate the purpose of planning within cities and the purpose of establishing the implementation criteria such as the zoning ordinance. It would appear that again the Referendum Committee is tajking out the actual zoning ordinance but calling it the General Plan. Based upon this recommendation by the Referendum Committee they request that the General Plan be revised in the area of range of serviced projected population, economic impacts, revenue projections, expenditure projections, physical analysis, policy imple- mentations, and changes in environmental factors, as a result of deleting the area within the sphere of influence from the General Plan. The bottom line of this recommendation seems to be the city should not plan outside of its present boundaries. This gets down to the basic question of-should the city plan for the assimilation of the area basically north of the wash into the city of Palm Desert. In my opinion, a far greater question becomes is if the city of Palm Desert does not plan for assimilation of this property in an orderly manner would then other cities such as Indio or Rancho Mirage assimilate this area into their boundaries, or would a new city be created north of the wash. To turn the city's back on this area does not mean that it will not develop And even a stronger issue would be what would happen if this property developed under the county, This effect can be seen in what has happened in the Coachella Valley under the county's jurisdiction prior to incorporation of the various new cities. In my opinion such development would be far worse than if it is developed within the city of Palm Desert under our design criteria and development standards which would be specified in the Zoning Ordinance. It is on this basis, therefore, I would recommend that such a change to the General Plan not occur. The Referendum Committee recommends that any recommendations for future development high rise developments, be eliminated , 40-50' in height. Again I must state that such a recommendation does not exist in the General Plan and that the Committee's 3 reference to the sphere of influence report of July 1974 has no bearing upon the matter of the General Plan since that report encompassed a preliminary concept as to the land use map at that date in time and that the subsequent development of the General Plan and its ultimate adoption revised that land use map substantially. Therefore to go back and revise the sphere of influence report has no bearing on the matter relative to the General Plan. The Referendum Committee discusses the Interim Core Area Plan which again fa has no bearing on the discussion of the General Plan except in a very indirect way. The Referendum Committee requests that page 15 of the report be revised to delete any reference to K-Mart or future development of a two story department store, 150,000 square feet and 320 residential units . It should be stated that when the Interim Core Area Plan was adopted these were estimates on the part of consultants and city staff as to possible development in specific areas of the core area. To delete references in the Core ARea Plan at this time would seem inappropriate since through the work of the city's Planning Priorities Committee other the Redevelopment Program and relateddy programs, the Interim Core Area Plan will in the coming months be revised. an �uiscd ssion of revisions of the said plan N as a part of the General Plan does not seem appropriate. 'Again with the Interim Core Area Plan the request that on page 16. that all reference to large hotels or motels with meeting rooms etc. on the western end of highway Ill be removed. densities They also request that the KKKXXRg specified in the Interim Core Area Plan be revised according to new densities and other changes in the General Plan. Since the Interim Core Area Plan will be revised to function as a specific plan covering the core area of the city of Palm Desert, and said specific plan will be developed from the input from the pxa*ax Planning Priorities Committee zaxt:hH and the Project Area Committee of the Redevelopment Program and since the plan will also reflect the intent of the General Plan Iit seems to me that to make an immediate revision of the Interim Core Area Plan as proposed by the Referendum Committee at this time would not appear to be appropriate. XIMKXRffiUMM The Referendum Committee next discusses the matter of procedure as to revision of the General Plan and during the year. one Ithey say that during the months of June, July, August, and September of each year tha applications for changes to the General Plan shall be accepted by the City and no hearing shall be held and no actions taken by either the City Council, City Planning Commission, City Staff or any commission or committee appointed or formed for the purpose of recommending or taking action on the General Plan. Comment: It seems to be the basis of the Referendum Committee that kk a number of citizens are outside the boundaries of the city of Palm TTD�esert during these four months or one third of the year. In essense) they requeste4 the planning process within the city of Palm Desert cease during these four months. Typically in the City of Palm Desert ,it is during these four months that the Planning for specific projects in occurs that are proposed to be completed before the next season '' --5 ' M the subsequent year. The developers, normally in terms of lead time, attempt to do their planning and obtaining their preliminary approvals during these months so that the actual development plans and construction can occur before the next season begins. To eliminate this possiblity during these months would substantially extend the lead time of any development in the city. In addition, I question whether the number of persons that arezaway for that four month period is a sufficient number in relationship to the total populationto merit the closing down of the planning activities in the city of Palm Desertxka during those months. Secondly, they requested no zone changes or variances of KNYJ KXYKKKXXXMUKK shall 5 or more units .4be processed or approved during this four month period. In addition shall that a separate submission of 5 or less units in the same general area tMid not be permitted and shall not be considered as an attempt to evade these regulations. This again gets to the very heart :of the development process in Palm Desert. If one is proposing to build any residential units to meet the beginning of the season in October or December or November, one must obtain their approvals and begin XY1XXX construction as early as June or July. In essense what the Referendum Committee is requesting is that M such a process be lengthened by some four months and that the lead time then for development would be substantially increased. In my opinion, sP `1 such a request would Creek havock to the development process in Palm Desert. and does not appear justified in relationship to the number of persons that would be out of town for that four month period.text they requested that the General Plan shall by ordinance or otherwise require the proper public participation be assured on subdivisions , plot plans, tentative tract maps, zoning variances and changes in the General Plan as follows. . . I . That Ak all hearings before the Planning Commission, the ARB and City Council be public. That an agenda of each hearing shall be NXXXXX closed 14 days prior to the hearing date and that kke that time shall be posted for public review including mailings to civic groups, who have so requested in writing. Any recommendation made by city staff at the hearing shall be made available for public review aad at the City Hall, at the time of publishing the agenda. 3 . An appeal may be filed with the City on recommendations or approvals made at any public hearing within 15 days of the date of the hearing, eaxaa�uMixkka iwitmwiegzx NX by any of the following: any member of the City Council, Planning Commission, ARB, any property owner within 500 feet, any group of ten or more citizens who feel their property is adversely affected , ha t4W, no final approval shall be granted until a public hearing is held on the appeal. General Comment: The Referendum Committee does not appear to be familiar with the normal processing of developments in the city. and does not realize that all meetings of any committee of the city is open to the public, and that all items requiring public notice are public hearings :that are published in the newspaper and that all property owners within 300 feet were notified of the public hearing. Again these requirements do not appear--to be appropriately placed in a General Plan. The General Plan again does not deal with the detail that is requested herein. These items are specified in the Zoning Ordinance and do not relate to the General Plan in terms of normal processing procedure. Such matters will be reviewed kyxkkex as a part of the public hearings on the zoning ordinance and it is appropriate at that time that such matters be reviewed. In my opinion the request by the Referendum Committee in this area has no merit and that the city has adequately appeal procedures and adequate hearing notice time and on that basis I would recommend rejection of such a request. The REferendum Committee suggests changes to the land use in for the City of Palm Desert to indicate that there should be two residential classifications, low density and very low density. (P Comment: To make such a recommendation indicates a clear ignorance of the existing development in the city of Palm Desert. To establish such limitations means that the Sandpiper Development in many instances could not have occurred in Palm Desert. The Sands and Shadows development could not have occurred in Palm Desert, The Ironwood complex in its entirety could not occur in the city of Palm Desert, portions of the Silver Spur Ranch could not occur in the city of Palm Desert, no mobile home parks which now exist in the city of Palm Desert could oak occur, property along and around the Shadow Mountain Golf Course such as along Burrow Weed could not have occurred. In essense what I am trying to say is that the Referendum Committee is requesting that the infill a" in the existing city of Palm Desert occur at the maximum of 5 units to the acre which would reek havock-as to the development pattern that now exists in the city of Palm Desert. It is on that basis, therefore, that the city must have greater flexibility as to density than the limitation of 5 units to the acre. During the development of the General Plan it was felt that the 18 units to the acre was the maximum that was needed to develop the flexibility to permit the infill in the existing developed portions of the city. And that is the reason the maximum was ma placed at 18 units. It s� ironic that the Referendum Committee seems to be talking about the in its General Plan and .then starts speaking about zoning definitions. *Rd sk attempts to outline specific zoning categories within the General Plan. IXxaaammagd irkxk.xkkHx They recommend that the previously subdivided land in the city of Palm Desert be established at RPS, lot size minimum of less that 7200 square feet one story maximum, 15 ft. , no lot splitting . Again this does not relate to the maximdLm as proposed by the Referendum Committee since 7200 square foot lots or less are greater than 5 units to the acre. Therefore, it seems impossible to relate this zone to the maximum as specified iaxkka by the Referendum Committee as to a maximum density of 5 units to the acre. Next they request that a R1 be established with an 80 foot minimum frontage and 8,000 acre square foot with minimum lot size and 3-5 acres per aaa8, single story 15 foot in height with a living area with a minimum of 1500 square feet. Again it must be stressed that 8,000 square foot lots exceed the 5 units to the acre and therefore there is not a clear relationship between the lot size of 8,000 square feet and a range of 3-5 units to the acre. Next they request a RTX$®akJaxxJJ R1** single family zone with a minimum of 150 ft. frontage, 20,000 square ft. lot..size, maximum of 2 units to the acre living area of 2500 square feet. The proposed zoning ordinance for the RE zone adequately provides for such requirements and complies with the requests of the proposal by the REferendum Committee with the exception of the minimum living area. Next they recommend the establishment of an R2 Multi family dwelling units with a maximum of 5 units to the acre, one story maximum of 15 ft. in height. a maj�imum Such a zone with#5 units to the acre would not be a multi-family development as and would be the same as the R1 proposed by the Referendum Committee. It appears they have no idea of what they are talking about as to zoning and the development of zoning classifications. In addition, iaxaxmaaaxgaRaxat with regards to general comment, xkaxxmx these zones do not seem consistent as to their standards as specified and seem to be incongruious to establishing 5 units to the acre and then allowing, under the zoning, AT density greater than 5 units to the acre. Next the Referendum Committee recommends the establishmert of a CPS (Scenic Highway Commercial) located on both sides of Highway 111 from the western to the eastern boundaries in the city of Palm Desert and on the Highway 74 from Highway 111 south. It appears that the REferendum Committee favors strip commercial and appears favorable jo extending commercial development into some of the choice residential areas in the city of Palm Desert along Highway 74.which is a major divergence from the concepts of the General Plan which relate to preserving the residential character of the established neighborhood; in Palm Desert. It is on this basic planning concept that I would recommend rejection of such a extension of commercial development along Highway 74. Next, the Referendum Committee indicates that no commercial buildings shall be Tie more than two story with a maximum height of 25 feet and indicates that 50% or more of the land shall be for landscaping and parking. 4 Comment: The Planning Commission, in their review of the commercial zones in the preliminary in zoning ordinance have consistently indicated a maximum of two story height or 30 feet whichever is less . And that under the parameters of parking and landscaping that the 50% indicated by the Referendum Committee would be met or exceeded. However, the concept of 25 ft. is felt to be by the preliminary discussions too restrictive in terms of height. Particularly since in certain types of commercial i structures due to their design and layout,`t�e single story could exceed the 25 ft. in height. Next, the Referendum Committee indicates that hotels and motels consistent with the low profile design of Palm Desert may be located in a designated commercial area. Comment: The General Plan indicates the number and amount and possible locations for such hotels and motels and would appear consistent with the recommendations of the Referendum Committee. Next. . . The Referendum Committee indicates there should be no new or used car automobiles sales or service facilities with it being applied in the City of Palm Desert. Comment: The Planning Commission in their preliminary review of the zoning ordinance have many of deleted automobile sales or service from commercial zones and have left that use only in the industrial zones which would develop sxiyx#axkha outside of the city of Palm Desert. Next. .The Referendum Committee states that there should be no other commercial use which would create unsightly appearances or undesir-:.able traffic4tor other adverse environmental conditions . Comment: 3Lf[ The types of uses that potentially could be adverse-to the environment have been in most instances put under the conditional use permit aspects of the commercial zones that are presently being developed by the Planning Commission. The Referendum Committee discusses the density per acre for both residential -and commercial and indicates that it should be allowed on the net acre after deducting roadways and total acreage. Comment: The General Plan indicates density should be evaluated on the basis of a gross acre with the gross acre being defined as the land after the deduction of the General Plan roads. Under the zoning Ordiance this is further broken down in two categories,one under the planned residential the definition of acreage is conforms exactly with the General Plan under other precise zones the concept of acreage is on a basis of total net acre which I believe is the only way you can go)since when you are dealing with planned residential developmentsyou have no precise concept of the ultimate road patterns')so it would be impossible to �4! calculate the density on a net acre basis until the precise roads were actually built. The Referendum Committee recommends the 40% reduction of acreages of golf courses from the total acreage in figuring densities. Comment: TKXXfUUQ%MmRXXKKjKgXMXXKXKKM First of all, the General Plan makes no definitive statement with regards to this area. Under the proposed Zoning Ordinanc*s the development of any planned residential development or complex requires that a certain percentage of the land be left in open space and does not relate kthis to density . It is the feeling of the staff and the planning commission that the layout of the actual density on the land will depend upon the composition of the development plan versus whether some figure of density is permitted on an acre. So therefore, the total complex may be entitled too'certain density per acre, but if due to the layout of the recreational uses open spaces uses and the layout of the actual buildable areas are such that they could not relate to each other without a reduction of the overall density,such a requirement would be placed upon the development. The Referendum Committee states that there should be deducted from the � 0 potential acreages in terms of density 60% for acreages developed as tennis courts. Comment: Such a procedure would substantially negatively impact the developers concern as to design from the standpoint of hurting him by providing such recreational in amenities as tennis courts, a�bd the opinion of the Staff would not be an appropriate way to go. An alternative would be to consider recreational amenities such as tennis courts as a benefit to the development versus a mxixxatanax8xx hindering element. The Referendum Committee recommends the elimination of the objective of the land use element that states that the objective of the General Plan is to minimize a premature public costs in the development of M compact non-sprawling land use pattern. They indicate that as printed this would cause for urban high density. Comment: The opposite appears to be true. The attempt is to indicate that development should occur in a logical sequential manner and that development did occur not occur in one area and then two miles away. It seems to me that this is an ideal objective of the General Plan and in this instance in a way the Referendum Committee was shortsided in their recommendation for deletion of this paragraph. The Referendum Committee indicates that the last paragraph should be revised to indicate Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best living environment for all residents. Comment: The final approved General Plan does indicate such a statement. The Referendum Committee indicates that all the necessary words in all sections of the General Plan that have no specific purpose to giving direction to the future and development that are so broad XXXX or ambiguous as to be confusing should be eliminated. Comment: It appears to me that the Referendum Committee is referring to basic background data which is specified throughout the General Plan which establishes as a basis, the goals and objectives of the General Plan. And it is on that basis therefore, that the words are not broad and are not ambiguous. says to Next, the Referendum Committee simp14 each statement so xxx that the intent is clear and understandable. an Comment: To develop goals and objectives for 80 square mile city, requires that broad statements be made as to the goals and intents of the General Plan. l� To simplify each statement is simply not possible when one is dealing with seek a project of so great a magnitude. The Referendum Committee recommends the elimination of any statement or graphic illustration that would create the impression that regional developments of any nature are desirable or permitted. Comment: The Referendum Committee's approach in this area is typical with the isolationist's concept that Palm Desert will live or die on its own Jwhich in reality is not possible and is not a concept that exists in the city government of Palm Desert. A perfect example is the city's involvement with CVAG, and its in membership Nikk SCAG. To take the approach of the Referendum Committee, in my opinion, results in ignoring the problems that exist in this Valley and specifically exhorbitant the city of Palm Desert, and in the long run would result in an %St€MYNXI amount cost to the city of Palm Desert to solve problems and that affect Palm Desert but really are regional :.in nature. The Referendum Committee requests the elimination of all statements or graphic illustrations that would permit planned residential areas with residential I commercial and mixed uses including non-resident units in the same area. most Comment: The planned residential concept is ,in my opinion the progressive process of planning and is a tool that Is, MvL .�04 G1Pa'gesiah11&h in Palm Desert with the Ironwood and Marakesh as examples. They seem to be indicating that planned residential development should not have restaurants, should not have golf courses, should not have pro shops, and other related commercial developments. In my opinion this is not a worthwhile concept to pursue and is not characteristic of the Valley as a whole. The Referendum Committee recommends the elimination of 8ka separate village types, areas with mixed usesA�Continue to have Palm Desert as one city with residential and commercial separated from each other. J 12 Comment: The existing city of Palm Desert is vastly different in character as to specific areas of the city. To say that the city is one type of development is a misstatement. Therefore, the concept of villages is a valid concept and should not only be maintained but should be stressed in the General Plan. The Referendum Committee recommends the elimination of any reference to industrial areas in Palm Desert area other than those shown on the Riverside County General Plan in the sphere of influence. Comment: The only deviation the General Plan has from Cove Community's General Plan is the area along MXXX interstate 10 which is an area that in Staff's opinion and in the opinion of the consultants is an area that is not condusive to residential housing. On that basis the alternative then would be non-residential and the staff felt that a research and administration industrial type uses were appropriate for such an area. If the Referendum Committee is so interested in environmental KKKM XXX effects one would think they would not be so prone to place residential development along a major railroad tie between the east and west of this country and along a major freeway that connects the eastern and western part of the state. The REferendum Committee say that the printed form of graphic exhibits in the present General Plan should be modified to reflect the changes in the new General Plan that they are proposing. Comment: : The ammn=afcxKkamgas ramifications of such a request depends upon the amount of changes that will ultimately k2xEm=XHHX occur in the land use element as a result of any future amendments. Therefore, no recommendation can be given at this time. The Urban Design Element - Neighborhoods. . . The Referendum Committee stresses the elimination of the idea of 25 neighborhoods in the city. Comment: In order to solve the distinct differences in the community.it was felt an that the ideas of neighborhoods would be appropriate tactic to reach man ultimate solution In staff's opinion fit is appropriate. The Referendum Committee goes on to indicate that the city has not generally developed piece meal composition - March 17 , 1975 TO: CITY COUNCIL OF PALM DESERT FROM: DAVE ERWIN SUBJECT: REFERENDUM On an interim basis , bringing the Council up to date with some of the conclusions which I have reached regarding the referendum, the Council should be aware and advised of several duties , responsibilities and possible effects of the same . Assuming the signatures are certified on the petition to the City Council and the subject of the petition is proper for referendum, the Council should be aware that they have two alternatives upon receipt of a report by the City Clerk: The first is to rescind their action of Resolution No . 75-2, which is the resolution adopting the present General Plan. This action would cause the City to be without a General Plan if taken by the Council on the date the action was taken. The second alternative is to submit the question of the adoption of a General Plan to the voters of the City of Palm Desert at an election held not less than 74 not more than 89 days after the order . During the interim period, the City would still be in its current position of having the General Plan adopted . If the election were successful , the General Plan would be rescinded as of the date of the election. The Code section does indicate that the City could not reenact the same matter for a period of one year from the date of the election should be successful. The section further prohibits the Council., in the event you exercise the first alternative of rescinding your action, from reenacting the same within one year . The effect of the rescission by the Council or of a successful referendum election would mean that the City of Palm Desert would be without a General Plan for at least one year . You have previously received from the City Manager a list of items that have been or may be jeopardized by the referendum action. The estimates set forth in those items were based upon a delay of anywhere from three to seven months , It would appear that this period of time would be extended for at least a one- year period. It would further appear that the amounts of money and the amounts of time should be increased based upon this estimated period of time, Further, the City is very definitely subjected to the possibility of litigation initiated by citizens because of the failure to adopt a General Plan within the mandated time schedule, which litigation could bring most activity, particularly in the building-planning-zoning field, to a .complete halt. ' M I would hope to have in your hands within the next few days a final report with regard to the referendum matter prior to your receipt of the same from the City Clerk, DAVE ERWIN 1 i February '26, 1975 TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: LIST OF ITEMS THAT THE REFERENDUM ACTION HAS PUT IN JEOPARDY 1. Receipt of approximately $53 , 000 per year up to a maximum of $1 , 850, 000 in tax increment financing for dealing with circulation; drainage and other problems in the Core Area 2 . Receipt of. approximately $33 , 000 - Federal Housing & Development Act grant monies 3 . Up to $15 , 000 to $24, 000 of City monies for duplication of consulting and staff expense for developing and processing new General Plan and EIR 4. Up to 110 hours of valuable time in duplication of meetings for Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning Com- mission and City Council 5. Qualification for federally subsidized flood insurance for. Palm Desert property owners 6. Adoption of Zoning Ordinance - 7 to 8 months delay 7 . Adoption of subdivision and grading ordinance - 7 to 8 months delay 8. ' Creation of Redevelopment Agency plan - indefinite delay 9. Creation of precise plan for Core Area - 7 to 8 months delay 10. Lifting of partial building moratorium in residential area - 7 to 8 months delay 11. Ability to comply with State mandated requirement for a General Plan by June 30, 1975 and a Zoning Ordinance by no later than December 31 , 1975 * 12. Ability to issue all types of building permits - 3 to 4 j months inactivity * 13 . Ability to process all types of planning activities such as subdivisions , CUPs , variances , lot splitting, etc . - 3 to 4 months inactivity 14. Ability to receive $47 , 000 State Park Bond Act monies on schedule * Subject to injunction from July 1, 1975 until adoption of General Plan t 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph. 346-0611 March 17 , 1975 PRESS RELEASE The continued statements issued to the press by Dave Bond of the Referendum Committee indicate a total lack of understanding of what the General Plan is and what it permits . This, in spite of the fact that he has had more than adequate opportunities to read the General Plan. He continues to quote from the working sheets for the new Zoning Ordinances which were distributed by the City to 50 organizations and individuals with the request that they recommend to the Planning Commission the changes they feel will be advisable. we have not heard from him in any meaningful way. The final proof that he is unable or unwilling to read, listen or understand became apparent with the statement to the press last Thursday that the Redevelopment Agency might be set- up on a 1-year basis . It should be apparent to anyone that the magnitude of the project envisioned by the Redevelopment Agency, i.e. , correcting drainage problems , parking problems , undergrounding utilities in the commercial area, and many other projects which will ensure the vitality of our commercial area, would have to be a long-term project covering many years. r - - Thus I can only draw the conclusion that Mr._ $ond, who. seems to be the spokesman for the Referendum Committee, must be incredibly misinformed and has misinformed the citizens who signed the referendum petition. JIM McPHERSON Councilman i r t f PALM 1)ESL'P.1' 1J'si'rI:1:1iNDUP1 COIJP4I'] 1EL' P .O . Box 444 Palm Desert , Calif . 922GO March G , 1975 1 1 Citizens Advisory Committee 's 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert , California 92260 t Attn: Mr . Robert H . Ricciardi, Chairman Dear Sir: ¢ I In response to your letter of February 28 , 1975 , I . wish to rdply as follows : At a meeting of our committee yesterday, there was . unanimous approval to convene three members of our committee with not more than three members of your committee at the time and place you suggest to discuss the controversial items of the General Plan. l f Respectfully yours , PALM DESERT REFERENDUM COMMITTEE 1 € avid L . 'L'ond , Chairman February 28, 1975 Mr. David Bond, Chairman Palm Desert Referendum Committee P.O. Box 444 Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Mr. Bond: The Citizen's Advisory Committee is anxious to establish whether it can be of service to your committee, to the City Council, and to Palm Desert citizens generally, in this present controversy over the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. Although we are appointed by the City Council, we consider ourselves to be somewhat representative of the Community in matters of planning and zoning, and to have some expertise after a year's tour of duty. Most im- portant, by reason of those many hours we have donated to studies and discussions, we feel we have a stake in seeing acceptable ordinances adopted with maximum public acceptance. Is it possible therefore, for representatives of your Committee to meet with us to develop the main points at issue? Whether members of the Council, Planning Commission, and staff should, or wish to be, present could be discussed in advance. And, of course, we have no reason to believe that anything we might recommend would be acceptable to the Council or Commission. But at least, we hope, such a meeting would be a positive factor, would help everyone understand the points at issue, and even a course of action acceptable to everyone might emerge. February 28, 1975 Palm Desert City Council c/o Mayor Henry Clark P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, California 922601 Gentlemen: The Citizen's Advisory Committee is anxious to establish whether it can be of service to the City Council and to the Palm Desert citizens gener- ally, in this present controversy over the General Plan and Zoning Ordin- ance. Although we are appointed by the City Council, we consider ourselves to be somewhat representative of the Community in matters of planning and zoning, and to have some expertise after a year's tour of duty. Most important, by reason of those many hours we have donated to studies and discussions, we feel we have a stake in seeing acceptable ordinances adopted with maximum public acceptance. We are also sending a similar letter to the Palm Desert Referendum Com- mittee, c/o David Bond, Chairman, in an effort to determine the main points at issue between the City and the Referendum Committee. Is it possible for representatives of the City to meet with us in regards to this issue? Whether members of the Palm Desert Referendum Committee, the City Council, Planning Commission and Staff should, or would wish to be, present, could be discussed in advance with you. And, of course, we have no reason to believe that anything we might recommend would be acceptable to the Palm Desert Referendum Committee or the City Council. t But at least, we hope, such a meeting would be a positive factor, would j help everyone understand the points at issue, and even a course of action i acceptable to everyone might emerge. r II INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: DATE: February 27, 1975 I. ED PECK - BUSHEL OF PROBLEMS 1. C. A. C. Attendance: 7 meetings out of the last 16 (43%) - No earlier records. 2. Items pushed through CAC by Peck: a) Lead time on City Council and Planning Commission Agendas b) Fire Hydrant Tests c) Need for ARB 3. Did not attend CAC meeting on which Interim Core Area Plan was acted on. 4. Instigated Mission Belle legal action which cost the City $6,400. 5. At public meetings on General Plan, consistently and continually represented the concerned citizens even though a member of CAC. 6. Based upon a legal opinion from his attorney, he is indicating to other members of CAC that there is no need to review the Zoning Ordinance since the General Plan is no longer valid. He indicated that he had .stopped the City cold. (Kermit Martin) 7. Mr. Peck's concept of a maximum density of 5 units to the acre is inconsistent with his proposed zoning plan submitted to the City . in June of 1974. 8. January 20 Council Meeting: Indicated that General Plan should not show 300-400 motel units west of Highway 74. (It doesn't) . 9. January 13 Planning Commission Meeting: Recommended 5-7 units to the acre on flat area of Kieley Property - opposed it at subsequent Council meeting. 10. January 6 Council Meeting: Said there was no hearing on EIR on General Plan before Planning Commission. (Lie) 11. Assisted in creation of Interim Core Area Plan and then attacked concepts when carried as a part of General Plan. f CITY MANAGER -2- February 27, 1975 12. Started Referendum Committee. 1I. C. A. C. ATTENDANCE FOR LAST 9 MONTHS NO. IN DATE ATTENDANCE PERCENT 02/25/75 4 31% 01/19/75 6 46% 01/02/75 14 93% 12/05/74 9 60% 11/21/74 4 27% 11/12/74 8 53% 10/24/74 8 53% 10/17/74 8 53% 10/03/74 10 67% 09/14/74 6 40% 08/15/74 6 40% 08/01/74 7 47% 07/18/74 10 67% 07/11/74 7 47% 06/27/74 12 80% 06/07/74 13 87% AVERAGE ATTENDANCE (ALL MEETINGS) 8 53% NUMBER OF PERSONS WITH ED PECK 5 33% RECEIVED PALM DESERT REFERENDUM COMMITTEE FEB 2 7 1975 P .O . Box 444 Palm Desert, Calif- . 92260 �'�� DEStRT CITY H^I I February 26, 1975 The Honorable Mayor Henry B . Clark and Members of the Palm Desert City Council Palm Desert City Hall Post Office Box. 1648 Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Council Members : As per your request for specific suggestions for changes , we are enclosing a substantial number of our required basic changes in the General Plan and accompanying maps on which the Proposed Zoning Ordinance was based . Please advise if the City Council agrees with these basic suggestions . If so, we will immediately start preparation of a detailed redraft of the General Plan as outlined on Page 2 of the attached report. In order that our many signators may be advised as to our action, we are releasing a copy to the News Media. Your truly, PALM DESERT REFERENDUM COMMITTEE By —David E . Bond, Chairman PALM DESERT REFERENDUM COP'MITiP.E P .O . Box 444 Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 Mayor Clark has requested a list of the changes in the General Plan that are desired by the Palm Desert Referendum Committee . The changes are desired so that there will be no question that the undesirable specifications for zoning will be eliminated from the zoning ordinance making them impossible to be reinstated without a public hearing for revision of the General Plan . This is possible only a maximum of three times a year and therefore possible for citizens ' control. The basic changes required (but not limited to) by the Palm Desert Referendum Committee are: 1. Remove from the General Plan and accompanying maps anything that would encourage , or allow changes in the character , atmosphere or image of Palm Desert as a haven from the congested , crowded , polluted "big city" urban living. 2 . Maximum residential of not more than 3 to 5 units to the acre . Low profile design to conserve energy and to be compatible with the prevalent overall appearance of Palm Desert . One story maximum of 15 feet. 3. No "Row housing" . 4. No commercial or non-residential buildings in residential areas . 5 . Height limits on commercial buildings to two story or 25 feet. This height can be maintained and several large developers of commer- cial property have advised they could comely. No 40 to 50 ft. high buildings as now allowed by the General Plan. 6. Limit square foot size of commercial developments to a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft . in 35 acre parcels and less feet in smaller parcels to avoid over-crowding, excess traffic , noise and pollution . 7 . Retain -the same proposed "Sphere of Influence" but make major changes in suggested land uses to obtain more favorable acceptance by Local Agency Formation Committee . In our opinion the dictatorial land use policy of Palm Desert was one of the major reasons for LAFCO awarding areas to Rancho Mirage that were rightfully in Palm Desert' s Sphere of Influence . .This decision could be reversed . 8 . Remove from the General Plan anything that would create , or allow, a high spending, large budget, big staff and big City organization that is unnecessary for the gradual and normal development in keeping with the present Palm Desert and the hoped for future Palm Desert . 9. The City has released to the Press a suggestion that the Referen- dum Committee submit the desired changes in the General Plan to the Palm Desert Staff . In order to avoid the unnecessary long delay and expense caused by a general. Election , we will be glad to submit such a written report in detail including a redraft of all phases of the General Plan including classifications of allowable density - height - location of zoning, etc . , as suggested by citizens from all areas of Palm Desert . Suggestions will include methods or obtaining supple- mental information for a proper and legal Environmental Impact Report rather than the one adopted by the City which environmental experts say does not meet State requirements , is not factual on any of the basic sections and is therefore not legal. This written report can be submitted in total to the City Council on or before March 28, 1975 . The Palm Desert Referendum Committee believes that this offer should prove that its intentions are sincere , and that it is prepared to provide a real service , without any expense to the City, in the hope that the delay caused by a special election can be avoided. PALM DESERT REFERENDUM COMMITTEE y David Bond, Chairman February 26, 1.975 TO.: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL FROM: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: LIST OF ITEMS THAT THE REFERENDUM ACTION HAS PUT IN JEOPARDY 1. Receipt of approximately $53 , 000 per year up to a maximum of $1,850, 000 in tax increment financing for dealing with circulation, drainage and other problems in the Core Area 2. Receipt of approximately $33 , 000 - Federal Housing & Development Act grant monies 3. Up to $15 , 000 to $24, 000 of City monies for duplication of consulting and staff .expense for developing and processing new General Plan and EIR 4. - Up. to 110 hours of valuable time in duplication of meetings for Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning Com- mission and City Council 5. Qualification for federally subsidized flood insurance for Palm Desert property owners 6. Adoption of Zoning Ordinance - 7 to 8 months delay 7. Adoption of subdivision and grading ordinance - 7 to 8 . months delay 8. Creation of Redevelopment Agency plan - indefinite delay 9. Creation of precise plan for Core Area - 7 to 8 months delay 10. Lifting of partial building moratorium in residential area - 7 to 8 months delay 11. Ability to comply with State mandated requirement for a General Plan by June 30, 1975 and a Zoning Ordinance by no later than December 31, 1975 * 12. Ability to issue all types of building permits - 3 to 4 months inactivity * 13. Ability to process all types of planning activities such as subdivisions , CUPs, variances , lot splitting, etc . - 3 to 4 months inactivity — 14. Ability to receive State Park Bond Act monies on schedule * Subject to injunction from July 1, 1975 until adoption of General Plan i 45.275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert. Ca. 92260 Ph. 346-0611 February 26 , 1975 PRESS RELEASE I GENERAL PLAN REFERENDUM AT DIRECTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL, A QUICK STUDY BY STAFF INDICATES THE REFERENDUM MAY CAUSE THE CITY TO LOSE WELL OVER ONE ANDI. THREE-QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS IN REVENUES AND ALSO CAUSE AI TRAGIC WASTE OF CITY PLANNING COMMISSION, COUNCIL AND PAID STAFF TIME. IFTHE CITY COUNCIL IS NOT ABLE TO FIGURE SOME METHOD OF OFF-SETTING THE CHAIN OF EVENTS 14HICH HAVE BEEN PUT INTO ACTION BY THE REFERENDU14 COMMITTEE, THE CITY STANDS TO LOSE APPROXIMATELY $53 , 000 PER YEAR FOR THE NEXT 35 YEARS AS A RESULT OF LOSS OF THE FIRST YEAR' S FROZEN TAX BASE UNDER THE TAX INCREMENT FINANCING TO BE ESTABLISHED THROUGH THE CITY' S CORE AREA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY. THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY WAS DESIGNED TO DIVERT TO THE CITY CONSIDERABLE FUTURE TAX MONIES NOW GOING TO THE COUNTY AND OTHER LEVELS OF GOVERNMENT. IT WOULD HAVE MEANT NO ADDITIONAL TAX EXPENSE TO CITY PROPERTY OWNERS AND WOULD HAVE BROUGHT MONIES INTO i THE CITY TREASURY .WHICH ARE NOW GOING OUTSIDE OF THE CITY. THE PROGRAMiWAS DESIGNED TO START WITH THE CURRENT TAX YEAR BY ESTABLISHING AS A BASE THE 1974 ASSESSED EVALUATION. FOR THE CITY TO QUALIFY FOR THIS PROGRAM, A GENERAL PLAN IS MANDATORY BY LAW. THE CITY IS OPERATING ON A TIGHT SCHEDULE OF .IMPLEMENTATION AND MUST COMPLETE ALL STEPS BY THIS AUGUST TO CAPTURE THE FIRST YEAR'S TAX BASE WHICH WOULD AMOUNT TO APPROXIMATELY $53 ,000 REVENUE PER YEAR, REPEATED, FOR EACH YEAR THAT THE AGENCY IS IN EXISTENCE . SINCE IIT IS ANTICIPATED THAT THE AGENCY WILL BE IN EXISTENCE FOR 35 YEARS, THIS AMOUNTS TO OVER ONE AND THREE-QUARTER MILLION DOLLARS WHICH WOULD BE LOST TO THE CITY FOREVER. THE CITY IS ALSO MOVING TOWARDS ELIGIBILITY FOR $33 , 000 A YEAR FROM FEDERAL HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ACT BLOCK GRANT MONIES . TO QUALIFY FOR THESE MONIES , IT IS NECESSARY TO HAVE A HOUSING ELEMENT WHICH IS MERELY ONE OF THE MANY ELEMENTS FOUND IIN THE GENERAL PLAN. WHILE IT MAY BE POSSIBLE TO QUALIFY UNDER THE COUNTY' S HOUSING ELEMENT FOR THE FIRST YEAR, THE CITY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE COUNTY ELEMENT FOR SECOND. AND THIRD YEAR FINANCING. THEREFORE, IF THE CURRENT SITUATION IS NOT CORRECTED EXPEDITIOUSLY, THE CITY MAY STAND TO LOSE ADDITIONAL FEDERAL MONIES FROM THIS SOURCE. THE CITY HAS SPENT $35,000 FOR DEVELOPMENT OF ITS GENERAL PLAN AND EIR, HAS HAD APPROXIMATELY 200 HOURS OF REVIEW AND HEARINGS BY THE CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, PLANNING COMMISSION, AND CITY COUNCIL, AND HAS SPENT OVER 250 HOURS OF STAFF TIME IN HELPING TO DEVELOP THE PLAN AND PROCESS IT. IF THE REFERENDUM IS SUCCESSFUL, IT WILL BE NECESSARY TO DUPLICATE AND, IN MANY CASES , COMPLETELY REDO MUCH OF THIS WORK. IT IS ESTIMATED THAT IT COULD COST AS MUCH AS $15, 000 TO $24, 000 FOR ADDITIONAL CONSULTING AND STAFF SERVICES TO REDO THE GENERAL PLAN AND EIR. THE ENTIRE REVIEW AND HEARING PROCESS WOULD HAVE TO BE DUPLICATED, MEANIN I.G A COMPLETE DUPLICATION OF PREVIOUS PROCEDURE, REQUIRING UP TO 110 HOURS OF CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE , PLANNING COM- MISSION AND COUNCIL TIME. 2 I I � _ THIS> ENTIRE PROCESS, INCLUDING A REFERENDUM ELECTION, WILL SET THE CITY BACK A MINIMUM OF 7 TO 8 MONTHS IN ITS MASTER PLAN IMPLEMENTATION. THIS WILL, IN TURN, DELAY THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, SUBDIVISION AND GRADING ORDINANCE , REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PLAN, DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROTOTYPE BLOCK IN THE CORE AREA, AND UP-DATING OF THE INTERIM CORE AREA PLAN. SINCE THE MORATORIUM ON CERTAIN TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA IS TIED INTO ADOPTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THIS WILL ALSO MEAN AN ADDITIONAL 7 TO 8 MONTHS ' DELAY IN LIFTING THE BUILDING MORATORIUM. IT HAS ALSO BEEN DETERMINED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY THAT THE CITY MAY LOSE ITS ABILITY TO QUALIFY FOR THE FLOOD INSURANCE RECENTLY MADE AVAILABLE TO PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS BY A SERIES OF COUNCIL ACTIONS . THIS FLOOD INSURANCE IS MADE POSSIBLE THROUGH FEDERAL SUBSIDY WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE CITY MEET CERTAIN MINIMUM FLOOD CONTROL STANDARDS . THESE STANDARDS ARE ENCOMPASSED IN THE GENERAL PLAN BEING CHALLENGED BY REFERENDUM. UNDER STATE LEGISLATION PASSED TWO YEARS AGO AND RECENTLY AMENDED, IT IS MANDATORY THAT PALM DESERT HAVE A GENERAL PLAN WITH ALL OF THE MANDATED PLANNING ELEMENTS BY JULY 1 , 1975. IT IS ALSO STATE MANDATED THAT PALM DESERT HAVE A ZONING ORDINANCE NO LATER THAN DECEMBER 31, 1975 . SINCE ,IT WILL TAKE A MINIMUM OF 7 TO 8 MONTHS TO REESTABLISH A GENERAL PLAN, THIS REFERENDUM MOVEMENT PUTS THE CITY IN A POSITION OF NOT BEING ABLE TO COMPLY WITH STATE LEGISLATION MANDATING PLANNING MATTERS . THE FULL CONSEQUENCES OF THIS- ARE YET TO BE DETERMINED. 3 February 26, 1975 TO.: HONORABLE MAYOR & MEMBERS 01' THE CITY COUNCIL FR014: CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: LIST OF ITEMS THAT THE REFERENDUM ACTION HAS PUT IN JEOPARDY 1. Receipt of approximately $53 , 000 per year up to a maximum of $1, 850, 000 in tax increment financing for dealing with circulation, drainage and other problems in the Core Area 2. Receipt of approximately $33 , 000 - Federal Housing & Development Act grant monies 3 . Up to $15 , 000 to $24, 000 of City monies for duplication of consulting and staff expense for developing and processing new General Plan and EIR 4. Up to 110 hours of valuable time in duplication of meetings for Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning Com- mission and City Council 5. Qualification for federally subsidized flood insurance for Palm Desert property owners 6. Adoption of Zoning Ordinance - 7 to 8 months delay 7 . Adoption of subdivision and grading ordinance - 7 to 8 . months delay 8. Creation of Redevelopment Agency plan - indefinite delay 9. Creation of precise plan for Core Area - 7 to 8 months delay 10. Lifting of partial building moratorium in residential area - 7 to 8 months delay 11. Ability to comply with State mandated requirement for a General Plan by June 30, 1975 and a Zoning Ordinance by no later than December 31 , 1975 * 12. Ability to issue all types of building permits - 3 to 4 months inactivity * 13 . Ability to process all types of planning activities such as subdivisions , CUPs , variances , lot splitting, etc . - 3 to 4 months inactivity * Subject to injunction from July 1, 1975 until adoption of General Plan INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: EFFECT OF REFERENDUM CO•MITTEE ACTION ON THE DATE: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES February 25, 1975 I. BACKGROUND Pursuant to All 4058, the deadline for the City of Palm Desert to prepare and adopt a General Plan with all the State-mandated elements is June 30, 1975. Therefore, the City of Palm Desert does not need a General Plan until that time, with the following exception: Under AB 4058, the City is required to adopt an Interim Open Space Plan by August 30, 1974; and to prepare and adopt an Open Space Zoning Ordinance consistent with the Open Space Plan by June 30, 1975. Previously, it has been our opinion that the Cove Community's General Plan was our Interim Open Space Plan, which was in effect on August 31, 1974. In addition, the City must have an adopted Zoning Ordinance consistent with the City's General Plan by December 31, 1975. A number of times, the question of what is consistent has been brought to my attention. If I may digress a moment, let me indicate that the State code defines consistent under Section 65860 as follows: A Zoning Ordinance shall be consistent with a county or city General Plan only as. . .the various land uses authorized by the Ordinance are compatible with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in such a plan." In my opinion, such a definition of "consistent" does not mean or require approval on a one-to-one conformance. The City has some leeway with regards to consistencies. Let me further clarify this by citing examples: If the General Plan designates an area as low density residential, a proposal to rezone the area to a heavy industrial classification would be inconsistent with the General Plan. If the General Plan classification is for low density (3-5) residential, a proposal to rezone a portion of the area to an estate zone (1-3) would be consistent with the General Plan. Also, if the area is shown as low density (3-5) , a portion may be rezoned to multiple density residential and be consistent with the General. Plan as long as the average density within the area does not exceed the range of (3-5) units to the acre. II. EFFECT OF REFERENDUM COMMITTEE'S ACTION; ASSUMING MATTER GOES TO BALLOT AND GENERAL PLAN IS UPHELD BY THE VOTERS. j If the General Plan does go to ballot and an election is held prior to I June 30, 1975, and the General Plan is upheld, the Referendum Committee's action would have no effect on the Planning and Building activities of the City of Palm Desert. ~CITY MANAGER -2- February 25, 1975 III. EFFECT OF 111E ACTION OF THE REFERENDUM COH!MTT'TEE; ASSUMTNG EITHER AN ELIiCTION IS NOT HELD PRLOIt T'0 JUNE 30, 19%5 OR 'fliE GEi4ERAL PLAN LOSES. If an election on the General Plan is not held prior to June 30, 1915 or if the General Plan loses in the election, the following actions could occur as of June 30, 1975: A. Building Activity - All building permits issued after that date could be declared invalid by either State Representatives or court action; and the City could be injunctioned or prevented from issuing building permits until the State-mandated General Plan was adopted. B. Planning Activity - If no General Plan exists, no Zoning Ordinance exists that conforms to a General Plan, therefore, none of the current planning activities such as ARB, Zoning & Subdivision, Maps, Con- ditional Use Permits, etc. processes could occur. C. Redevelopment Activity - Neither the Redevelopment Agency nor the Council may adopt a Redevelopment Plan without an adopted General Plan being in existence. Therefore, if no General Plan exists, this step which is proposed to be taken on June 12, 1975 cannot occur. The effect of the inability to take this action is a loss of a frozen assessed value at the March 1974 value. This would mean the City would lose $53,000 per year for the life of the Redevelopment Program which is estimated at 35 years for a total loss of $1,855,000 in potential revenues. D. Prototype Block Process - The Interim Area Core Plan and other types of specific plans have, as their basis, an adopted General Plan. Therefore, no formal approvals can be given to the update of the Interim Area Core Plan or the work in the prototype block until a General Plan exists. IV. THE NECESSARY SUBSEQUENT ACTIONS; ASSUMING THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN IS INVALIDATED. If the General Plan is invalidated, the City should immediately embark upon the development of a new General Plan for the City of Palm Desert. The question is. . . How much would this plan have to differ from the plan that was invalidated? Since the State law mandates certain elements to be covered, they would remain unchanged. In addition, much of the basic data would be the same in either plan. The basic differences would be required in the goals, objectives, and policies of each of these elements. This would include, in my opinion, the density ranges specified in either General Plan. Therefore, a new General Plan could not have the same density ranges as presently specified in the supposedly invalid General Plan. Assuming that Staff did the new General Plan & EIR and assuming that some minimum level of public input occurred as a part of that preparation, it is esti- mated that two (2) months would be required for this preparation. In addition, two (2) months would be required for circulation of the EIR and public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council. Therefore, a minimum of four (4) months would be required to do a new General Plan by the Staff. Since the County of Riverside is developing a number of the State-mandated elements, the Staff would be able to utilize a lot of this information in the preparation of the General Plan. J CITY MANAGER -3- February 25, 1975 1 However, in the area of seismic safety and noise, it may be necessary to hire outside consultants to assist the Staff. V. SUMMARY OF TIME AND COST OF NEW GENERAL PLAN A. TIME 1. Preparation 2 months 2. Circulation & Public Hearings 2 months TOTAL: 4 months B. ESTIMATED COST 1. Staff Cost $7,000 to $10,000 2. Consultant Fees $4,000 to $ 8,000 3. Material Cost $4,000 to $ 62000 TOTAL: $15,000 to $24,000 ALTERNATIVE OF CONSULTANT PREPARED GENL•RAL PLAN A. TIME 1. Consultant Selection Process 2 months 2. Preparation 2 months 3. Circulation & Public Hearings 2 months TOTAL 6 months B. ESTIMATED COST 1. Consultant Fees $25,000 to $50,000 VI. EFFECT ON STATUS OF PLANNING; ASSUMING THE PRESENT GENERAL PLAN IS INVALIDATED. In addition to the other effects of the action of the Referendum Committee, a somewhat intangible affect of the action of the Referendum Committee, assuming invalidation of the General Plan, is that the Planning activities of this City would be set back at least one (1) year. 2/25/75 SUGGESTED PRESS RELEASE RELATIVE TO GENERAL PLAN REFERENDUM The irresponsible action being pursued by a handful of Palm Desert residents will cause the City to lose over a ,�,.(,_Khalf-million dollars in revenues and also cause a tragic, needless and useless squandering of City Planning Commission, Council and paid staff time. If the City Council is ,not able to figure some method of off-setting the chain of events which have been so thoughtlessly and selfishly put into action by the Referendum Committee, the �• 6'� oba ? rmy 5 City stands to lose 'uve� $50, 000 per year for lkmeq: t-e years as a result of loss of the first year' s frozen base under the tax increment financing to be established through the media-of -the_. City' s Core Area Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency was designed to divert to the City tax monies now going to-the-County-and-other-levels- of goven2men,, outside the City. It would have meant no additional T,r;• expense to the City�taxpayers�and would have brought monies into the City treasury which are now being spent outside of the City. The program was designed to start with the current tax year by establishing abase of the 1974a assessed ceva\l`u�a{t-ion. [� For the City to-move-Jahead-on this program, ei�t=3.smnece>sar.y-to K -have-a--General-Plan-to-qualify. The City is operating on a tight schedule in implementing the-plan and the-fact-that-the -General-Plan-is now-in-jeopardy-will1 to-a -i-appearances,=cause the-Ci;y ,to,,s:issythe-first-year' s captured, tax base which would t amount to ,$5`'�, 000kper year, repeated, or each year that the Agelince is in existence. it is anticipated the Agency wow be in existence 2t 1= - for a4zR;;st -IO_ years , this amounts to a i t n�t�ro't 3s over one-half million dollars whichi�s�ostVforever. The City is also moving toward eligibility for $33 , 000 a year from FederalNCommunity Redev\-lopmen't Act Block Grant monies from-the-Federal Gover-nment. To qualify for these monies, it is necessary to have a housing element which is merely one of the mahy elements found in the General Plan. While it may be possible to qualify under the County' s housing element for the first year, it has been indicated that the City would not be able to use the County housing element for second. and third year financing. Therefore, if this ,ssi�tuuaation is not corrected expeditiously, the City may stand to lose additional Federal monies from this source. The City has spent $35, 000 for development of its General PlQ has had approximately hours of review and hearings by the Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and the City Council and has spent approximately_ hours of staff time in helping to develop the plan and process it . If the referendum is successful, it will be necessary to duplicate and, in many cases , completely redo much of this work - It is $ (S�Oc� ta.,lt, Q0u estimated that it could cost as much as $ for additional consulting 5 er °ces to get the General Plan ba k-on-th-e-track. The entire review and hearing process would have to be dupli- cated, meaning a complete duplication of previous procedure 2 I __ \ requiring up to hours of Advisory Committee, Planning , v Commission and Council time,, and-a-s=much-as-----addit.ional i hours-of--staff--time-to-prepare-€or-and-helpp-cot-th `ing processes. This entire process �wi t the City back a minimum offmonths in its master plan process . This r will, in turn, delay the City Zoning Ordinance, subdivision '\ and grading ordinance, Redevelopment Agency plan and- develop- �,9 ment of the prototype block in the Core AreaA,, Sinnce"thes�`ource \ o' certai.n types of development in the residential area is tied into t'he. adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, this will also mean an additional months ' delay in lifting the ll.d:Uig_actjgp. The well-meaning citizens who signed the referendum petition .were obviously not told all of-thete-t-h-iags by the handful of people who were attempting to get the referendum started. Since some members of the Referendum Committee are well versed on these matters and have the availability of competent legal advice, they were probably' aware of many of the foregoing matters but failed to divulge th iOS to the citizens whose •a-id they enlisted. During the next month .or two the City^wii l make an all-out effort to bring the facts to the public a-e_&t-trempt to correct the out-pour—of misstatements of=f-RCt, items taken out of context and outright liesi enerated by certain members of thoircommunity. It is unfortunate indeed that a handful of people, for their own egotistical reasons , can so easily destroy the efforts of the duly elected representatives of-�lae commun--tom. 3 Cam= 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph.346 0511 February 24, 1915 PRESS RELEASE The petition circulated by the Referendum Committee on the General Plan gives a picture of the General Plan which is at complete variance from the fact , including, as it does , references on a zoning ordinance on which hearings are now being held and on which no one can state positively what it will provide. Actually the zoning ordinance hearings will continue into the month of May. While the General Plan itself actually encourages low density and low profile buildings in a general way, the peti- tioners state that it encourages high density and refer to buildings of 40 ` and 50' in height . The General Plan actually makes no reference to any specific heights nor should it be that specific. A General Plan is a guide of a general nature suggesting the type of community and suggesting areas of densities . The only specifics the General Plan addresses itself to is the maximum density to be permitted and, further , the zoning ordinance and map are restricted by the maximum densities in the General Plan but can use any densities from zero to the maximum. The zoning ordinance, to be completed in May, developes the standards for such things as low density areas , medium density areas , commercial areas, agricultural areas , etc. Only after a zoning ordinance is completed will a proposed zoning map be drawn. This zoning map will precisely state where these low density, medium density, etc . areas may be . When this zoning map is drawn it will then be presented to the people for open hearings and discussions . Thus , until the zoning ordinance hearings are completed and the zoning map is prepared for study by the general public this attack on the General Plan is a meaningless exercise in futility and does nothing more than disrupt and confuse the community. . MAYOR HENRY B . CLARK i G +, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph. 346-0611 February 20, 1975 Palm Desert Referendum Committee P. 0. Box 444 Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: We have the petition and signatures which you filed with us on Tuesday, February 18 , and are aware of the concern expressed regarding some of the provisions in our newly adopted General Plan. As I told Messrs . Bond, Peck, Root and Dr. Kay, I and members of the Council are equally concerned with some of the provisions and we know that a number of them will be corrected as the Planning Commission goes through the detailed study of the preliminary zoning plan. So that we can make sure that the Planning Commission can study the citizens ' wishes , we are hopeful that all interested varties will submit, in writing, specific suggestions for changes. I note with interest the two specific changes which you used in obtaining signatures and have passed these to the Planning Commission for their consideration. It is my hope that you can come up with any additional specific changes you wish to place before the Planning Commission so that whatever changes the Planning Commission recommends will be after a careful consideration of your in-put. As you know, the provisions of the zoning ordinance and the map specifically showing the final reco=Ldations of the Planning Commission will be the major step in making .the first of the possible 3 changes that can be made in the General Plan this year. I am copying the Planning Commission and I am also releasing this to the papers to that your many signators will, be aware of this opportunity. Yo:urs ve ,t tfru1 titL� � HENRY' B. CLARK Mayo; HBC:mp \\` C YOVNG, 1-jENnjr__ & MCCARTl-tY j PLEASE SEELY 10 TT'TOIi Nf_V9 ` [pO POMOeA untl WEST I POMONA.CAHronu1A 91766 N!C.HARDT'IOUNG 1 (711)C)V.]5]I i I=A" NE Nn1i'. . NC k"C'ARUIV. ' • i JOII 1070J SANIR MONICn 01vO OERTW HIIMPHRILG'JR •LOSAN,iE1.ES.CALIEORNIANIO67 [IAPHYS MASON (710115Gln, f °HELOONG WELUN5 1 INOUEP RLIRR['t 1. 401 NOO7InunVARDAVENUE JACKS CIIRISTY C•L4RLMON7.CAL170RN1A91711 STEPHANC VOLKE❑ (71416292521 ' ON APPOINTMENT 1 'INCORPONATED t February 19 , 1975 Palm Desert Referendum Committee P . 0. Box 444 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: General Plan Referendum Gentlemen: Congratulations on a successful petition drive . Collecting that many signatures in twenty days is a tremendous feat of public relations and an excel- lent expression of public support . Upon the filing, of your petition, the new Palm Desert General Plan is placed in limbo or. suspended . The referendum only attacks the adoption of the new General Plan , so that the balance of Resolution #75-2 remains in effect . The City Council repealed the previous General Plan as Item No . 2 of Resolution No. 75-2 , Therefore , the City cannot merely fall back on the Cove Communities ' General Plan that was previously adopted . If the City Councilwanted, to adopt the Cove Communities ' General Plan, it would have to prepare an environmental impact report . This would have to be circulated for thirty days . After the preparation of an environmental impact re- port, the City would have to hold public hearings rru nission and city Council . before the Planning Co Y • this plan .and could have to adoptP , it � Finally the City claim that it provided the nine mandatory elements required by law. However. , the Cove Communities ' General Plan does not provide for the recently-re- quired elements that had to be adopted by cities throughout California by September of 1974. Page Two February 1.9 , 1975 Therefore , the City of Palm Desert is currently with- out a general plan . In order to approve any subdivision, the City of Palm Desert must find that the proposed sub- division conforms to the general plan. Also, the City must make it a zoning consistent with its general. plan . In an opinion dated January 15 , 1975 , the Attorney General of the State of California has stated : t: "As a method of enforcing compliance the Court could also enjoin the issuance of building permits or the taking of other - action under a zoning ordinance until a general" plan with which the zoning ordinance is to be judge for consistency has been adopted. " In other words , the City of Palm Desert cannot- legally approve any subdivision until a general plan is in effect. The City should also terminate its efforts to amend its zoning ordinance as it does not know the provisions of the future general plan. Since the zoning must conform, or be consistent with the general plan, the City should establish the general plan before proceeding with zone changes . If you have any additional questions , please do not hesi- tate to contact me . Very truly yours , TIMOTHY P ' R. BU BELL - for the firm TPB/jw : I cc: Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert cc: Palm Des r . Pro PertY Owners Association __�-.�_1f.� ---�G�---e��--- -�� `ti-=`=`�'iss•oG7�. �1�'f)i7!(�✓_4 . ' •• I ! OGy'ZN i • 1 i . f:REGEIV�i� FEB 18 1975 The Pulra Dc:;crt Referendum Committee subr,:its tho foI('(W1nkSTj,(,9YHhLL i - than 300 s:orti r.tatement to be used as an arrument in favor of the referenr,ura if the General Plan in submitted to vote: lls law the General Plan dictates the zoning that way be granted by the present or future Councilr, end they ra�v re:-one property accordingly. The only practi- cal control available is to allow in the General Plan cnly those things that are acceptable to citizens. The present Gcneral flan and Proposed 150 page Zoning OrCi.nance pernits the followir. chj^cf.icr.;:Llc develonnenta among others too numercus to men a on here. I. Residential areas allow 18 units per acre ; 40 feet in height; Row Rousini-; intels with 36 units per acre; .Sovernment offices; � commercial and other non-resi6euti.1 uses. The maxinum density should be ; units per acre; low profile, one-story design, com- patible with the existing image of Palm Desert. No roar houses , or non-residential use. 2. Cb=mcrcial areas allow large buildings 50 feet high. This ad- versely effects traffic, smog, noise and crime - all the things tie came here to. escape. Control building size and height to two storit's. 3. The General Plan now encoura^_es high-density, r_ulti-story build- # ing in both residential and con ercial areas. Thin is not in accord t-itt; the exprcnsed wishes of the ca,jority of residents. Development should be tightly controlled by cirangi; the present ` General Plan and exceptions rarely granted. The IL--, allows th-ce It changes per year in the General Plan. Public participation and . control of three ct:an^es is possible but citizens ` participation and control is not Possible if attendance at every hearing is necessary. Changes in the General Plan and Zoning Crdinance can be made now to provide for the orderly future development of Palm Desert. Control bad zoning and bad developments before they get started by making the !I disired changes in the General Plan !;0;i: Vhat the General f{an nllo::s is III t Ynln Desert i:ill Vote YPS to change the present Palm Desert General Plan. PALti DrSrRT REFERENDUM COW11TTEG P. O. Box 444 f Palm Deserts California 82200 _��- KWXY 11 : 15 January 31 1-2 minute disseration on the adoption of the General Plan statement re zoning ordinance. If you can make any statements that will correct , do it. Do not do it in an argumentative way. If you like, talk to the Mayor and prepare a very careful release. .�._____.. f 1 I - zo N „� y o,.d,��. � �`h..�.�t� 2 �� Q��ncsxeA w t Good day, this is City Speaks. I am Paul Williams the Director of Environmental Services for the City of Palm Desert. Today, I would like to discuss the recent 4 activities` w the city that would be of interest to citizens of the area. The first item I would like to inform you of is *�-fit that the City Council of Palm Desert, after two public hearings totalling some ten hours, did on January 20th, adopt a new General Plan for the City of Palm Desert. Prior to the adoption by the City Council , the General Plan had gone through a total of 42 citizen input meetings and had been commented on by some 70 organizations, agencies or groups of the area. This work had been done over a period of some seven months. As many of you know, a General Plan is a very generalized conceptual look at the City of Palm Desert 50 years from now. The subsequent implementation tools such as the ordinance zoning map, sub-devajapawat ordinances, etc. fine tune the General Plan and is the place where things like maximum building heights, lot sizes and maximum density are established. The new General Plan fortthe City of Palm Desert differs substantially from the 1kr OaA%jjw5 RAN previous General Plan which coverer Palm Desert. IN was known as the Cove ww —y F„a��a.,s of Ic hirtev+ tic ,5 Community s General Plan. The Cove Community's General Plan showed an average maximum density for the present Palm Desert city-dtifx+ts of 7 units per acre which would have allowed a maximum of 73,(� within the present city limits of Palm Desert. The new General Plan shows a maximum average density in the present limits of Palm Desert of 3.48 dwelling units uunits per the acre which would allow maximum population of 47, 113 people• Wherefore, with the adoption of the new General Plan )the permitted maximum density within the city limits has been reduced by some 30,000 people. It may be of interest to the citizens of Palm Desert that the Cove Community's General Plan did show approximately 344 acres for high density residential in the present city limits of Palm Desert, with a permitted density of 10-20 units to the acre. The newly adopted General Plan reduced this amount to 40 acres .pp. a`, gw � e 1. C_r,a As t4-&-6ould easily be seen, the adoption of the new General Plan has sub- stantially reduced the amount of possible density in the present city limits of Palm Desert. I believe the resulting purpose of this reduction will be a development of the city in essentially the same waane_r as the present development. In a related matter, my staff has recently circulated arprel.imamory draft of the proposed zoning ordinance to be applied to the City of Palm Desert. This draft has been circulated to some 48 different organizations and agencies that the city considers to be able to give valuable input as to the content as to the zoning ordinance. During the next three months the Planning Commission will be holding study sessions on the preliminary draft of the zoning ordinance t6 allow all citizens of Palm Desert to give their input to the content of the zoning ordinances. Once a zoning ordinance has been developed which conforms to the wishes of the community, public hearings will begin OR It . The resulting zoning ordinance will establish things such as maximum permitted heights, minimum dwelling unit size, minimum lot sizes, etc. Once these limitations have been established , a new zoning map for the city will be prepared.and approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council . As a part of this zoning map the permitted density on each lot in the city will be established. It is estimated that this zoning map will be acted upon in June or July of this year. As it can be seen, the adoption of the new General Plan for the city of Palm Desert is just the first step in a long process to reach the goal of establishing the permitted densities on as individual lotfin Palm Desert. It is clearly evident at that Nall points during this long process the citizens are req . to give their input so that the result will conform to the wishes of the community. It can be clearly stated that the adoption of the General Plan is not the final step in establishing the character of Palm Desert for the future. z" PA' DESERT RF,FERENDUM COMMIT' _ A Group of Individuals to Preserve the Quality of Palm Desert P .O . Box 444 Palm Desert , Calif . 92260 January 30, 1975 Voters in Palm Desert : To save your life - you cannot find a better place to Jive than in Palm Desert . Let ' s keep it that .way . You , and others like you , can preserve the. quality of Palm Desert by gradual and controlled growth to assure clean air , ample water and' freedom from excesgive' noise and pollution . Please read the attached . Yours truly, PALM DESERT COMUT'IEE , r FOR REFERENDUM Chas . Root �l r / Geo. Wiggin D . Bond l Dr . E . Kay D . Cook J . S . Webster � � 11 . Slade L f t 1; i .. _ PA1 M DE PERT GE'MIE?tAL PI.AI`i_RFFERENDV-' COMMITTEE j P .O . Bum 444 Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 The City of Palm Desert adopted a General Plan on January 20, 1975 that will determine the future development of Palm Desert : The plan was adopted over the protests of: hundreds of residents and large organized ' area associations who desired chanpes that would maintain and strergthen the uniqueness of Palm Desert and allow orderly development to protect our air , water , noise , traffic , humidity, night-time sky and all those unique features that have attracted most of us to the Desert . The General Plan , as adopted by the City Council, allows excessive development that would create a change in the very character and unique- ness that has made Palm Desert popular . The undesirable features ir. the adopted Cencral Plan are outlined as follows : (1) Regional and Convention-type Hotels to be concentrated on the West end of Palm Desert alone Highway 111 which will create serious traffic , noise , air pollution , safety and other environmental. problems . (2) The present General Plan in the Incorporated area of Palm Desert will allow from 7 to 1.8 living units to the acre in some areas . With an average of only 3 people to a family, this would mean up to 54 persons per acre , an intolerable density for Palm Desert . A maximal land use of. 5 dwelling units per acre would allow 15 persons per acre which environmental limits call for at this time . People came to Palm Desert to escape from the Typical City. All the evidence so far indicates we are planning a Typical City complete with department stores , large commercial areas , traffic , noise and general pollution. Question: Why change it? If you agree you do not want the features outlined then you can express i 1your desire by signing a 7etition which will eliminate the undesirable i .11items in the General Plan. By signing the Petition, you are simply 1 ;1 ) askinn the City Council to reconsider and repeal the General Plan . If enough Voters sign then the General Plan can and will be changed to ; ( reflect the wishes of the people at no additional Taxpayer ' s expense . A qualified Palm Desert Voter will call with a Petition shortly. If you wish to contribute to the effectiveness of this Committee, please send your contribution to the Palm Desert Referendum Committee . P .O. Box 444 Palm Desert , Calif. 92260 Y January 28, 1975 A press release dated January 27 and a letter calling for a referendum on the general plan has just been brought to my attention. It is obviously an attempt by a few people to confuse and mislead the citizens of this town by mis- statements, quotes out of context , and similar unethical and irresponsible actions. They state there were inadequate public hearings on the general plan - this is totally untrue . They call for a referendum on the general plan when they know that a general plan is only enforceable when it is converted to a Zoning Ordinance and map. They know, as do 48 organizations and people who have received copies of the Preliminary 'Zoning Ordinance that there are presently scheduled meetings of the Planning Commission in study session in February and March where in-put from the citizens of this town has been requested. Therefore, this request for a referendum is an irresponsible act by an irresponsible few disregarding the facts of the general plan and of the Zoning Ordinance procedure before adoption. January 27 , 1975 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: A Group of individuals was formed to preserve the quality of Palm Desert and assure that it may continue to grow and still retain clean air , ample water and avoid the noise and pollution that most of • us came here to avoid . The adoption of the Palm Desert General Plan on January 20, a , 1975 contained many standards of development that were against the expressed wishes of many residents of Palm Desert, some of which are attached . We are also opposed to the "so called" public hearingson the General Plan, before its adoption . 1. In the preparation of the General Plan the Public and the Citizens Advisory Committee were told not to get involved in the "specifics of density, development classification, etc" but only to concern themselves with the general conception of the General Plan. Yet when the General Plan was presented it contained specifics and classifications for density in each area and for regional hotels , Regional commercial, etc. 2 . When public hearings were held on' the Proposed General Plan, publicity in laymans language as to specific classification, were not furnished to the public to increase public interest and intelligent public input. 3. At the Public Hearings on the proposed General Plan the few persons who were attracted to the hearings could not possibly make intelligentsuggestions on the spur of the moment. 4 . The plans had not been presented to the public previously in time for their evaluation. Result - No input . The Public Hearings r t f 4 r Pg. 2 were conducted in such a manner as to discourage public participation whether or not it was done intentionally or not. The consultants showed slides , most of which were on developments elsewhere , and had no bearing on the development of Palm Desert; then long, unnecessary discussions by the consultants on details . It was usually an hour or more before public participation was available and then it was requested to contain remarks to 3 minutes . By that time most of the residents were so disgusted , tired and disgruntled, that they went home . After several meetings of this kind the word got around "What ' s the use of attending?" 5 . The General Plan when adopted did not contain the requests of many, many citizens as to retailing the character and image of Palm Desert or as to density,height or those items that determine the future of Palm Desert . 6. The public were told by the Council to wait until the Zoning Ordinance came up for approval . But the zoning must , by law, comply with the General Plan. Now the General Plan has been adopted and the public has been lead down the "Primrose Path" with a General Plan they don' t like or want or on which they had no opportunity for intelligent participation. 7 . As proof of this , the "Proposed Zoning Ordinance" was furnished in printed form- (over 15q pages) on Jan. 21, 1975 - one day after the General Plan was adopted . In the opinion of many people this has all the characteristics of a "Rigged Approval of the General Plan" . Furthermore , the Proposed Zoning Ordinance proves . the General Plan was worse , than we expected . As examples : Page 25 . 12 (1) Residential 7-18 per acre "High Density" allows - multi family dwellings , row houses , townhouses with maximum height of I stories - 40 ft. r t w Pg. 3 7 . Continued : Minimum site (Land) area per dwelling Unit of 50' x 50' (2500 sq. ft. ) . It also allows hotels of 36 units to the. acre . Plus many other objectionable features . Page 25 . 11 (1) Residential 5 to 7 per acre "Medium Density" also allows row houses - town houses- schools and government buildings - 5800 sq. ft. lot size - 2 story and height of 30 ft. and many other objection- able features . Page 25 . 10 (1) 3 to 5 to the acre "low density" allows hospitals - government buildings on a 80' x 100' lot (8000 sq. ft. ) - even in most Cities 100' x 100' - 10,000 sq . ft. is not low density) and they still allow 30' height with 2 stories . These are only 3 quick examples of why the General Plan should be defeated . The.public have tried every course open to them to have the General Plan comply with their wishes and all of them have been ignored by the consultants and elected public officials who have broken most, or all, of their campaign promises . For this reason the Referendum is the only quick means of stop- ping the General Plan and its resulting bad zoning. Those Voters , who voted in the Nov . 5 , 1974 election have the responsibility as well as the duty to join together to sign the Referendum Petition which costs nothing and is provided by law to allow voters to stop actions by elected officials that are not in accord with the good of the Community. Palm Desert Referendum Committee I r- a . . t � J 4 i CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION 1\10. /+7 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT REPORTING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, A RECOPI<1ENDAT1ON ON THE CONuMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE REFERENDUM COMMITTEE ON ' THE GENERAL PLAN. 7 WHEREAS, on March 27, the City Council referred the recommen- dations of the Referendum Committee to the Planning Commission for study and report; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at the regularly scheduled meeting of April 14, did review the recommended changes by the Referendum Committee; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that none of the recommended changes have sufficient merit to require a General Plan amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is presently involved in reviewing the implementation tools of the General Plan such as 'the ggg Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, Subdivision and Grading Grading Ordinances;and, WHEREAS, many of these suggested changes by the Referendum Committee really deal with these implementation tools. 33 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT. RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert that it recommends the following to the City Council regarding the recommendations of the Referendum Committee: 1. That no General Plan amendment occur at this time regarding the suggestions of the Referendum Committee. 2. That the recommendations of the Referendum Committee ttt�t 1..] be utilized by the Planning Commission and City Council in their l development of the implementation tools to the General Plan. -a..-^-...�.vrr�-.e.t-+.es-..,-.-,r.�.T.s;-",�..�.-.-,:-s-.•^r..s�..�w�..,-.�.Rr.,._-'...,+.-.,...,.,.a.s-�-,.-.-x�a^-.,.-......� -2- 3. If, as a result of the creation of these implementation tools a General Plan amendment is 'required to fine tune the General Plan as a result of this new information, the Referendum Committee's suggested changes will. be utilized as citizen input:. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 14th day of April 1975, by the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, MULLINS, SEIDLER, VAN DE MARK, WILSON ROES: ABSENT: n ABSTAIN: , HIM, WI .Il49 SEIDI.. ,�--CHAIA/I�kdMAN' ATTEST: PAUL WILLIAMS,�fCRETL.RY S i a H a ' • J INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: HARVEY L. HURLBURT, CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: General Plan Referendum DATE: April 15, 1975 I am forwarding herewith the planning staff evaluation of the Referendum Committee recommendations on General Plan revision and zoning ordinance revision. Also included is a copy of the Resolution passed by the City Planning Commission on Monday, stat- ing their opinion of the recommendations . In addition, I would like to present the following cost analysis : Attorney' s fees thru the month of March $ 362. 00 County charges for petition verification 174. 00 Fees to Wilsey & Ham and Attorney Joehnck approx. 500. 00 Sub Total - Approximately $1036. 00 Staff Time (approximate - up to and including 4/15/75) City Manager 160 . 00 Director of Environmental Services 300. 00 Secretary 35. 00 Sub Total - Approximately 495. 00 TOTAL - Approximately ILL31. 00 In addition, the combination of City Council, Planning Commission, Advisor Committee has spent a total of approximately and Citizens y P 15 meeting hours . HLH/jt i (04/10/75) STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORT ON: EVALUATION OF THE REFERENDUM COMMITTEE'S SUBMITTAL OF DESIRED CHANGES IN THE GENERAL PLAN. BACKGROUND At the regularly scheduled meeting of March 27, the City Council received a list of the desired changes to the General Plan from the Palm Desert Referendum Committee totaling some 16 pages. The Council referred the request to the Planning Commission for a study and report. This Staff Report encompasses an evaluation of the submittal and recommended course of action for the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION By Planning Commission Resolution No. 47 it is recommended that the Planning Commission report back to the City Council that the submitted document will be utilized by the Commission as a part of the Study Sessions on the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map and that the document will be considered as a part of the amendment of the General Plan which may be necessary as a result of the development of the implementation tools to the General Plan, particularly, the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Justification is based upon: 1. The recommendations of the Referendum Committee not only deal with the General Plan, but also deal with the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map, the Interim Core Area Plan and previous city Sphere of Influence studies. As the result, it is almost impossible to say that the Referendum Committee's concerns are with just the General Plan. 2. Since the submittal by the Referendum Committee is not a valid request for a General Plan amendment, the City can only consider it as additional citizen input to the various processes which are presently deemed completed. 3. There is little in the recommendations of the Referendum Committee that could be considered a specific change in the General Plan that has sufficient merit for the City to cause an amendment to the General Plan at this time. However, if as a part of the development of the General Plan implementation tools, newer information developed which brings to light some validity to the proposals of the Referendum Committee, the Committee's work will have had some validity as a catalyst for creating an intellectual environment in which concerns would have developed which may not have occurred without the Committee's actions. REVIEW OF THE REFERENDUM COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction: In order to adequately reference the comments made by the Referendum Committee to evaluate them, we have attached page numbers to the memorandum submitted. The following analysis of the comments made by the Referendum Committee results from input by both the City Staff and the General Plan consultants of the firm Wilsey & Ham, Inc. General: It is the opinion of everyone that the Referendum Committee shares a common desire of the community, which is to see Palm Desert as a fine community. The General Plan, as it presently exists, stresses this feeling. The recommended changes by the Committee, if they were made to the General Plan, would not cause the General Plan to improve this objective. In fact, if the General Plan were amended as requested by the Referendum Committee, the resulting plan would be incoherent, illegal, and not usable for the following reasons: Cj A Staff Report -2- 04/10/75 1. The memorandum submitted by the Referendum Committee indicates major differences of opinion with the City and in some cases with the General Plan guidelines of the California Council on inter-governmental relations which is utilized for the preparation of General Plans and more importantly, it conflicts with what is the role of a General Plan versus the Zoning Ordinance and other planning tools and documents. 2. The Referendum Committee has an apparent misunderstanding about what the General Plan actually says which seems to result in part from reading certain statements out of context. 3. The philosophy of the Referendum Committee about both the ,ends and the means of the General Plan are different from those expressed by the majority of the Citizen's Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council in adopting the Plan. 4. The Referendum Committee's suggested changes in some cases appear to be illegal in terms of what is explicitly suggested or implied. The following is a page by page comment on the suggested changes by the Referendum Committee and these comments will relate where appropriate to the four categories of suggestions contained in the Referendum Committee's report. No effort has been made to comment on every statement since many of them do not appear to relate to suggested General Plan or Zoning Ordinance changes, but simply are general statements. For example, page 13, item 3 The demand for quality residential housing will continue for all economic ranges." While the City has attempted to communicate many of the thoughts that follow previously to the members of the Referendum Committee, it is hoped that stressing these principles at another time, or another way may be helpful in reaching more mutual understanding relative to the precise role of the General Plan and other related documents. s COVERING-LETTER "Vie are advised there is no restriction on the degree of specificity of a General Plan. In broad terms, if you can enforce a land use regulation through zuning, you can enforce the same regulation through the medium of a General Plan." - . . .placed the restrictive terminology in the General Plan.'' ". . .the Zoning Ordinance must exactly follow the General Plan." These three quotes indicate a difference of opinion with the Guidelines .for local General Plans of the California Council on Intergovernmental Relations. In the section of the Guidelines called "The Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan -- An Approach to Determining Consistency" the Guidelines state: "The requirement that there be consistency between the zoning ordinance and the general plan emphasizes the importance of clearly defining the purpose and nature of the zoning ordinance as having immediate force and effect on each parcel of land and the general plan as a body of long range public policy. Although many general plans are becoming more comprehensive and at the same time more detailed, the plan is intended to provide a broad base of policy for guiding decisions. On the other hand, the zoning ordinance is a set of specific legal regulations which prescribe the various uses allowed within each zoning district in the jurisdiction. The range of uses allowed and the standards related to each district set forth in specific detail and are controlling until changed_through amendment procedures. Staff Report 1 -3- 04/10/75 For this reason, there will be differences between the zoning map and the general plan. The zoning map indicates the location and extent of zoning districts. as applied, whereas the general plan indicates the general extent of use areas and relationships between those areas.'' i These Guidelines suggest: 1. There should be differences in the nature of a General Plan (long range) and a Zoning Ordinance (immediate effect) ; 2. There will be differences between the zoning map and the General Plan map. The time scale and level of specificity relationships between the General Plan and its implementation tools, including the Zoning Ordinance, are discussed in the Implementation Element of the General Plan in re- lationship to Figure 8-1 . Page 1 - "Palm Desert should continue to maintain its current image as a low profile residential community with business limited to that which is adequate to support the present City in its gradual and normal growth." The "normal" growth of Palm Desert, as indicated in Figure 3-1 of the Population/Economics Element, has been far from "gradual" with a 377% increase in the 60-70 decade. Market demand is a basic determinant of growth. Public Policy can regulate or manage growth for valid environmental and health, safety, welfare purposes. The General Plan stresses managed growth and the Zoning Ordinance contains provisions such as overlay zones and review procedures designed to achieve that end. Other comments on page 1 relate to Palm Desert' s "image as a lrnj profile residential community." From our listening to participants in the General Plan process it seems that the image of Palm Desert means many things to different people. To merchants along El Paseo Palm Desert is at least partially an office and commercial complex serving both residents and people outside the City, To the supporters of the Cultural Center, to educators at the College of the Desert and to other insititutions such as the Living Desert Reserve, it also has roles which are regional or valley-wide in nature. Other examples could be cited about the variety of viewpoints that make up Palm Desert' s "image" in a variety of eyes. Certainly, the Urban Design and the Conservation and Open Space elements stress preservation of the sand dunes, date Palms, desert areas, hillsides, drainage ways, etc. , that create the natural beauty and distinctiveness of Palm Desert. Finally, the proposed pattern of residential land uses is "low profile" -- although not limited to 15 feet in height in every area. Staff Report -4- 04/10/75 Page 2 The discussion of the Sphere of Influence Report suggests that the Sphere of Influence be modified in relation to the General Plan. This suggestion indicates a lack of understanding of the purposes and history of the Sphere of Influence planning effort. The Sphere of Influence Report was developed in response to the request of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) which, in turn, was receiving requests from adjacent cities to resolve the Sphere of Influence question. In order to define the Sphere of Influence a series of analyses were under- taken. Among the analyses were preliminary land use plans developed for the purpose of defining estimated cost/revenue impacts of the proposed Sphere. With the recent decision of the LAFCO regarding the Sphere of Influence, that study has fulfilled its purpose. The staff of the LAFCO agreed with the City's recommendations but the western boundaries were modified, in response to considerations felt to be compelling enough to override the staff recommendations by the LAFCO members. The suggested City Sphere of Influence was used in the General Plan as the Planning Area. Cities are free to define planning areas for their general plans which overlap other jurisdictions. Therefore, there is no legal or planning requirement that the City change its Planning Area to make it identical with its Sphere of Influence. Thought the City, at some future time, should refine its cost/revenue projections in response to the availability of more historic data relating to Palm Desert, there is no point now in changing the Sphere of Influence report for the basic decisions related to that report have been made. i Page 3 - "Remove from 1st paragraph any reference to K.-Mart and future development of 2 story department store 150,000 sq. ft. and 320 residential units." Again the historical context of the Highway 111 study needs to be understood by the Referendum Committee. This study was undertaken prior to most of the 'planning for the entire General Plan area. Its purpose was to develop preliminary guineiines for land uses and circu- lation improvements in the downtown area in response to immediate development pressures and problems. The analysis of existing develop- ment patterns simply mentioned K-Mart as a statement of fact for at the time of the original Core Area planning it was a proposal and has since become an approved plan. The precise plan referred to is assumed to be the same as the City's adopted Interim Core Area Plan. - "Remove all reference to larqe Hotels or Motels with meeting rooms, etc. on Western End of Highway 111 ." Both the Interim Core Area Plan and the General Plan refer to the addition of hotel/motel units designed not to serve conventions but primarily residents and their visitors. "Hotel/Motel development along Highway 111 is envisioned to be. low-rise in character, possibly some cottages, with meeting, banquet and eating facilities," (page 16, Interim Core Area Plan; page 3.13. 11 , General Plan) . Page 16 of the Interim Core Area Plan and page 3.B- 11 of the General Plan further stress that hotel/motel facilities should be oriented towards the needs of local residents and their visiting friends and to the existing character of Palm Desert. An earlier City Information Sheet indicated th existing ratio of hotel/motel rooms to residents will be maintained. Page 4 and 5 These pages contain a number of suggestions which are legally questionable. While some of these suggestions may be matters of City policy, the majority have clear legal implications that should be reviewed by the City Attorney. e Staff Report -5- 04/10/75 Page 6 and 7 The suggestions indicate that the General Plan incorporate many statements which more appropriately belong within the Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan is a guideline for development whereas the Zoning Ordinance is one of the specific tools utilized to implement the recommendations of the General Plan. While there is admittedly a requirement that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance be consistent with each other, the Plan is a long term instrument which indicates the final objectives and the Zoning Ordinance is short range and immediate. It is therefore thought that the Plan should include only the broader land use categories whereas the Zoning Ordinance should incorporate the specifics with regard to use designation and development standards. The following comments, therefore address themselves to the proposed Zoning Ordinance. 1 . Zoning Districts Suggestion is that there be only two density classifications: Very low density (1-3 du/acre) and low density (3-5 du/acre) . These density classifications conform to the General Plan proposals although the Plan also allows medium (5-7 du/acre) and high density (7-18 du) . The additional densities have been included in the Zoning Ordinance to implement the proposals of the Plan since a need for a range of densities, price ranges and residential unit types is considered important for the future development of Palm. Desert. ( 2. Comments on Use Classifications j R - ps (Residential - previously subdivided) ::: The Zoning Ordinance does not include this classification since it is not considered a necessary distinction but would properly come under one of the proposed zoning districts. The height requirement of 15 feet is not considered appropriate since the intent of the Ordinance is to, in certain districts, allow two- story residential structures. The no lot splitting suggestion is not considered appropriate since some lots previously subdivided may be of such size that lot splitting could be allowed. RR=1 (One family dwelling) - This suggested'° district corresponds to the Ordinance's Residential- Single Family district with. the exception of one story limit. This limit is not considered appropriate for the same reason mentioned earlier. R-1�< and R-1--', (One family rhvelling districts of 10,000 and 20,000 square feet minimums) : These district size distinctions can actually be incorporated by the Council since the proposed Zoning Ordinance allows the Council to set higher lot sizes than the minimum at their discretion. RR=2 (Multi -family dwellino units) : As noted earlier, the Zoning Ordinance reflects the General Plan '5 concept of allowing a higher density than 5 units to the acre because it is believed that such densities are neces- sary to provide the range of residential developments needed in Palm Desert. Commercial Classifications: Suggestions are made for two commercial districts (CPS and CP) with only a distinction made for scenic highway considerations. The proposed ordinance has a scenic highway overlay district which would accomplish the intent noted above. The proposed ordinance has three basic districts - General commercial , office commercial and planned commercial complex. These districts are considered appropriate in order to develop distinct commercial use entities in the community which will enhance: the character of the commercial development. The suggested .building height limits are lower than those provided in the Zoning Ordinance which are considered appropriate for the type of commercial uses anticipated in Palm Desert. The Ordinance restrictions are "low profile" as we interpret the words. The question Is , how low is low? Staff Report -6- 04/10/75 _ i The suggestion that 50% of the land be in parking and landscaping is considered too general a statement and the proposed Zoning Ordinance more adequately covers these areas in its development standards. The proposed Zoning Ordinance allows hotels and motels in its General commercial district and the restrictions to be imposed through the Ordinance's development standards will assure they be of "low profile design". i < The proposed Zoning Ordinance allows automobile sales and services in Industrial Districts because it is thought that they can be developed in a manner which will keep them from creating an "unsightly appearance or undesirable traffice or other adverse environmental conditions." 3. Comments on Densities Per Acre Proposed Zoning Ordinance calculates densities on a gross acre basis rather than on a net acre basis in order to give the City and the devel- oper the greatest flexibility in developing appropriate land use patterns. It is not considered necessary to reduce the acreage calculation because of golf course or tennis court development since developers are required to include recreational uses in their planned developments and should not be hindered in terms of density for providing recreational uses. Page 8 - It is suggested that the objective "minimize premature public costs through development of a compact nonsprawling landjuse pattern" be eliminated because it would "cause Urban High Density." This objective, in our opinion, should not be removed because it relates to the goal of keeping City costs and revenues in balance over time. A compact nonsprawling land use pattern can be achieved regardless of what density development occurs at. The concept does not deal with density per se but rather with avoiding leapfrog or non-contiguous development which creates a high ratio of public utility and service costs for existing residents. - "Change last paragraph to read as follows: 'Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for all residents. Adding the '.Nord "all" to the last objective on page 1 .G.1 certainly appears to be an acceptable suggestion. The suggestions to eliminate unnecessary words to clarify ambiguous statements, etc. , should be supported by specific recommendations. Page 9E - "Eliminate idea of 25 heighborhoods. All one city with separate areas of residential - commercial , etc." The Urban Design structure suggests means for developing a one-City image which includes the concept of well related neighborhoods as one of those means. Therefore, the suggestion of the General Plan to develop a City of Neighborhoods does not mean that Palm Desert cannot also have the unity of being one City. As the City grows it will be useful to have subareas with which people can identify in addition to their identification with the overall City. - "The City has not generally developed as a piecemeal composite." While certain subareas of the existing City have been developed with unified plans there has not been an overall plan for the City. In this sense, the City has developed to date, as a series of piecemeal composites. This is not to suggest that some of the individual pieces are unattractive, but rather that there was a problem in not having an overall plan. t 1 Staff Report -7- 04/10/75 - "Eliminate districts, neighborhoods, etc." The urban design section 'describes natural districts which exist. These districts, defined by common characteristics such as hills or kinds of desert areas, cannot be eliminated. Therefore, a concept of the Urban Design element is to build upon the positive qualities of the districts as they are defined by a combination of natural and man-made factors. The concept of both districts and neighborhoods is suggested in order to provide the City with a structure which has both an overall unity yet a diversity of parts so it will possess the aesthetic qualities inherent in good art and function - diversity within unity. Page 10 - "Eliminate ' Industrial ' as applied to present city boundaries." No industrial uses are shown within the present City boundaries. Industrial uses shown in the Planning Area were included for consider- ations relating to both cost/revenue projections for the future economic viability of the City because industrial uses were felt to be the most appropriate use in relation to the noise problems associated with the Interstate Freeway and adjacent railroad lines, and to develop a balanced City in terms of employment opportunities and availability of goods and services. - "Change ' Industrial ' to 'Commercial ' ." Rather than change the word "indusfrial" to "commercial", it might be more appropriate to add the words "and commercial ." - "Remove convention type hotels as a viable source of growth." • Convention type hotels are not recommended in the General Plan. "It would be desirable to have hotels and similar facilities for certain needs of Palm Desert, but not to serve the desires of external exploitation.'' This is what the General Plan suggests on page 3.B. 11 : "hotel development along Highway Ill should be low-rise in character, possibly some cottages, eating/banquet facilities. Recreational amenities such as swimming pools and tennis courts should be a part of the development. Well planned hotel development can provide an attractive entrance to Palm Desert ; maintain the present community feel , without becoming tourist oriented; allow existing hotel units to achieve present occupancies; provide for executive seminars, local meetings, as well as provide accommodations for friends visiting Palri Desert residents; and provide eating and drinking facilities for local residents. 1' ' The description set forth here is predicated on 'Tourism' which would destroy the image of Palm Desert." • This statement is not true. (See background section of Population/ Economics element of the General Plan.) Page 11 - "If you like Palm Desert as it is - welcome - if you don't - go someplace else." "We do not have to yield to external pressure." The General Plan does not propose to yield to external pressure but rather to recognize the realities that development pressures do exist because of vacant land and Palm Desert' s central , accessible geographic location within the Coachella Valley. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance outline means for managing these growth pressures in a way intended to have positive benefits for the City. It is pointed out that arbitrarily restricting growth has been ruled illegal . Page 12 - "The implementation policies must be changed to comply with the Riverside General Plan," Staff Report -8- 04/10/75 Palm Desert, by law, is free to adopt its own General Plan recommendations for both the incorporated City and the Planning Area. Similarly, the City is free to adopt its own categories of commercial or any other land uses. - "Many other items are not consistent with the present or proposed future developments and corporate boundaries of Palm Desert." • This statement cannot be commented upon apart from specific references. Page 13 and 14 These two pages contain a number of general statements which do not relate to suggested changes for the General Plan. They also contain suggestions that lower income housing is not needed in Palm Desert. While figure 3-5 in the Population/Economics element indicates that Palm Desert has a somewhat lower percentage of lower income families than Coachella Valley or Riverside County, the number is still significant. Similarly, to suggest that there is not employment for lower income families in Palm Desert is not accurate. Figure 3-9 in the Population/Economics element indicates that Palm Desert has a spectrum of occupations that could be reflected in a broad range of housing types and price ranges. Other comments related to the Housing Element indicate a reluctance to acknowledge that lower income people either exist at present or should be provided for in future plans for the City. To ignore this present and future need and to incorporate the kinds of statements contained in this memo in the General Plan would probably violate the legal requirements of a Housing Element and negate the Cityrs participation in receipt of Block Grant monies within the provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. Page 15 Our response to the letter from Young, Henry and McCarthy regarding the Environmental Impact Report is contained in the Staff Report on the General Plan. Page 16 "In some areas of the Palm Desert the water lines are not large enough to provide the proper gallons per minute. . ." • The General Plan policies do provide that domestic and fire protection requirements be met. The Subdivision Ordinance, rather than a General Plan is the place to deal with gallons per minute. • The comments also suggest that more public parks are not needed and that recreational needs should be met solely by private developments. The General Plan suggests an approach of having both public and private recreational facilities` in the City. For example, page 7.3.2 does provide a policy which allows neighborhood parks to be privately owned and maintained. However, the provision of private parks does not eliminate the need to have some public parks which can orfer larger specialized facilities than those available in private parks and can provide recreational opportunities for residents whose means may not allow purchase or rental of developments containing elaborate recrea- tional facilities. Page 17 - "The goals and objectives will have to be revised to reflect the changes in the General Plan." • Since the Implementation element does not contain goals and objectives, it must be assumed that the reference here is to the goals and objectives contained in other sections. I Sfaff Report -9- 04/10/75 SUMMARY The Referendum Committee's recommendations on the General Plan seems to result from a lack of understanding of what precisely is the purpose of the General Plan concept and the role of the implementation tools of the General Plan. More importantly the recommended changes fail to recognize the existing overall character of the community. Finally, the recommended changes appear to be an.overreaction to all the actions taken thus far by the City in the area of planning. The Referendum Committee will find that as the City proceeds to the adoption of the various implementation tools to the General Plan, that many of the concerns that they have "will be overcome." The one area that has not been commented on which the Referendum Committee has suggested, deals with the planning processing procedure utilized by the City. In essence, they indicate that no projects should be processed during the four month period of the year since a number of citizens are not in the community during that time period. Based upon the best estimates we could receive from the Postal Service, approximately 20% of the populous leave during this four month period for an extended stay. The question then becomes is this the sufficient amount of populous to require the City to close down its planning activities for a four month period, particularly since this specific period is the time of which many developments -are. submitted so that all the planning approvals could be obtained to begin construction for the next sales season. To close down the planning process for four months would add substantial lead time to the processing of these projects. At this time, it does not appear reasonable, in Staff's opinion, to implement such a procedure. 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P.Q. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph. 346-0611 INFORMATION SflEET : PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN 7. . How was the plan developed? The elan represents the combined efforts of the Citizens Advisory Committee , Planning Commission, City Council , City Staff and City consultants- Wilsey & Ham as well as citizens-at-large who attended the various public meetings . 2 . How was citizen participation encouraged and carried out? First, a fifteen member Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) composed entirely of Palm Desert residents and chaired by George Berkey ,,as appointed to work closely with the con- sultants and city staff and to advise the Commission and Council about the General Plan. The Citizens Advisory Committee conducted a series of eight neighborhood meetings last April to prepare an initial. statement of goals and objectives for the plan . Second, a series of meeting points were held since last April for review of the development of the plan through Council and Commission Study Sessions , CAC Study Sessions and evening Town Forums where the public was invited to comment on plan proposals . Third„ the Director of Environmental Services has appeared on the local television station to explain the plan . Fourth, the local newspapers have published the land use map of the plan as well as providing some basic data. and information about the plan. Fifth, the schedule of meetings was oriented toward the spring, fall and winter months with summer meetings not scheduled so maximum input could be gained . Sixth, copies of the land use map and the entire plan have been available to the public at City Hall. . 3 . What led to the definition of the Planning Area? As a new city , Palm DesL t was faced with the neces- sity of defining its Sphere of Influence- an area of concern to the present city and containing areas which ---- might be the suufect of future annexation - if requested -2- by a majority of the property owners . Last June 7 , alternatives were discussed by the CAC and Council and the general boundaries of the Planning Area were agreed upon . During June some modifications were made based on discussions with property owners and adjacent cities . This led to the area generally bounded by Interstate 10 on the north , the San Bernar- dino National Forest on the south , Bob Hope Drive on the west and Washington street on the east . 4. What led to the population density recommended for the plan? First , the desire of the community for a low density city. The 12 , 601 units projected for the 5415 . 3 acres of residential land within the existing city limits will mean an average residential density of 2 . 32 dwelling; units per acre . (See page 4. b . 3 . a . of the General Plan) Second , the desire of the community for a variety of dwelling unit types to meet a variety of family and individual housing needs and to have variety within and between neighborhoods . Examples include the needs of some elderly for higher density, lower cost or maintenance units in the form of apartments or condominiums . 5: How much high density is proposed in the plan? Within the 5415 . 3 residential acres of land in the exist- ing city approximately 40 acres or less than 1% is pro- posed at the high density of 7-18 du/acre . Approximately 120 acres of the 13332 residential acres in the Sphere of less than 1%, is proposed at 7-18 du/acre . 6. will this 1 of the residential land at high density con- sist of high rises? No, high rise development is not possible within a range of 7-18 dwelling units/acre. High rise development requires a minimum of 50-60 dwelling, units per acre with over 100 per acre being common. 7 . Does the plan propose to turn the existing city of Palm Desert into a tourist center "like Palm Springs?" The plan (p . 32 . 10) proposes to add 300-400 (hotel/motel) , units over the next twenty years bringing the total units in the City to 700-800 . This compares with 7 , 200 existing units in Palm Springs and 385 existing units in Indian wells . Thus , Palm Desert may someday have approximately 9 - 11% .as many units as Palm Springs and 100% more than Indian [dells . -3- 8 . Miy should there be any hotel development within Palm Desert? As stated on page 3 . 1) . 10, "dell planned hotel development can provide an attractive entrance to Palm Desert; main- tain the present community feel , without becoming tourist oriented; allow existing hotel units to achieve present occupancies ; provide for executive seminars , local meetings , as well as provide accommodations for friends visiting Palm Desert residents ; and provide eating and drinking facilities for local residents . " 9 . What does the plan suggest for the character of hotel development? As also stated on page 3 .b . 10 , Hotel development , along Highway 111 , should be. low rise in character, possibly some cottages , with meeting, banquet and eating facilities . Recreational amenities such as swimming pools and tennis courts should be a part of the developmert . " 10. Does the plan suggest that Palm Desert become the regional shopping center for the Coachella Valley? No , this would not even be possible since Palm Springs and Indio are currently major regional shopping centers and will continue to be so. In fact , at ultimate development both Palm Springs and Indio will have more regionally oriented commercial than Palm Desert . IL Why does the plan indicate some regional commercial devel- opment within the western portion of Highway 1111.2 Because the provision of some regional shopping facilities within Palm Desert will lessen vehicle trip miles and create less pollution; provide sales tax revenues which will be vital to maintaining a balance o cit y costs and revenues without a property tax; provide oods , services and employment conveniently to local resi ents . 12 . Why are developers of regional shopping facilities whose trade areas extend throughout the Valley interested in Palm Desert? Because access via Interstate 10 , Highway 111 , Avenue 44 and Country CCub is good . Because Palm Desert is the geographic center of the Valley. Because vacant arcels of sufficient size for well-planned regional acil.ities exist . -4 13 . Are there any otlicr factors Lending t:o thrust a role of regional prominence on Palm DescrL? Because of its setting , access and geographic location Palm Desert has the realities of the College of the Desert , Living Desert Resei..ve , and Eisenhower Medical Center to work with . Another indication of Palm Desert ' s regional significance is the location of the offices of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments here and requests by the Univer- sity of California at: Riverside ' s Boyd Research Center to be included within the Sphere of Influence . 14 . How does the plan propose to maintain the positive aspects of the existing character of Palm Desert . First, it is proposed that the City and its Sphere of Influence develop as a series of carefully planned resi- dential neighborhoods . Neighborhoods can each have a. sense of identity and community by providing open space and trail systems that join separate developments to public facilities such as schools or to pr.ivate amenties such as golf courses . Second , the Urban Design structure of the plan is strongly based on conservation of the natural. environment including preservation of hillsides and mountain views ; preservation of the major sand dunes and date palm groves and preserva- tion of "desert corridors" where natural desert vegetation and wildlife can be preserved . 15 . What are the population: projections contained in the plan and hoer do these compare with past trends? From 1950-1972 Palm Desert grew by 377% or an average of 17% a year . From 1975-80 the City and Sphere is projected to grow at a rate of 5 . 4% per year and 2 . 71% per year from 1980-95 . During the next 20 years this will mean an approximate doub- ling of the city population to 30, 006 withiri . the existing incor- porated city limits and the addition of approximately 15 , 800 in the Sphere of Influence area. At ultimate development , in perhaps 30 to 50 years , the city and the Sphere of Influence could reacli a popu ation of approx- imately 94, 000 if growth continued and development occurred at the densities indicated. Because of the large land area in the Sphere of Influence this would result in a further lowering of residential densities from 2 . 3 units per acre in 1995 to 2 . 0 acre in the year 2025 . -5- 16. Why was such a long time span and large area considered? Because of the development influence which will be exerted by Interstate 10 and the Eisenhower Medical complex and to meet the planning requirements of the Local Agency Formation Commission. 17 . Should the plan be changed once it is adopted and are changes likely? Good planning as well as state law requires that General . Plans be amended at least once a. year. The law also provides that general plans can be updated up to three times per year . Plans must be flexible and change in response to changing economic , social and even physical h sical conditions . ,The cur- rent slump in housing starts and general demise of single family construction as well as the energy and raw mater- ials crises are but several examples of the kinds of changing factors to which viable plans must relate, 18 . What are some of the most vital aspects of the plan? This question requires a judgemental answer as .opposed to statistics . In the opinion of city staff and consultants that the five most basic aspects of the plan that will maintain the good qualities of Palm Desert and meet the challenges of the future are : (1) establishment of. a viable neighborhood planning program for existing and new development , (2) development of implementation programs for the open space elements - cooperating with appropriate regional. agencies , (3) creation of the system of balanced transportation with non-automotive options , (4) redevelopment of the downtown core to solve current and possible future drainage , circulation and land utilization problems , (5) balancing the regional roles already inherent in the city with citizen desires for maintaining a special village or neighborhood feeling. This later aspect of the plan relates to all those above . 19. How can I be involved in further refinements to the General Plan? Revisions to the General Plan will occur through a number of means including : -6- (a) the annual or tri-yearly review of the General Plan, (b) the preparation of sub-area plans such as for the Core area, (c) the preparation of zoning maps-which should be based on neighborhood or sub-area plans , (d) the preparation of detailed system plans for ele- ments such as bicycle ways , trails , transit , open space , etc . Adoption of plans for any of the items noted above requires public hearings and assessment of General Plan consistency or a need to modify the General Plan . Izre ' S00 too 3 557 Ac,- 92-. gL lf� / b o A-c. 39s 3� 320 - --94 0 --- D —` bAo ZoZ I ? l � 5�17 2i-0 . G4 o 33v Goo 212q �c, 2 � D qc - � 975 f4i?) �a 14 0 �o 3 30 20 2- 8 4. 354 - - - - - Gq o -4�-O C.P, /�Ao. �J�,Y =45 590 Cc. c7 �. = 27/ 2 9 0 goo / .!y . r 5 Ov 4r �4v 100 tt//r r 34—> 4r. 40 fie. MAX, ��r�s� = 37 34S 70 ,d� ,G Jc > �. 2-113 � 770 Af. �i1 , 'ro ugh draft 1/29 jh DISCUSION OF DENSITY AS PROPOSED IN THE ADOPTED PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN Recently, a number of statements have been made with regards to density proposed in this City' s adopted General Plan, both in the present incorporated area and the total proposed sphere. .Item 1 : It has been stated that the approved General Plan in the incorporated area of Palm Desert will allow from 7-18 living units to the acre in some areas . C 010 ENT: Within o e existing Cityya ;a•a single site of approx- im'—an � y 40 acres e shownlor less than 1 percent of the total arealfor high density residential from 7-18 units to the acre . The Cove Community' s General Plan which was utilized by the City prior to the adoption of the new Palm Desert General Plan, shows a 1-1J or percent number of acres as high density 10-2 units to ttie acre. In the total planning area of 80 square miles approximately 120 acres or less than 1 percent of the total sphere area is shown in the approved General Plan as high density residential 7-18 units to the acre. The Cove Community' s General Plan which was used prior to the adoption of the new Genera]. Plan shows approximately number of acres or percent for high�ty residential 0-20 units to't acre. Based upon these facts it that the amount of high density permited has been tremendously reduced by the adoption of the new General Plan. Item 2: A statement has been made to the effect that the maximum land use of 5 dwelling units per acre should be established within the present limits of Palm Desert . �goys_ COMMENT: . The �V�us Gene al Plan showt'�n ve al L av rage t rVO.V`%l o�'32 dwelling units to the acre',. `Vurin°g the earing6on the General Plan the City Council modified the land use range within the present incorporateed area of Palm Desert to substantially reduce this �` °�ga`sed upon these facts it woud appear clearly evident that the approved General Plan is Ie. �rcent less than the recommended maximum oti 5 Leo per acre The Cove Community' s General Plan which was previously applicable in Palm Desert shows an average density of for the present incorporated City of Palm Desert . Thisis substantially more than what was adopted in the new General Plan. Therefor , if the recently adopted General Plan were to be rejected the Cove Community' s General Plan would have to apply since the City must have a final plan with the result being a substantial increase in the amount of development . It is clearly evident that the approval of the new General Plan has resulted in a substantial �f reduction in perm�`��• nvccLaticS t>,wld-r SUMMARY: If the present incorporated City which is approx- imate 5 ,415 . 3 acres were devloped at maximum of 5 units to the acre, a total of `227 0� a 6 units ICresult . If y� ase• 2. 5 persons per unit �, s would mean a total population O personspersons . her en nl asp °u`ad General_ lan 121-f ould pis persvns .ae�rtrt�. Since it has not�been clearly stated heretofor , I must statue unequivacably that what has occured because of the adoption of the new General Plan of the City of Palm Desert s en . substantial reduction in the amount of perm * db in the present community with the re 1t� being a substantial improvement v� the environment at,uZ ma 5\ development . 3 1 � i . F SPECIFIC STATETMENT RELATIVE TO RUERENDMI COt,i',IiTT 'E L PAGANDA i The recent publicity issued by the Referendum Committee includes statements on density which are complete distortions of fact . It implies that the entire City will be relatively fff� high density with 7 to 18 living units per acre being predominant . It also implies that the recently adopted t General Plan represents an increase in currently allowed average density. The truth of the matter is that the recently I adopted General Plan reduces the average allowable density i from that which previously existed. The Cove Communities plan allowed 10 to 20 units per acre in 3�ty acres or/9•`{o of the present City. The new General Plan only allows 7 to 18 f units as a maximum in only 40 acres or 1% of the present City . Likewise, in the Sphere of Influence, or total planning area of 80 square miles, the new General Plan allows this :.-"; density of 7 to 18 units to the acre in less than 11jo of the total developable area. It is obvious that the amount of high density permitted has been greatly reduced by the adoption of the new General Plan. The Referendum Committee also proposed that a maximum land use of 5 dwelling units per acre should be established within the present limits of Palm Desert : The originally proposed General Plan showed an overall average density of only 2. 32 dwelling units per acre in the present City limits. During the hearings on the General Plan the City Council reduced this average density even further . Based upon this Y. i 4 fact the approved. General Plan now allows at least 46% less average density than that suggested by the Referendum Committee. Applying the foregoing information, if the present in- corporated City which is approximately 5 ,415 acres is developed at a maximum of 5 units to the acre as suggested by the Committee, a total of over 27 , 000 units would result . If 2. 5 persons per unit is used as an occupancy factor, this would mean a total population of over 67 ,000 persons. The recently approved General Plan would limit the maximum allowable population to y711, 0 0 persons. The Cove Communities General Plan, which previously controlled density in Palm Desert , shows an average maximum density of ! O units per acre for the present incorporated City. Since this is substantially more than thathwhich was adopted by the City Council in the new General Plan, it means that if the recently adopted General Plan is rescinded and the Cove Communities General Plan again applied, the result would be a substantial increase in the amount of allowable development . You might ask the Committee members why they have not pointed this out to you. Since the foregoing has not been clearly stated heretofore, I would again like to state unequivocably that adoption of the new General Plan for Palm Desert has resulted in a substantial reduction in the amount of permitted density in the present community with the prospects of a substantial improvement: in i the environment at the point of ultimate development . I i i I i i SUGGESTED PRESS RELEASE RELATIVE TO GENERAL PLAN REFERENDUM The irresponsible action being pursued by a handful of Palm Desert residents will cause the City to lose over one and nne-half million dollars in revenues and also cause a tragic, needless and useless squandering of City Planning Commission, Council and paid Staff time. If the City Council is not able to figure some method of off- settingthe chain of events which have been so thoughtlessly and % Y selfishly put into action by the Referendum Committee, the City stands to lose approximately $53, 000 per year for the next 35 years as a result of loss of the first year ' s frozen tax base under the tax increment financing to be established through the City' s Core Area Redevelopment Agency. The Redevelopment Agency was designed to divert to the City considerable future tax monies now going to the County and other levels of government. It would have meant no additional tax expense to City property owners and would have brought monies into the City treasury which are now going outside of the City. The program was designed to start with .the current tax year by establishing as a base the 1974 assessed evaluation. For the City to Edify for this program, a General Plan is mandatory by law. The City is operating on a tight schedule of implementation and must complete all steps by this August to capture the first year's tax base which would amount to approximately $53,000 revenue per year, repeated, for each year that the Agency is in existence. Since it is anticipated that the Agency could be in existence for 35 years, this amounts to over one and one-half million dollars ' which would be lost to the City forever. The City is also moving towards eligibility for $33 ,000 a year from Federal Housing and Community Development Act Block Grant monies. To qualify for these monies, it is necessary to have a housing element which is merely one of the many elements found in the General Plan. While it may be possible to qualify under the County's housing element for the first year, the City would not be able to use the County element for second and third year financing. Therefore, if the current situation is not corrected expeditiously, the City may stand to lose additional Federal monies from this source. The City has spent $35, 000 for development of its General Plan andEIR, has had approximately_L�La hours of review and hearings by the Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and the City Council, and has spent approximately-;;��c> hours of staff time in helping to develop the plan and process it. If the referendum is sucessful, it will be necessary to duplicate and, in many cases, completely redo much of this work. It is estimated that it could cost as much as $15, 00 to $24, 000 for additional consulting and staff services to redo the General Plan and EIR. The entire review and hearing process would have to be duplicated, meaning a complete duplication of previous procedure, requiring up to_JLU hours of Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and Council time. This entire process, in- cluding a referendum election, will set the City back a minimum of 7 to 8 months in its master plan process. This will, in turn, delay the City Zoning Ordinance, subdivision and grading ordinance, Redevelopment Agency plan, development of the prototype 2 block in the Core Area, and up-dating of the Interim Core Area plan. Since the moratorium on certain types of develop- ment in the residential area is tied into adoption of the Zoning Ordinance, this will also mean an addition 7 to 8 months' delay in lifting the building moratorium. Under State legisla- tion (Assembly Bill 4058) , if the City does not have a General Plan on July 1, 1975, it can no longer issue building permits of any nature. Since the minimum delay for reestablishing a General Plan is 7 to 8 months, this means that the City will not be able to issue any building permits for the next 3 to 4 months after July 1st of 1975. This includes even minor permits 6ht items such as renovation and remodeling. The City also could not take any legal planning actions such as approving subdivision maps, conditional use permits, etc. The well-meaning citizens who signed the referendum peti- tion were obviously not told all of the ramifications by the handful of people who were attempting to get the referendum started. Since some members of the Referendum Committee are well versed on these matters and have the availability of competent legal advice, they were undoubtedly aware of many of the foregoing matters but failed to divulge them to the citizens whose support they enlisted. During the next month or two, the City Council will make an all-out effort to bring the true facts to the public to correct the misstatements of items taken out of context and outright lies being generated by certain members of this community. It is unfortunate indeed 3 ti that a handful of people, for their own egotistical reasons, can so easily destroy the efforts of the duly elected representatives in carrying out the wishes of the public for a planned community. 4 F H z H V \ a O O N O00 W �D ON O Q` M V1 � 00 r-I N W N U W 6 E W N W H w z ¢ H � w waa. E d H W d Ca7 a � a w W o m a w o n E w Q W N u"t W Q a Ip m 0) �o u•t FPO -1 d' ,o rn o r- W w N w z a� W E z a W zz w + w o0 d w w a z P. m CW7 m O G G U O Q N O H F 3+ U w w N co w O CL O q w w pq H I Q9 l+ I N ai d N 1-1 L/1 ¢ w U s cn °1 Ln rn l N p G G G I~ G d t+1 O1 w ¢ O m m w d H N w U H S-i w .H P.w 0000 •rLi w Cm m m >10 Qom m > oHo w •" Po M w w ,� 'T N Q C N � Q p cH0 .rt > Q w w •rq w w H 00 CD o �n f`'1 M N Q C I I co Q C 1 cn N H G 14 w $4 w z 1 I 1 1 ro I w k u x on w x x co W O m 1 H 1 > N O N > > m O N > Q .-t w ¢ w z d ¢ Z w d G G � C� a r w %O p V C �1 V In In In N O Ln r V 0 0� 0 �b 0 In o nw o 0 o n o O m rrttwm � m F .rtm z t N m (n ((DD N (7] G O o' r•n Cl G M oGv H. C OQ w n G H. nrt r H 0 o tC �� z (DG �J z �' ro 'C O CrJ rt 'O M 7d W a ril M t%t h7 xJ rG w G' n w i G O w O w h7 t7 F` rt (DOrt H 00rt nrt h1 H w Hw m w nrw w [=i zz9 0 m r• r• 0 G H. I rJ a r• m H. n [� Cw mnw Nr m w M �d E w a' n m G• . P. G ti R• H r• a.m w w m w o m m m U rtGw r w G w Cw rt rrrot rn G -Wm ax o o ra froM w w E r•m v 5 0 m wm prrP. wr• C 5ro rt r• p' N• ri rt H.N m H NNN mN a�G� rrtw z pr nw nrtwF" m H H w 0 Og .'3 r m w (M rn w rGo p � 0 (noroo Wm r °° rt P m m Pa H r m Q' 03 m F't N m w H w 0Og n H W rt ro G m a 0aq . w H. m r• w ` rt En CGQ F. G m� G r ((• D � (D a n (D a Gm mr• wm0G m 0rW.tt E w wG � 5i C rt0 o' r.N p a m �1a G G w w 9 C ((D C r w r F-r �o H ko �D V C V V In In In N O r V In •O 0 Q v9 t•dd 0 b i a•d H •d c H H H F. H t4 C no 0 wa• C w C tH. 4 H m rt H• m G m rt m t� N GQ En (OD N � n > (7 Ov Md � H till H• H a O H. m H t7 G a H. H G Ft O C GQ N• n� v 0 o k4 � c� (D N H O C z H O z G�•d [�] H• m m m H rt w tT1 m o A) m H• 0 M m O m w m Ci H w rt (D W .n a• G n r• GgG r• W h] ro pa m H m d• O m d' a H• H H• W H m r m m w C) ID r r g H r w H w m r m rt O H a H. r H r-i rm H• •d wr• " (D .J aH• H• mC mmG H• z t7 w rww 0• aa4 m SCwwm0mw [� rower H• P- w mH• O H• mrtrtpwrp cn r G m w i-h m w G m r w H• H• rr H• G (D c� w w �JO m mo In m 00mrtam t=i •.9 rt n H m rt hh rt w rh 0 0 H H. H. H Ir rt m 'd rt d' :3, rt O m 'j 04 t7 mom' wH nwGm �V HOOrwoQm t7l m £ Go nm m rorho 0 C n H. O' m 'F'm m w n W rt m ti7 ON rtam mw0w 5rr w 'C -7' H t"' 0 � c CO ro j9 (D o • m ww m w ro G H• rt H• H• El m G 0 N 0 o ff 'd OO ", wKi wHCi H• -HZ• Omm04 H•0Q m H•OQ xE� H. rh G H... w G z rt O F.- H. rt H. p H r w g H. H 14 to to d 'd rt`C O H• O r m -• H• a rt rt w H G rt rt w w �r rt m H•w w - O m H• N t4 a H. w 7 rt d G rt m I' 0 O w aH w m rh a m rm d'-• n O O -- m w �•a0 mw Oa G rm tit wm0 H OH rrtG wa0w w rtHH 6a. w H rma fb (D wa •dw £ wm a.:3H• O •dawH •d0m r d m H• m ;7 H •d w OQ C H• O r 3 WOQ Hrt0OHmm w O w w 04 rt a O O•hd rh x• r d rt O H. H. x m m 0 0 m H• w a 0 m H• Ct rt w rh•d m G - m r rt g OQ x H. 9 a a W O m H w O w m rt r m £ H• w (D OQrt0) H• rtw 'd mw :J H• Gi 0 w '3' 0 0 m rw m w .'7 rt rt H. aH• rt m ,7rt 1--'w m 0g -• a �G v4 � N' aw w 5 d Go-h rt w H •d m H. rt v p G H w IF' r w wmw0 U, P. omG m a H -- rt m H•'d m N w x H d• w rt O -• rt 004 �n m oHQ (w H. D 8 OQmrt p a rt m a -- - --- - X 13 Ro Cf< GoRMAN ' .. , X X ?� 9C 'C X� • MARTW ILLS � _ I S � I r I I � j PECK v I � i �R\MAKDI i SMITH I o- _ Its, IC7, I 1 9 s p do 2-tl iq-2y NO (I/ l'f7-t \1E5 Q C 2411174 �,fES O (-?/ l q 7,t CGS ® 3� / 1-7 ¢ Yes 0 I ?21f NO / 771 NO r47 ¢ t-AO l 97j 1-,0 � 9 74 NO � 27 `fEs -7 Yes SPECIFIC STATEMENT RELATIVE TO REFERENDUM COMMITTEE PROPAGANDA (Suggest that it be issued by an individual Councilman) It is obvious that the so-called General Plan Referendum Committee is attempting to blatently mislead the public on the possible ultimate cost of their action. The Committee ' s propaganda material would lead one to believe that a referendum t to repeal the general plan could be conducted at "no additional i taxpayers expense" . The truth of the matter is that if this should be taken to the voters as an independent election item unrelated to any other election, it could cost the Palm Desert taxpayers approximately one thousand five hundred and fifty dollars. Their letter has been very cleverly worded to mislead the public without making a direct statement which would allow them to be challenged technically or legally. . r� 4 IN 0 O 0 0 0 o r H r r r H o 0 0 0 to 0 0 > W W W N N H N N H O O 0 �o CO CO V V 01 a, C7 M •y,• MO O rt H H H 00 N O O N H N H O H r•r O H H N O H H 3 fD N H O 00 F N Vt H N F V W to to H CO r V V MH •N' 7 G \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ z n V V V 'i to In to In In In F F F F F F F F F F F F F H � Cu x x x x x x x Benes x R (D 'b O rt x n Brock 10 - R w 0 n x x x x x x x x x x x x x Gorman o G Lp x x x x x x x x x x x x Hirschi (D F a x x x x x x x x Lecky 9 H w x x x x x x x x x x x x Martin, K. z e7 x x x n Martin, L. rt '� 0 O N x x x x x x x x Peck N 0 0 c x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Ricciardi 0 N a F x x x x x x x x x x x x x x Richardson M m OD x x x x x w Smith n R N N x x x x x x x x w Solis N M rt XXXX XXXXXXXX x x Mills k a H F 00 N In In V In W In M W V 00 0 F 00 N r N W In CO CO N In O 00 O W M In 00 N N N N N a\°\° e\^" \ =P \ � \ \ \ e\^ \ \ 81° IQ H C7 H z n c� � DISCUSION OF DENSITY AS PROPOSED IN THE ADOPTED PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN Recently, a number of statements have been made with regards to density proposed in this City' s adopted General Plan, both in the present incorporated area and the total proposed sphere. Item 1 : It has been stated that the approved General Plan in the incorporated area of Palm Desert will allow from 7-18 living units to the acre in some areas . COMMENT: Within the existing City awe a single site of approx- imately 40 acres 4A shown or less than 1 percent of the total area for high density residential from 7-18 units to the acre . The Cove Community' s General Plan which was utilized by the City prior to the adoption of the new Palm Desert General Plan, shows a3VtA�- + r le ,`A percent rtmber o£-arts as high density 10-2b units to-ETTee—acre. In the total planning area of 80 square miles approximately 120 acres or less than 1 percent of the total sphere area is shown in the approved General Plan as high density residential 7-18 units to the acre . The Cove Community' s General Plan which was used prior to the adoption of the new General s Plan shows approximately number of acres or ? ,� percent for high density residential 10-20 unit_ � S oott a—acre. Based upon these facts it we ttiat the amount of high density permited has been tremeftdevsly reduced by the adoption of the new General Plan. a Item 2 : A statement has been made to the effect that tie maximum land use of 5 dwelling units per acre should be established within the present limits of Palm Desert . ori96n .,iy ,af.!A •d /h 44o /07'e.41d cI/y X COMMENT: - The,�a4epted General Plan showXan overall average e d I/C-.11ly dwelling units to the acre. During e on the General Plan the City Council modified the land use range within the present incorporated area of Palm Desert to ,r+4y substantially reduce this Based u on these facts a°` ., it would appear clearly evident t a e approved General Avilis4d mum pernacre46 The Covet less tha CommVnitynsthe General�Planewhlichlwas preciously applicable in Palm Desert shows as. e density of ' I Q for the present incorporated City of Palm Desert . This is substantially more than what was adopted in the new General Plan. Therefor, if the recently adopted General Plan were to be rejected the Cove Community' s General Plan would have to apply since the City must have a t1tMrLp lan .Wth the result being a substantial increase in the amount of development . It is clearly evident that the approval of the new General Plan has resulted in a substantial amaffrrt--ef reduction in perm=? d_:c�l—( rt.- av��.j� do ,, )y 1a1 SUMMARY: If the present incorporated Ci ate y which is approx- im 5 , 415 . 3 acres were devloped at maximum of 5 units 1 to the acre , g_t.o__a.l--o-f`27 , 076 units w�4 result . If yen !J 1,12 s u-s-e 2 . 5 persons per unitvthis would mean a total population of 67 , 690 persons . The recently approved General Plan would VP�^f -dmauut. Since it has not been clearly stated heretofor, I must state4 unequivacably that what has occured because of the adoption of the new General Plan of the City of Palm Desert has been t substantial reduction in the amount of peY), , �� peaeent dirt in the present community with the result dt„,to 'f being a substantia improvement of the environment at ultimate development. r � 7J /')1i/ � Ss 'h� ��p1M�H � L� �1DWii�e. ✓�dJ L`/s7 .•� �� rJ rj�r)r•,1 CITY COUNCIL h7ETING 1T MARCH 19 NOEL BRUSH - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIENCE CHUCK ASTON - INVOCATION ROLL CALL - PRESENT : Clark, Brush, Benson, Aston , McPherson Awards & Presentations : Mayor Clark : Vacancies on CAC. We will hope we will fill vacancies on CAC at next Thursday night ' s meeting. Redevelopment Area Project Committee , which was a new Committee, of which there are presently 14 members , and it was intended that there be 20 members , there have been two appointments - three appointments - Wally Bolmeyer , who is in Real Estate , Warren G. Cleveland, who .is a Chiropractor , and whose business is located on Alessandro on the north side , and Bill Hobbs , who is a property owner within the Redevelopment Area, and one of the requirements for appointments , for serving on the Committee , is of course , that they have their business or are property owners within the Redevelopment Area. So, could I have a motion to appoint these 3 new members to the Redevelopment Area Project Committee. Moved: Councilman Aston Seconded: Councilman McPherson MOTION PASSED UNANIMOUSLY . NEW BUSINESS : City Clerk report on Referendum petition signature verification . Harvey Hurlburt : On 2/18 I received a petition for a Referendum on the General Plan. This was sent for verification on 3/18. There were originally 672 signatures on the petitions. Of these 638 were verified - the County found that 34 did not qualify. The total cost for this was $173. That completes my report , Mr. Mayor. Mayor Clark : So there are an adequate number of legal signatures to HLH Yes - 344. 1 , or 345 are required, so there is almost 2000/0 of what is .required. M. Clark Are there any questions of the City Manager? If not , would Dave Erwin the City Attorney report on what is our next step. DAVE ERWIN Mr. Mayor , as I previously advised the Council , I think on Monday of this week , on an interim basis , assuming the signatures were certified, on the matter the Council has two alternatives. I have gone a little further, and I think you have three alternatives, perhaps before you tonight . The first of which is for the Counci to rescind your Resolution No. 75-2 , which the resolution adopting the General Plan . To completely clarify that , I would say that this is an action which would not affect parts of the General Plan, but is an action which in effect would rescind the entire General Plan , that ' s the thrust of the petitions that were filed, and that ' s the only matter that the Council can act on there. You have also , if you do not rescind it , the obligation to call a general election within not less than 74 and no less than 89 days , at which time the question would be presented to the voters whether the GP should stand or fall , as the GP. The third alternative the Council has before them tonight is another alternative. A little brief background ; the subject of referendum is one which is available to the voters in the community , when the procedure is followed, which -2- would allow them to , on legislative matters , in effect override the decision of the Council . I have spent consider- able time researching the matter and discussing it with other City and municipal attorneys throughout the State - it is my opinion that the Referendum Code , the Government Code and Elections Code, as it relates to a resolution adopting a General Plan are not applicable. The matter, in my opinion is not a legislative act that can be the subject of referendum. Thus , your third alternative , and my recommendation tonight is that the Council so agree and not call the requested election. I can amplify a little , if you like , Mr. Mayor, the results that might occur, in my opinion , if you were to rescind the General Plan ; I can also tell you what would happen if the Referendum election were successful , if it were called. Mayor Clark : I think it would be well , even though it was essentially covered in your letter to the Council last week, I think it would be well to state what the penalty is if we do as the Referendum Committee suggested - rescind the General Plan , which we approved in January of this year. ERWIN Assuming that the Council would tonight , rescind the Resolution No. 75-2 , which would in effect rescind the General Plan , the code sections in the Elections Code are very clear that you may not take the same legislative act or the same action , within one year. In my opinion, that would indicate that you cannot adopt a General Plan for one year. Assuming that you determine to call an election , and the election were successful , that would also mean that the City Council would not be able to adopt a General Plan for one year from that date. The failure of the City to comply with the State Law which mandates the adoption of the GP with certain elements by the first of July could subject the City to many possible problems which we have covered many-times before, I think , such as possible exposure to litigation , stopping building permits , zoning procedures , this sort of matter, as well as preventing you from proceed- ing any further with your zoning ordinances , grading ordinances , proceeding any further with your redevelopment plan , or with, I should say, preventing the adoption of the redevelopment plan. I would say , at the present time , so far as the third alter- native is concerned, it is my opinion that the General Plan , once adopted by Resolution 75-2, was effective then , and is still effective now, and until such time as you either rescind that action , or a referendum election is successful , that General Plan will stay in effect . M. Clark You know, in summarizing the penalty, if we should take the first option offered by the RC, we would do more than jeopardize .$1 , 800, 000 that had been well publicized - we would throw it out the window and say there' s no chance of getting it . Erwin That is my opinion, at least now. Clark Does the Council have further questions for the City Attorney . McPherson Mr. Erwin has stated about the RC , I think, that should we agree to their changes on the GP that the RC could withdraw the petitions for referendum. Would you elaborate on that a little bit . Erwin The law in Cali.fornia,. I believe , is, very clear - once a referendum petition is filed with the City that puts the wheels in motion - no signatures can be withdrawn from that petition after that date, nor can the petition itself be withdrawn . The procedures must follow through to the point we are tonight . -3- Clark Does the Council. have any further questions? This is not a public hearing, but it ' s been our practice to conduct this as an open meeting among neighbors whenever we could, and I am asking advice from the rest of the Council as to whether they wish to proceed to the question , or to see if anyone in the audience has any comments they would like to make . What is the wish of the Council? Brush My personal feelings are that if there is anyone in the audience who feels they can add anything to the matter, then there is no reason why we should not hear them. There may be certain questions that we could not , or would choose not to answer at this time - I don' t know, but I would suggest that we open it up the audience anyway. Clark How does the rest of the Council feel? McPherson Mr. Mayor, I feel that it is such an important matter that it should be opened up. Benson I agree . Clark With that , I guess we should follow the general procedures that are normally followed in the case of a public hearing, which says that the proponents may speak first . The proponents in this case being - it ' s another one of those questionable things that we sometimes see on a ballot - the proponents for the purposes of this will be those in favor of proceeding with the Council setting a date within 70 days , what are the actual days? Erwin Not less than 74, no more than 89 days Clark the Council setting an election to consider the referendum not less than 74 days and not more than 89 days from tonight , so the proponents who wish to see the Council take the action will have the first opportunity to speak, and the people who are opposed to setting the election in view of the City Attorney' s recommendation that it is not a legal referendum would speak second. With that I would ask you to hold your comments to pertinent comments which might help the Council make a decision and I would ask the propon- ents to come to the microphone , give their name and address , and address themselves to the question Are there any proponents? DAVID BOND, CHAIRMAN, REFERENDUM COMMITTEE , 44-532 San Pascual. Throughout our entire deliberations on this, we have taken the attitude that we are trying to approach the differences of opinion in the General Plan on a normal , rational and sensible basis . We have conducted our efforts in that ..direction ; we have met with your CAC; we have had some reason- able meetings there; and our policy is simply this - that there are certain things within the General Plan that can be resolved so that the problems that you have stated with regards to the 1 . 8 million are not necessary , they do not have to occur, and we too have had legal advice from attorneys that we feel well capable of advising us , and I take issue with the statement that your City Attorney has stated that you may not file another General Plan within one year. . . on this basis ; that it states you may not file this same plan - it does not say that you cannot file a changed plan which has essential changes in it , and this is the basis on which we are contending that we can meet with you, we can resolve our differences , all of the things that we axes object to can be resolved, and all of the problems can be eliminated, and the General Plan can be reinstated on that basis. We feel that we have done everything within ,our 'power in a reasonable and rational , democratic way provided by law under the referendum to bring our points of contention to you. -4- We have tried to do this , we stand ready and willing as the letter we sent to you severalweeks ago, we stated that we , by the 28th of this month, could give you a complete and total detail of all of the items that we wish to be reconsidered in this Plan. To date , we have had no reply from you on that subject . We have been requested by the CAC to set up a series of meetings to resolve these things We met with them - we have had 2 meetings with them - the meetings were fruitful to a degree. We now stand ready to proceed with those meetings to discuss these items, and we feel certain that there can be a resolution of this that will not require a general election , that will. not require freezing the General Plan for one -year, and this I give you under the advice of our attorneys who have advised us . So, I hope that you will consider the alternate of declaring the General Plan invalid until such time as we can get together and resolve the differences of opinion on that General Plan then reinstate it and you may go your way without any more difficulties. Thank you, Gentlemen. Clark Anyone else wish to address the Council on this matter that would help us reach a decision? Brush Are we going to have any Clark After we' re all through talking. . . . . . is there any other proponent who wishes to speak? There will be no other proponent? SORRY, MR. MAYOR. I 'M DUNCAN REYNOLDS, 74-070 Goleta, I too, as an average citizen would assume that by making these changes, it would not be the same identical plan . I was in Palm Springs at the printer' s office today , and talking about what ' s going on , and printers and press people seem to know more about it than the average citizen. Palm Springs is laughing at us. That ' s neat . Their comment to me was Rancho Mirage and Indian Wells seem to be governing their towns in a quite organized manner without too much friction. I ' ve seen too much friction here. I voted for incorporation , I signed this particular petition - eh , because I wanted to see Palm Desert a village type atmosphere, and all of you people on this Council ran in election for Council seat with that in mind, and, uh, we' re just going 10076 the other way . I will probably be leaving Palm Desert after 16 years and I regret it . Thank you. Mayor Are there any other proponents who wish to speak? There being none, are there any opponents who wish to speak? MY NAME IS STEPHEN MOORE, I LIVE AT 43-700 Carmel Circle, and I 'm a carpenter by 'trade, and I 'm also the President of the Carpenter' s Local 'in Palm Springs of which we have about 600 members, and basically I think all of you know that business is bad, construction is dead. It ' s only recession , you know, if you' re not in construction - there it ' s a depression. And, the way I see it , you know I 'm not an attorney - I can't say whether this fellow' s rig;ti+t or the other fellow' s right or whether the other fellow' s attorney is right , but if this should happen and you can't adopt this General Plan and stalemate for a year, or whatever, then you' d lose the building permits and whatnot - Palm Desert is going to die. Maybe the few people that mre here, that do have property here , maybe their value is going to go up , but so are their taxes. And , like I say, construction being bad, I haven ' t had a union job since befone Christmas , and yet my taxes still go on and I don ' t real-IT, have anything to look forward to. We have roughly a 100 members of our .local that live in this area - they shop iin this area - and it would just seem like it would be kimd of ridiculous that they can' t work in the same area thxY live. And, I would just like to see it get settled, ymu know, so that it can go forth and create a city that is functioning on their own , without all the little bickerumg. That ' s basically what I have to say - thank you. Clark Is there anyone else who wishes to oppose the setting of the date for the referendum? Bob Hubbard Pardon me, I think I have a little laryengitis , but I think I can be heard. Mr. Mayor, members of the City Council , my name is Bob Hubbard, 1707 Sandpiper. To settle a few questions that might arise , we still live in Sandpiper in Palm Desert . We are moving to Rancho Mirage because my wife wants to be on the golf course , and my main investment in the whole country is in the City of Palm Desert . None of it needs re-zoning, none of it is under controversy in any respect , but if you will look at the law, I think khan-et�teide-of-se�vieg-ea-tlie-Planning- Eemm#ssien- you will recognize that outside of serving on the Planning Commission or the City Council that the property owners have a voice in what happens in Palm Desert . I don' t think that we have ever done anything , myxassostakes sadxi as far as our investments , my associates and I , that hasn ' t been good for the City, and we hope to continue to do it . As most of you know, I headed a group of dedicated citizens numbering well over 250, who spent 2 years getting the City of Palm Desert organized as a City. Everybody I think admits that the conditions regardless of individual points that you might think of , are a whole lot better now than they were under Riverside County, 'so we have made progress. I am astounded at the RC because having known many people in this town who have worked .very hard for the City of Palm Desert , I find myself unable to recognize any name of the RC that has ever done anything for this City, period. One of the gentlemen who is not registered under the RC list , Mr. Ed Peck , did a very good job for the City on McKeon, and that ' s some number of years ago. Since that date, I 'd prefer not to discuss what has happened. I also find in trying to check who these people are who sponsored the referendum, it appears as far as we ' ve been able to determine, and I stand corrected if anyone can give me further facts , that they are people who are here part of the year that in most cases have nothing but a house here,, and that is a big investment today, and they have the rights to express their opinion , but for 6 members of RC to say to the City Council , now we will sit down with you and tell you what we want , and if you do it , well , then we won ' t cause all this upsetment that is being caused today by the RC. I think it is time , and I agree with the gentleman that said we were being laughed at , I think it is time that we get responsible citizen participation , and not single-minded people who will not listen to what has been planned. Most of the meetings with the members of the RC, they have listened to what the officials have told them about what ' s happening , what the General Plan says, what the ordinances are going to say, where they can make their contributions, the meetings that are going to be held, and to this point , nobody from that RC has shown up at one public meeting! Now this is getting to be where we' re going to have government by 6 individuals who have distributed a referendum, which is absolutely inaccurate on every respect on the basis of the pages that were distributed to the people who signed it . I don' t put any confidence in the 600 and some odd figures that they have of people who signed it , because I ' ll take a referendum or petition out tomorrow against Motherhood and get you 600 signatures because people don ' t take the time to read it and to understand what it ' s about , and the people we 've talked to who have heard what the facts are can ' t believe that they ' re signed the referendum. Now there is plenty of in the meetings to be held, to make necessary changes in the General Plan and in the ordinances enabling that , and they can be made because the City is open-minded. But , I think it ' s time that we stopped having a. small group of people who are trying to press their opinions down on 15, 000 people who live in this town, and I suggest and strongly recommend , and I know there are plenty of people who agree with me , and we will take whatever steps necessary to try to help you make the right decision , if you will let us , but I suggest we go ahead with the recommendation of the City Attorney at this time. HONORABLE MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PALM DESERT, MY NAME IS W. J. MacFADYEN. I. LIVE AT 73-070 SHADOW MTN. DR. I like Bob Hubbard was a member of the Incorporation Committee that helped put this City together , and certainly in the last year we who worked diligently to do this job have remained in the background because we did not want to inject ourselves into City govt . and have someone say, well they are the fellows that put this thing together, and now they want to dictate how it ' s to be run . This we have not done. We of the anti-referendum committee have had legal council , and we believe Mayor Excuse me. Mr. Slade , do you want to sit down , or do you want to leave the room? Do you want to get out of the room then. MacFadyen and we believe the Referendum is illegal . If you set a vote for the referendum, we of this committee will file suit against the City and its officers to stop a vote on this issue. The City must be restrained from conducting an unlawful referendum election brought on by vexatious litigants. Thank you very much. Mayor Is there anyone else who wishes to speak on our position? MAYOR, MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL, . MY NAME IS WARREN BAILEY, I LIVE AT 1303 SANDPIPER, PALM DESERT I , too, was one of the incorporators of this new, fine City. This also included the election of our hard working City Council , of whom most knowledgeable residents are very proud. Since our incorporation it has been my intention to stay away from politics and not take any active part in City affairs . However, I feel that I must now speak out against the leaders of the RC, whom I believe have used devious methods in obtaining the signatures to their petition . In addition, these leaders are using tactics of political harassment against our City and its officers. I do not like this trend, and it ' s time that these people ceased their activities and get behind and support our political leaders . I too believe that an illegal procedure is being done here in calling an election. Mayor Is there any other one who wishes to speak on our position? We have time for 1 or 2 more, that ' s all. Anyone wish to speak? MY NAME IS ANTHONY KANE, AND I RESIDE IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, AT 46-215 GOLDENROD. I too was on the committee to give direction to the formation of our City - Incorporation Committee, as were all previous speakers opposed to this Referendum. At this moment , I represent the Citizens Action Committee , and we have taken an in depth study as to the questions before the house , the pros and cons of this RC, and we see the letter sent out by the RC which implies that the CC and the CAC don ' t know what they ' re doing. For example, you and other, li.ke you quote, you can preserve the quality of P.D. by gradual and controlled growth to assure clean air. , ample water and freedom from excessive noise and pollution . You' d think that the Council and the CAC is for all. of these things. There isn ' t a person in the room who is in favor of polluted air or noise or against ample water. Such a silly thing to say implying that people who are our legislators don ' t know what the hell. they ' re doing , and I resent it . They do make their mistakes we all do. Anybody that does anything makes mistakes. The guy who doesn ' t do anything doesn ' t make any mistakes, and we have a normal , human group and some contrary-minded amongst them, which is the way of our society. Now, I and our committee agree with the decision of the City Council. , and I think it should be followed. I think he doesn ' t just pop off and give a decision without very profound study to the question involved, and he is involved, and our City is involved, that the Referendum does not apply to the question of destroying a City Plan. And , our committee suggests to the City Council that they comply with the ruling of the City Council , our City Councilmen and women , they they comply with the City Attorney' s decision , and I don ' t think that there ' s any other question before the meeting except that one question . Mayor Is there any other opponent? Time for one last speaker - if not the public hearing is closed. What does the Council . . . I outlined the regulation earlier , I said that those people who were in favor of the Referendum could speak first , and you will recall we gave adequate time and asked several times for speakers. Dave Bond I ' d like to say on the basis when we called and asked if we would be able to speak tonight , we were told no. Every one of the opponents who have spoken here so far have come with prepared statements . I say this is an injustice . Mayor That is a totally incorrect statement . Bond I checked with your Attorney. Mayor That is a totally incorrect statement . You heard the rules that I laid down tonight . Councilman Brush . Do you wish to address a question to any of the speakers? Brush I am going to give Mr. Bond a chance to speak again , anyway, ' cause I have a couple of questions to ask him. That ' ll give him a chance to get back up on his feet . Dave , you mentioned that you felt that we could adopt a new or changed General Plan in time to qualify for the Redevelopmeht Program. Wouldn ' t this necessitate more public hearings , environmental impact reports , and the same things that we went through in the past? BOND Well , it is our opinion that if we can get down. . . .we hoped that we could do this several weeks ago. . . . start on this , but there has been delay and delay and delay in trying to get the thing brought before the public in this manner. We have, as I stated several weeks ago , sent a letter to the Mayor stating that we would have all of our conditions pre- pared and ready for presentation by the 28th of this month. We will have those - we have them virtually completed now, and we feel that the time remaining between that and your deadline is sufficient time to discuss these items so that they can be reconcilled and so that this can be done , and we insist that the General Plan can be changed without waiting for one year, if those changes are essential . Brush You are saying then that it would not be necessary to have additional public hearings and Environmental Impact reports and so forth. Bond I didn ' t say that , I said that the regular, orderly manner of producing this can be handled in that period of time if we get down to work and do it . Mayor Do you have another question for him? Brush Year, I have . . . the only. . . . I have one other question on there. You mention that you have sever•a.l things planned that you would like to have changed. I know that I for one have asked on many occasions just what those were , or even an inkling of what those were and I ' m surprised that you couldn ' t come up with even a partial list prior to this time. Bond Well , I can give you an answer to this, and I ' ll refer you to the Mayor for• that because he stated he did not want any piecemeal propositions whatsoever - he wanted the whole thing in total before he received anything. Brush I 'm still sur.•prised that you didn 't , couldn ' t have relayed some of those suggestions to the news media. Bond We have related those to the news media - those that will cover it , and I would still like to make this one remark, that I feel that we have been outmaneuvered here tonight when we called specifically to see if we could address the Council kexEe tonight and we were told no. We even had our Attorney check with your Attorney and that is what he told him, so as a result we have no Attorney here tonight , which we had planned on having. Mayor You heard the discussion leading to this at which the Council at tonight ' s meeting made a decision , it is not a public hearing, but the Councilmembers decided in view of the interest that they would throw the meeting open for anyone who wished to speak. The decision was made 15 or 20 minutes ago . That ' s when the decision was made. Bond Did that give time .for our opponents to prepare all their prepared statements? Mayor I don' t know - it gave you time to prepare yours . Bond In 15 minutes? Benson I don ' t think we should be arguing with . . . . . Mayor I think that ' s enough of that , anyway - I agree with you. McPherson The attorney wants to make a point , Mr. Mayor. ERR'IN Mr. Mayor , if I may respond to Mr. Bond, I did talk with Mr. Burrell , in fact , I talked to him several times in the last week. He called specifically at noon today to ask if this was a public hearing. I told him that it was not scheduled as a public hearing, but I did also tell him that as the Council has done in the past , if there are matters of interest and there are people in the audience who wish to speak, they have almost always permitted them to speak. And that ' s almost my exact words . Bond Except that the Council was not required to do so. Erwin No , they' re not required to do so. Bond That ' s right . Erwin Sure. It ' s entirely up to the Council . Bond We didn' t want to spend good money to bring an attorney down here under those conditions. Clark I think that ' s enough of that discussion. McPherson Mr. Mayor, could I ask Mr. Bond a question. Mayor Councilman McPherson. McPherson Mr. Bond , you stated that you had an alternative to an election. You said that this item doesn ' t necessarily have to go to an election . . . I think those were your exact words. You had an alternative to an election . Would you like to elaborate and maybe lay on us what your alternatives are? _9_ Bond Well , gust what I ' ve been discussing with Councilman Brush. That , in our opinion , when the General Plan is rescinded, it can be reinstated by making essential changes in it , and you do not have to wait one year, and that can be done before an election is required. Brush You are saying then , that assuming you came to us with a list of rive changes that you wanted us to make in the General Plan , that we as a Council then could make those changes , and then you could withdraw your referendum? Bond That is my understanding. Brush I don ' t . . . .that isn ' t the way Mayor Well , I think the attorney has made it clear that that is not a possibility and if you will recall when you brought the list of names in, and I pointed out to you that you had started a irreversible action that could not be stopped, and you said in spite of that you wanted to file it , so I think you have some. . . there ' s a complete misunderstanding here as to whether in fact you did start an irreversible action . I think the attorney made it quite clear that the wording in your referendum petition which was signed said you were giving the Council 2 alternatives . One , rescind the GP ; two , call an election. Those were the only 2 alternatives that were clearly stated so that even a layman can read it without a legal interpretation. So , there cannot be any questions , and I think it ' s a little surprising that a group of people can say that , if you make my 5 changes then everything will be all right , because I 'm sure there' s plenty of people in this town who might not agree to those 5 changes . And, to think that a revised GP leaving out the legality of whether it can be done within a year or not . . . that because it suits your committee ' s wishes to make a number of changes , that the balance of the community would not have to be consulted. Obviously, there ' s a long procedure of public hearings and what not , at which other people would have the same opportunity that you people have had to advise the Council or the Planning Commission , in the reverse order, what changes should be made. Is there any other questions for Mr. Bond? Bond I 'd like to answer to the man ' s remark that we have not attended any of the zoning meetings . Our contention. . . . . Bob Hubbard May I rise to a point of order. Mayor Mr. Hubbard Hubbard That you close the public meeting - this man got up to answer one question. If he ' s going to make another speech, we should have the same opportunity. Mayor I have not recognized his starting statement . Does the Council have any further questions for Mr. Bond? Benson On the GP , you have told us that the only action is to rescind it . Can it be invalidated for 60 days and changes made and I have 1 then put back into effect . of Dave. Erwin Not in my opinion . I think your action tonight , so far as what you can do, is to rescind it in total . Benson But you can ' t invalidate the action? Erwin No Benson Does the same rules apply to any resolution or is it just the General Plan? Erwin You' re talking about basically anything that is subject ''.to referendum, where you have a petition filed. You have the question of either rescinding your action , which was the resolution adopting the GP in total , or setting it for an election . -10- Benson All right , then I have a question for Paul . Along. . . . to, get at the basis , and it has been intimated here tonight by some of the speakers that 6 people from each side are the ones that are going to decide this issue as to what changes should be made, if any , in the General Plan that we adopted. . . . can ' t . . . . since we have adopted by the resolution , when is it that the first amendments could be started on it , if that was the route to go to solve this problem rather than have private meetings and .go on in the manner we ' ve been goring on . Can' t an amendment be initiated shortly? WILLIAMS Yes , . any citizen could file for an amendment to the General Plan on each element up to a maximum of 3 times a year. We. . . and the City have not yet established any time table with regards to when those 3 times could occur. Logically they should occur say on a quarterly basis , or some logical time span , but at the moment no such procedure exists , so an application could be filed for an amendment and it would then be processed thru the environmental considerations to the Planning Commission and alternately to the Council . Benson And, going along with the same time as the zoning hearings are going along, it could be done in the same time schedule? Williams Yes. McPherson Mr. Mayor , I have a couple of questions for the attorney, if I may. Bond Eh. . . Mayor There ' s no more questions for you, thank you. McPherson Mr. Bond stated that your statement regarding readopting the General Plan within a year was not a valid statement because we would not . . . .or we would be making changes to the General Plan if we agreed to their requests . You stated before the meeting a couple of times, I think, that we would. . .we would not be making changes and the General Plan would be not valid for a period of one year. Would you elaborate on that , I want to be perfectly clear on this . Erwin Basically , the section in the Elections Code says that once the action. . . your action . . .of rescinding resolution 75-2, which adopted the General Plan - it was attached as an attachment to it - you either rescind that or the election on a referendum on that subject were successful and the resolution set aside; the Code section , and it ' s in the Elections Code , specifically states that the — and if you' ll forgive the terminology, the Code is talking about ordinances. . . . it says the ordinance shall not be reinacted within one year. It doesn' t say the subject of it or anything else. Now, what we' re talking about here is the subject of the General Plan, not the specifics within the General Plan . It 's a resolution which approves and adopts the General Plan and that ' s the action that is the subject of the concern tonight . That is the subject of the resolution that would be rescinded either thru your action or thru an election , and that' s the action that I believe the section specifically states shall not be taken within one year. McPherson So to follow along with Mr. Bond' s thinking, then, we could come in with an entirely different General Plan that has no resemblance at all to our present GP and we could not adopt it for a period of one year. Erwin I do not believe that you can . That ' s correct . McPherson Okay . My second question. . . . I know you told us originally when the petitions were filed what the timing was as far as certifying the signatures and it seems to me that my understanding. . . that we ' re about to the time limit , are we not? Erwin The. . . there is 30 days permitted to check the signatures - '-ll- verified with the City Clerk - that time limit was met , and that was the time limit that was imposed upon the City Clerk. IIe must do it within a certain period of time , he is then required to present his certification to the Council at your next regular meeting, which is tonight . McPherson So, we must make a decision one way or another tonight under the time limit . Erwin To say that you had to make a decision tonight , I 'm not sure I could say that . The section does not give you any time in which to make the decision . It does not say you must do it within 10 days or anything else. It infers in it that you will make the decision tonight . McPherson Well. , the reason that I bring that up is because Mr. Bond keeps. referring to the fact that on the 28th of March, which is . . .what 9 days from now . . . that they will have their recommended changes to the General Plan. It just seems to me that that would be too late. Erwin As I say , the section does not specifically state one way or another, but I think it is inferred in it that your action will be taken tonight . Mayor I don ' t know how that ' s pertinent anyway. You take public hearings before you make changes. McPherson Well , I 'm just responding to Mr. Bond. Mayor Are there any other comments or questions . . . . are you ready to. . .what is the. . . . do you have one - did you start? Benson No, I don ' t have a question , but I do have a comment because it disturbs me very much that Mr. Hubbard would make the remark that the 626 people that signed the petition for the referendum had never done anything for the community, and I saw some very fine names on that list . McPherson I don' t think that ' s what he meant . Mayor All right - question - I 'm not going to get in a public argument . I think the statement was the members on the committee. McPherson He said members of the committee. Mayor I think the statement clearly referred to the members on the committee. UNKNOWN Correct Mayor And I ' ll think I ' ll stand by that . Benson That wasn ' t the way I heard it . Mayor What is your wish, Mr. McPherson? McPherson Mr. Mayor, I would like to make the motion that we accept the recommendation of our City Attorney and agree that the referendum applies only to a legislative action and our resolution was really an administrative action and therefore is not subject to referendum. Aston I second the motion Erwin Include perhaps in your motion that no election be called. McPherson Also , no election be set . Mayor It has been moved by Councilman McPherson . . . . . . McPherson My motion is that we agree with the recommendation of our Attorney that the referendum applies only to legislative actions and our action . . .our resolution was an administrative its*xn�x�x�bix wsx*�exa:f c�xarx��xraekxsckxanxa��xkiraaz 12 act , and therefore not subject to referendum and that we do not set an election. Mayor It has been seconded by Councilman Aston. Is there any discussion? Are you ready for the question? Will the secretary call the roll? PAINTER Councilman Aston Aye Councilwoman Benson Aye Councilman Brush Aye Councilman McPherson Aye Mayor Clark Aye Mayor The motion was unanimously carried. Is there any one in the audience who wishes to address the Council on any matter not on the Agenda tonight? Apparently not - does the City Manager have any comments. HLH No , Mr. Mayor - the City staff has nothing. Mayor Does the City Attorney have any further comments. Erwin I have nothing , Mr. Mayor. Ma.yor Does the City Council? McPherson Yes, Mr. Mayor , I would like to make. . . . . I was going to say something to the Referendum Committee , but they ' re all leaving. I would urge anyone who has any changes or any Mayor the meeting is still in order McPherson I would urge anyone who has any doubts or changes to the GP that they proceed through the GP amendment method to make the changes to the GP. I understand if we do not have , we will soon have regular application forms to amend the General Plan, and that is the proper procedure in my opinion. Benson I would certainly second that , and I do hope that whether I 'm for or against the Referendum Committee that the. people will come out in the zoning hearings and see if this matter can ' t be resolved so that we can get a tighter General Plan Mayor Anyone else? Brush I don' t have anything to add to that . Mayor Then, move that we adjourn. Second? All in favor? AYE t REFERENDUM PETITION SIGNERS WHO HAVE REQUESTED THEIR NAMES BE REMOVED FROM LIST Ben Bear Susanne Bear George Smith Philip Hall Kay Martins Alfred C. Jensen Henen M. Jensen Honorable Mayor and Palm Desert City Councilmembers Palm Desert City Hall P. O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, CA 92260 I respectfully request that my name be withdrawn from the petition filed by the General Plan Referendum Committee. I signed the referendum petition without full knowledge of all of the facts . I was given misleading and incorrect information relative to the General Plan. This information emanated from the Referendum Committee. With the full facts at my disposal, I now realize that the attempt to have a referendum on the General Plan is not justified nor desirable. I do not want my name associated with any further attempts at General Plan referendum nor any litigation which may arise from this effort. Very truly yours , Signature Address w s q � FROM THE DESK OF: Larry Morrison TO: Paul Williams Please forward this copy to Mr. David Erwin. Also, could you please send us his address for future reference. Thank you! INFO ON STA'iEt�h1' T CONCERNING SUSPENSION OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN 1 . Statement Prepared by: Paul A. Williams Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert VALUE 2 . Total Amount of Development Under Construction - $9,043,646 3 . Total Amount of Development in Plan Check - $ 785,000 4. Total Amount of Fees Paid for Development Presently Under Construction or in Plan Check - $ 146,957 5 . Total Number of Units Receiving Preliminary Approval - 435 units 6 . Other Projects Affected - Expansion of Palm Desert Middle School - Water & Sewer Line Extensions - City' s Redevelopment Program THE FOREGOING IS TRUE AND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE . PAUL A. WILLIAMS 3i i e, 1 Law Offices of r - i 'i `\"r P� [A JOHN C . McCARTHY, INC.2 100 Pomona Mall West OLNIL 1Ll Pomona , California 91766 3 (714) 629-2521 4 5 Attorneys for Petitioners 6 ry 8I SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 91 COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 10 11 PALM DESERT REFERENDUM COMMITTEE, PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS NO.Via /W Z -7 12 ASSOCIATION and CONCERNED CITIZENS 1 OF PALM DESERT, INC . , S 13 ) ALTERNATIVE Petitioners , ) 14 WRIT OF MANDATE . vs AND 15 ) ORDER DIRECTING ISSUA14CE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CITY OF ;PALM ) 16 DESERT CITY COUNCIL, ) 17 Respondents . 18 > 19. TO RESPONDENTS CITY OF PALM DESERT AND CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL : 20 21 It appears from the verified petition on file in this action 22 that. you have failed to perform your legal duty by refusing to 23. act on the Petition for Referendum of the Palm Desert General 24 Plan, and that petitioners , the parties beneficially interested, 25 have no plain, speedy and adequate remedy in the ordinary course 26 of law. 2q THEREFORE , YOU ARE HEREBY COMMANDED, immediately upon re- 28 ceipt of this writ, to act upon the Petition for Referendum of E 1 the Palm Desert General Plan either by repealing the Palm 2 Desert General Plan or by submitting the plan to a vote of the 3 electorate, or 4 IN THE ALTERNATIVE , to show cause before this Court on 5 1975 , at or as soon thereafter as 6 counsel may be heard, at the courtroom of Department _ of PRciy S�P<✓6S 7 the Courthouse, California, why 8 you have not done so. 9 Dated: April 3 1975. 10 11 DONALD D. SULLIVAN DON LD D. SULLIVAN, COUNTY CLERK 12 13 By A. Rowe Deputy 14 15 16 LET THE FOREGOING ALTERNATIVE WRIT OF MANDAMUS ISSUE:. 17 IT IS ORDERED that this alternative writ be served on 18 respondents at leastdays prior to the hearing on the 19 above order to show cause . R 20 Dated: April,, I975 . 21 22 23 24 D E OF HE UPERIO COURT 25 26 27 ?8 2 ?! AIiGJMI?1V7.' IN i AVOR TfIF, EI:RC't'lON QU3;i='i`P:;fiV IIAL L T11H GEN114M., PLAN OJi' 'ni , CITY 01 PALM L.., J Ifi (adopted by ii,..>olnti_ No. 75-7• ) BE ADOPTED AND A111:1Ii01'i!,2.?'" This General Plan represents the combi-ncd cffort:s of the 15 member, Citizens ' Advisory Committee ; PJannin,- Commiss:i.on ; -,in(] City Cnunci.l , a.s well as h.uudreds of citizens Contributing l:hcSr opinions at 92 open meetings . There was also communication with 70 orga.nizZ tio�nss,, _at (_-:Ijcnijes� S � and groups to solicit inpi.t. p, i �~' n i City Coin ne' i J N(5n ' l January 20, 1975 . �1 ��lc.-t . � QQa, �10 0 �.r�-�� , ram, rA-I'� a► ^:,�v.� �w fj,\Tm . THE GENFRAI, PLAN '�4iLL: o Ma.intain, the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for .residents. o Restrict development to maintain the environment . o Preserve views of the desert: and mountains. o Reduce average gross --residential- density in present City Limits to 3 . 48 units/acre from 7 . 0 units permitted under the previous General Plan . o Through the proposed Zoning Ordinance - limit single family residence height to one story or 18 feet , whichever is less; and multiple residential and commercial to two story or 30 feet , whichever is less. - Restrict hotel height to 30 feet , and no larger than the Erawan Gardens in Indian ','tells. �IQ r -+ +�, h r l -xrkhnn t�uca�}'ii rdS G v mot,:.M1;�-r�rrt, • ' i n There is an immediate �e�n to the County General Plan which per- mits 7 story buildings and doubles the density of the Ci.t,y ' s Plan , unless the citizens vote "YES" on the. an n�_0 THE REAL ISSUE BECOMES - do responsible citizens of Palm Desert wish to have City Government decisions made by their duly elected officials, required by law to follow s`�tablished public hearing procedure and cg - V4 �w�+1. b or do they wi-sh to Lo — 3 ) governed by a few self-proclaimed experts who make their decisions in 31 private meetings a.nd are not: answerable to the public by procedural law or at the ballot boa? Vote "YES" to approve the City ' s General Plan and control development to low density and low profile. "AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION QUESTION OF SHALL THE- GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT (adopted by Resolution No. 75-2) BE ADOPTED AND APPROVED?" This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens' Advisory Committee; Planning Commission; and City -Council, as well as hundreds L of citizens attending 42 meetings to contribute public opinion. There was also communication with 70 organizations, agencies and groups to solicit opinion. The following General Plan quotations describe some major goals and objectives: • "Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents." • "Maintain concern for the natural environment as a major structuring factor in the development of the city." • "Preserve elements of the desert and hillside environments to balance and complement the developable portions of Palm Desert." 5 • "Examine all development in light of the effect on air quality, water and energy." The City General Plan: • Reduces gross density to one-half of the County plan. • Through the proposed Zoning Ordinance, limits single family residence height to one story or 18' , whichever is less; and multiple residential and commercial to two story or 30" whichever is less. • Restricts hotel size to no larger than the Erawan Gardens in Indian Wells. • Limits the shopping center size to less than two-thirds of that normally found in a regional shopping center. The real issue becomes - do responsible citizens of Palm Desert wish to have City Government decisions made by their duly elected officials, required by law to follow established public hearing procedure and answerable to the public at the voting polls, or do they wish to be governed by a few self-proclaimed experts who make their decisions in private meetings and are not answerable to the public by procedural law or at the ballot box? 1169 (DRAFT) "AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION QUESTION OF SHOULD THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN, DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, BE PUT INTO EFFECT." With this election, the citizens of Palm Desert have a unique opportunity to ratify the action of its conscientious aa4 duly elected City Council in their adoption of a General Plan which represents the feelings of the total community. The General Plan which was adopted by the City Council on January 20, 1975 has, as some of its major goals and objectives, the following: 1. Develop a land use pattern that takes optimum advantage of the city's v�S A natural assets including but.Le views, mountain areas, and the desert floor. 2. Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents. 3. Examine all development in light of the affect on air quality, water and energy. 4. Develop a city that is visually attractive, effeciently and conveniently organized, and perceivable both functionally and psychologically. 5. Preserve elements of the desert and hillside environments to balance and complement the developable portions of Palm Desert. 6. Develop a program that will maintain the visual quality of the hillsides and sand dunes surrounding or within Palm Desert through hillside development guidelines and ordinances. 7. Ensure that city revenues will be able to meet expenditures to provide a high level service without a burdensome level of taxation. 8. Guide population at each period of development which encourages of achievement of the goals/1providing housing for those living and working in Palm Desert, meeting municipal costs, and maintaining the high quality of residential development. 9. Provide housing which is safe, of high quality construction, and utilizes energy saving mechanisms. 10. Minimize sale or rental price of housing without sacrafice to high quality of construction and maintenance . 11. Contribute to the preservation and development of a high level, natural, and community environment. 12. Maintain concern for the natural environment as a major structuring factor in the development of the city. . 13. Provide a full range of public facilities and services that are related to the citizens' needs, are economical, and are convenient. public 14. Ensure that private development will not overload existing facilities or create the need for premature unplanned investments and capital improvements for the city in the district servicing of the city. The General Plan has implemented these goals and objectives by limiting 99% of the density in the ultimate 74 square miles to ano*h`cit to less than 7 units to the acre. And that less than 1% of the city would be developed at 7 - 18 units to the acre. As can be seen, the General Plan, as adopted by the City Council, is compatible to the existing character of the community and does promote the enhancement of that character. The Referendum Committee in their statement to be attached to the ballot, would lead you to believe that the General Plan promotes a number of negative things that would detract from the character of the community, while the opposite is true. For example, the statement with regards to the General Plan dictating the zoning is not true. The General Plan is merely a guide. It is the Zoning Ordinance and the Zoning Map that dictate the precise land use on any property. These items have yet to be adopted by the city. In addition, the General Plan. is adopted by simple resolution, which requires one hearing, XMITHM while the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map is adopted by ordinance which requires a minimum of two hearings, two readings and a 30 day waiting period before it becomes law, applicable to individual properties. In addition, contrary to the statements made by the Referendum Committee, the General Plan as adopted does represent the feelings of a total community. This plan represents the combined efforts of the Citizens' Advisory Committee, i 5 pN„Qv. which is a 29_ mal� committee established o by the City Council; the Planning Commission; the City Council; the City Staff; and the City's planning consthltants, as well as citizens at large who attended various meetings, which occurred 61. c-c- last April In total there were some 42 citizen input meetings in one form or another to solicit the wishes of the public of Palm Desert. In-a4dit4eaTn the process, there was direct contact and communications with 70 established organizations, agencies and groups to solicit input. XNXKXNKK in addition, the General Plan -had aosxed news media publicity over 7 months. The city has exhausted every conceivable approach to solicit.,, citizen input on the General Plan and the City Council adopted the Plan which it felt met the desires of the vast majority of the citizens of Palm Desert. Contrary to the statements made by the Referendum Committee, the General Plan does not allow 18 units per acre in all the residential areas. The General Plan shows less than 1% of the present community at high density residential which is 7 - 18 units to the acre. Such a range would not permit high rise development, xe-tUe-aGse. The statement by the Referendum Committee that the General Plan permits 40' in height is not true. and is in fact a distortion. The General Plan makes no reference to specific height. In fact it is the proposed Zoning Ordinance that limits building heights. Most of the residential areas Ithe proposed Zoning Ordinance limits the height to one story or 18' whichever is less, with the exception of the multiple family zone which allows two story. KK XXKXRIiffih%$ K The Referendum Committee, in their attached arguments, attempts to place a stigma on the term "row housing" which is unjustified since under this definition falls certain sections of existing developments such as the Ironwood Country Club, Mountainback, the Corsican Villas condominium complex, and the Deep Canyon Tennis Club complex. The Referendum Committee indicates that the General Plan allows hotels with up to 36 units per acre. This statement is not correct, The General Plan indicates a need for hotel Xrooms on the basis of the the existing 300-400 units which aK"Ant « is a ratio of 47 hotel units per %rr^_ an that = ultimate development of some 74 square miles, the General Plan proposes an increase of 300-400 which would lower the ratio to �Ihotel rooms per square mile. The Referendum Committee states that the maximum density should be 5 units per acre within the General Plan. The adopted General Plan indicates a density of 3.48 units to the acre which is a substantial reduction from what the Referendum Committee is requesting. In addition, it is a substantial reduction from the previous County General Plan which allowed some 7 units to the acre. The Referendum Committee's statement indicates that the General Plan will allow commercial areas with buildings of 50' in height. This is simply not true. The General Plan does not establish height limits. It is through the Zoning Ordinance yet to be adopted that the commercial building heights will be established. Presently the preliminary zoning ordinance limits commercial buildings to 30' in height or two story, whichever is less. The Referendum Committee in their arguments request that residential areas be limited in terms of non-residential uses. This seems to relate to the activities that occur in country clubs which are non-residential which include golf courses, the related pro shops, the restaurants, the normal activities that occur in the country clubs and such as Ironwood, Marrakesh, Shadown Mountain. These type of uses should be permitted to continue under the General Plan. Contrary to what the Referendum Committee infers, the adopted General Plan reduces the amount of high density permitted under the previous County Plan which in the opinion of the City conforms to the wishes of the community and any statement to the contrary would be an outright lie. The Referendum Committee proposes that no hotels larger than 100 rooms be permitted. This would exclude the possibility of the development of hotels like the Erawan Gardens which now exists in Indian Wells. In the opinion of the city this is not acceptable. The Referendum Committee objects to the indication of a regional center in the General Plan. This regional center is stated does not meet the normal nomenclature for a regional center. What is proposed is 65% smaller than the normal regional center of 100 acres, it is 35% smaller in terms of the number of shops, it is 66% smaller MR in terms of floor area than the normal regional shopping center. IMMMRMRY In summary, the proposed regional center as is indicated in the General Plan is more of a mini regional or a community wide shopping center versus the normal standard regional center. REFERENDUM PETITION SIGNERS WHO HAVE REQUESTED THEIR NAMES BE REMOVED FROM LIST Ben Bear Susanne Bear George Smith Philip Hall Kay Martins Alfred C. Jensen Hen.en M. Jensen Bernice Ludlum C. 11. Ludlum Francis Mallory i "AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION QUESTION OF SHALL THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT (adopted by Resolution No. 75-2) BE .ADOPTED AND APPROVED?" This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens' Advisory Committee; Planning Commission; and City Council, as well as hundreds of citizens attending 42 meetings to contribute public opinion. There was also communication with 70 organizations, agencies and groups to solicit opinion. The following General Plan quotations describe some major goals and objectives: • "Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents." • "Maintain concern for the natural environment as a major structuring factor in the development of the city." • "Examine all development in light of the effect on air quality, water and energy." • "Guide population at each period of 'development, which encourages achievement of the goals of providing housing for those living and working in Palm Desert, meeting municipal costs, and maintaining the quality of residential development." The General Plan reduced the gross density to 3.48 units/acre from the County Plan which allowed 7 units/acre. In conjunction with the General Plan, the proposed Zoning Ordinance limits single family residential height to one story or 18' , whichever is less and commercial to two story or 30' , whichever is less. The real issue becomes - do responsible citizens of Palm Desert wish to have planning decisions made by duly elected officials, required by law to follow established public hearing procedure and answerable to the public at the voting polls, or do they wish to have planning decisions made by a few self-proclaimed experts who make their decisions in private meetings and are not answerable to the public at the ballot box or by procedural law? ICI I "AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION QUESTION OF SHALL THE GENERAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT (adopted by Resolution No. 75-2) BE ADOPTED AND APPROVED?" This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens' Advisory Committee; Planning Commission; and City Council, as well as hundreds of citizens attending 42 meetings to contribute public opinion. There was also communication with 70 organizations, agencies and groups to solicit opinion. objectives; The following General Plan quotations describe some major goals and ob� • "Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents." • "Maintain concern for the natural environment as a major structuring factor in the development of the city." • "Examine all development in light of the effect on air quality, water and energy." The City General Plan: • Reduces gross density to one-half of the County plan. • Through the proposed Zoning Ordinance, limits single family residence height to one story or 18' , whichever is less; and multiple residential and commercial to two story or 30' , whichever is less. • The hotels provided would be no larger than the Erawan Gardens in Indian Wells. • Limits the regional shopping center size to less than two-thirds of that normally found in a regional shopping center. The real issue becomes - do responsible citizens of Palm Desert wish to have City Government decisions made by duly elected officials, required by law to follow established public hearing procedure and answerable to the public at the voting polls, or do they wish to be governed by.a few self-proclaimed experts who make their decisions in private meetings and are not answerable to the public by procedural law or at the ballot box? aF° "AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF TIE; ELECTION QUESTION OF SHALL THE. GET.CRAL PLAN OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT (adopted by Resolution No. 75-2) BE, ADOPTED AND APPROVED?" This General. resets the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens' r. J. Plan re p n Advisory Commiiace; Planning Commission; and City Council., as well as hundreds of citizens attundi.ng 42 meetings to contribute public opinion. There was also communication with 70 organizations, agencies and groups to solicit opinion. The following Ceneral Plan quotations describe some major goals and objectives: i e "Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents." * "Maintain concern for the natural environment as a major structuring factor in the development of the city. " c "Examine all development in light of the effect on air quality, water and energy." o Gui e popu. ate. >ach-pr r-io -. which-e+ieei+->:a�e= --- s r nijlegoals�f-pei �i�rg-hoIISYfor-those-]:ivinp., and. Ykiil i�t Pa:lm-}3eser#T-meeti�s�munfcij-)al costs;and-maintaining th-1 qualitye al-devniopmeuL." s -Thz-��e�an_t duce& the gross density -ten-.r4"4-its/-aeT--e from the County i Plan w#aac]a_�t tot•rerl 7�u7; /ase, I� junction-with-the-Gelrerzsl P7. t , tte proposed Toning Ordinance-limits s3.ng3e mfrlresYB�iiiai'-Peight2nsto-y_os=181_;whclveSs_1ss es -1 to ]es's. The real. issue becomes - do responsible citizens of Palm Desert wish to have ecisions made by duly elected officials, required by law to follow established public hearing procedure and answerable to the public at the voting polls, or do they wish to TSwe-per i - - .. by a few self-proclaimed experts who make their decisions in private meetings and are not answerable to the public tt t, baballot box by procedural law. a f11 The City General Plan ; • Reduces gross density to one-half of the County plan © Through the proposed zoning ordi.n ,,nce , Fedu es resl (IeW fal. a-ncLcommercia3—iaegk3timt s_to approximately on —off --CYfz-CbTmt'J—Y}1-a t��axirLorda=r�<vnees. 1 a PC educes-hol el—r-c>car+as-a —x� b�m �te C' t3 < onfig iati2r�to s -ing-today Tidy:i.ts�shopping center size to less than two-thirds of t normally found in a regional shopping center �- 1. "AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION QUESTION OF SHOULD THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN, DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, BE PUT INTO EFFECT." This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens' Advisory Committee; Planning Commission; and City Council, as well as hundreds of citizens attending 42 meetings to contribute public opinion. There was also communication with 70 organizations, agencies and groups to solicit opinion. The following General Plan quotations describe some major goals and objectives: • "Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents. • "Maintain concern for the natural environment as a major structuring factor in the development of the city." • "Examine all development in light of the affect on air quality, water and energy." • "Guide population at each period of development, which encourages achievement of the goals of providing housing for those living and working in Palm Desert, meeting municipal costs, and main- taining the quality of residential development." The General Plan limits high density (7-18 units/acre) to less than 3/4 of 1% of the total city acreage. Existing city land use already has 1% in high density. The previous County Plan replaced by the city's plan, had 6.4% in 10-20 units/acre density. The city plan establishes gross density of 3.48 units/acre, a reduction from the County Plan allowing a gross of 7 units/acre. The Referendum allegation that the General Plan dictates zoning is untrue. The General Plan is merely a guide. The pending Zoning Ordinance and Map dictate precise land use. The General Plan is adopted by simple resolution which can be approved after one hearing and becomes effective immediately. The Zoning Ordinance and Map are adopted by ordinance requiring two hearings and a 30 day period before becoming law. z. The allegations that the General Plan allows 40' high residential buildings and 50' high commercial buildings are untrue. The General Plan makes ab- solutely no reference to specific height. The proposed Zoning Ordinance limits single family residential height to one story or 18 whichever is less and commercial to two story or 30' , whichever is less. The allegation that the General Plan allows hotels up to 36 units/acre is untrue. The City presently has 416 motel rooms which is an overall city ratio of 49 rooms/square mile. In the city's ultimate development of 74 square miles, the General Plan proposes only an additional 300-400 rooms which would lower the overall city ratio to 11 rooms/square mile. The demand that there be no hotels larger than 100 rooms would exclude the possibility of a hotel like the Erawan Gardens in Indian Wells. The attempt to place a stigma on the term "row housing" is unjustified. Under this definition fall sections of Ironwood Country Club, Mountainback, Corsican Villas, and Deep Canyon Tennis Club. The demands that there be no non-residential uses in residential areas is completely unrealistic. Many activities in country clubs like Ironwood, Marrakesh, and Shadow Mountain such as pro shops, sportswear shops, restaurants, bars, etc. are non-residential. The Referendum demands that there be no regional shopping center. The center allowed by the General Plan does not approach in magnitude, that required for a typical regional center. It is 65% smaller in acreage, 66% smaller in floor area and contains 35% less shops. The center allowed by the General Plan can more realistically be defined as a mini or sub- regional shopping center. The real issue becomes - do responsible citizens of Palm Desert wish to have planning decisions made by duly elected officials, required by law to follow established public hearing procedure and answerable to the public at the voting polls, or do they wish to have planning decisions made by a few self-proclaimed experts who make their decisions in private meetings and are not answerable to the public at the ballot box or by procedural law? "AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION QUESTION OF SHOULD THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN, DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, BE PUT INTO EFFECT." This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens' Advisory Committee; Planning Commission; and City Council, as well as hundreds m of citizens aw� attended 42 eiiacs a meetings in. ene Pettit— - . - of e to also contribute public opinion. There was�direet communication with 70_ ns.t +1 organizations, agencies and groups to solicit opinion. The following quotations ¢� describe some of t major goals and objectives: o "Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible i living environment for residents." Co o "Examine all development in light of the affect on air quality, water and energy." "Maintain concern for the natural environment as a major structuring factor in the development of the city." e "Guide population at each period of development, which encourages achievement of the goals of providing housig for those living and working in Palm Desert, meeting municipal costs, and maintaining the quality of residential. development." s i The General Plan hae imp ent.ed-t-hese.-goals-and-eb-jeetives-by limiti-mg high density (7-18 units/acre) to less than 3/4 of 1% of the total city acreage. the Axisting city land use already has 1% in high density. The previous County Plan replaced by the city's PAP plan, had 6.4% in 10-20 units/ . acre density. The 6G { plan establishes gross density of 3.48 units/acre, in•J a reduction from the County Plan w+r# allowed a gross of 7 units/acre. The Referendum allegation that the General Plan dictates zoning is untrue. The General Plan is merely a guide. The pending Zoning Ordinance and Map dictate precise land use. y. The General Plan is adopted by simple resolution which can be approved after one hearing and becomes effective immediately, wk+le �he Zoning Ordinance and Map are adopted by , ordinance whipi, requires. a n-a€ two hearings( two--peada.n-gs and a 30 day wa+e4w�g period before X becomee law. 3 7.3 F 2. a�f,w r The n�. allegations that thr General. Plan perms 40' high Abuildings �o�mv.c�41 and 50' high buildings are untrue. The General Plan makes absolutely no reference to specific height. The proposed Zoning Ordinance limits heig� ht in -ehe single family residential arsz to one story or 18� ii"—he g4L, whichever is less and - - `` commercial. �o a-rea-e Atwo story or 30' in 4eig4t , whichever is less. The Ref=ramm allegation that the General Plan allows hotels NiAak up to 36 H/6 r,mMt units/Nw acre is untrue. The City presently has 399-440 motel as-i-tss which is H 9 r•a�f an overall city ratio of 4-7- ewes/square mile. In the city's ultimate develop- ment of 74 square miles, the General Plan proposes^an additional 300-400 ends �o�w.r which would lower the overall city ratio to 11 00t /squar.e mile. The GORR,t�2p demand that there be no hotels larger. than 100 rooms would exclude the possibility of a hotel like the Erawan Gardens in Indian Wells. The P-& attempt to place a stigma on the term 91e "row housing" is unjustified . s4rxee Under this definition fall sections of T;a2 Ironwood Country Club, Mountai.nback, Corsican Villas, and Deep Canyon Tennis Club. The ee demands that there be no non-residential uses in AM n residential areas/ 14iu is completely unrealistic. sistee -=A-7na activities ter - =s are non-residential such as pro shops, sports wear shops, restaurants, bars, et These-are-t-@_be=i.orxndd in country clubs susk-as Ironwood, Marrakesh, and Shadow Mountain/ -/ The P:efercndtim ^ —_t-t demands that there be no regional shopping center. /n The _MT&VVi-%-g center allowed by the General Plan does not approach the, magnitude T4 /n a +ae *.2 e �� required for a typical regional center. Wiaat is_alkeraAis 65% smaller^t4wma_ 1 t=he-norma3�regd:ona�—Ze n•ecr- i-Seaga,-3 � -- -t _ E a 66% and Lor�a�.�J 7r9a 1••• ,tAop,- . . . smaller in floor are^ 7-^.-skg&aaa;. 61e shepp-ing center allowed by the General Plan can more realistically be defined as a mini-*oC4-&.-.__-:4 or sub-regional shopping center. The real issue becomes - do responsible citizens of Palm Desert wish to have planning decisions made by duly elected officials; required by law to follow established public hearing procedure and answerable to the public at the voting polls, or do they wish to have planning decisions made by a few self-proclaimed experts who make their decisions in private meetings and are not answerable to r.i the public at the ballot box or by procedural law? j 1. "AN ARGUMENT IN FAVOR OF THE ELECTION QUESTION OF SHOULD THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN, DULY ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW, BE PUT INTO EFFECT." This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens' Advisory Committee; Planning Commission; and City Council, as well as hundreds of citizens at large who attended 42 citizen meetings in one form or another to contribute public opinion. There was direct communication with 70 established organizations, agencies and groups to solicit opinion. The following quotations from the General Plan describe some of its major goals and objectives: • "Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents. " • "Examine all development in light of the affect on air quality, water and energy." • "Maintain concern for the natural environment as a major structuring factor in the development of the city." • "Guide population at each period of development, which encourages achievement of the goals of providing housing for those living and working in Palm Desert, meeting municipal costs, and maintaining the quality of residential development." The General Plan has implemented these goals and objectives by limiting high density (7-18 units/acre) to less than 3/4 of 1% of the total city acreage. The existing city land use already has 1% in high density. The previous County Plan replaced by the city's new plan, had 6.4% in 10-20 units/ acre density. The adopted plan establishes gross density of 3.48 units/acre, representing a reduction from the County Plan which allowed a gross of 7 units/acre. The Referendum allegation that the General Plan dictates zoning is untrue. The General Plan is merely a guide. The pending Zoning Ordinance and Map dictate precise land use on specific property. The General Plan is adopted by simple resolution which can be approved after one hearing and becomes effective immediately, while the Zoning Ordinance and Map are adopted by ordinance which requires a minimum of two hearings, two readings and a 30 day waiting period before it becomes law. 2. The Referendum allegations that the General Plan permits 40' high buildings in residential areas and 50' high buildings in commercial areas are untrue. The General Plan makes absolutely no reference to specific height. The proposed Zoning Ordinance limits height in the single family residential area to one story or 18' in height, whichever is less and a maximum in the commercial area of two story or 30' in height, whichever is less. The Referendum allegation that the General Plan allows hotels with up to 36 units per acre is untrue. The City presently has 300-400 motel units which is an overall city ratio of 47 units/square mile. In the city's ultimate develop- ment of 74 square miles, the General Plan proposes an additional 300-400 units which would lower the overall city ratio to 11 units/square mile. The Committee's demand that there be no hotels larger than 100 rooms would exclude r the possibility of a hotel like the Erawan Gardens in Indian Wells. The Referendum attempt to place a stigma on the term of "row housing" is unjustified since under this definition fall sections of the Ironwood Country Club, Mountainback, Corsican Villas, and Deep Canyon Tennis Club. The Referendum Committee demands that there be no non-residential uses in residential areas. This is completely unrealistic, since certain activities that occur in country clubs are non-residential such as pro shops, sports wear shops, restaurants, bars, etc. These are to be found in country clubs such as Ironwood, Marrakesh, and Shadow Mountain. The Referendum Committee demands that there be no regional shopping center. The shopping center allowed by the General Plan does not approach the magnitude required for a typical regional center. What is allowed is 65% smaller than the normal regional center in acreage, 35% smaller in number of shops, and 66% smaller in floor area. In summary, the shopping center allowed by the General Plan can more realistically be defined as a mini-regional or sub-regional shopping center. The real issue becomes - do responsible citizens of Palm Desert wish to have planning decisions made by duly elected officials, required by law to follow established public hearing procedure and answerable to the public at the voting polls, or do they wish to have planning decisions made by a few self-proclaimed experts who make their decisions in private meetings and are not answerable to the public at the ballot box or by procedural law? 3�3 "AN ARCUMENT IN FAVOR OR TUL ELEC' IOiv' QUESTION 0 SDALI, T11E CL'NER.".l, PLAN OF T14E CITY OF PALM DESERT (adopted by Resolution No, 75 -2.) 13L ADOPTED AND APPROVED e" This General Plan represents the combined efforts of the 15 member Citizens' Advisory Committee; Plannin.g Commission; and City Council, as well. as hundreds of citizens attending 42 meetings to contribute pul:,iic opinion. There was also commmnication with 70 organizations, agencies and groups to solicit opinion. The following General Plan quotations describe some major goals and objectives: • "Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents." • "Maintain concern for the natural environment as a major structuring Factor in the development of the city." • "Examine all development in light of the effect on air quality, water and energy." The City General Plan: • Reduces gross density to one-half of the County plan. • Through the proposed Zoning Ordinance, limits .single family residence lieight to one story or 18' , whichever is less; and multiple residential and commercial to two story or 30' . whichever is, less. • The hotels provided would be no larger than the Erawan Gardens in Indian Wells. • Limits the regional shopping center size to less than two-thirds of that normally found in a regi.onal shopping center. The real issue becomes -- do responsible citizens of Palm Desert wish to have City Government decisions made by duly elected officials, required by law to follow established public hearing procedure and answerable to the public at the voting polls, or do they wish to be governed by a few self.-proclaimed experts who make their decisions t'_n private meetings and are not answerable to the public by procedural law or at the ballot box? � Y �� QUESTIONT9 S AT I%AY BE ASUD 1. vhy the referendum? the referendum is provided by law as a simple inexpensive may for voters to request their elected officials to abiae by the will of the people as guaranteed by the Constitution, 2. Thy not suit to see what the Council does on Zoning or Zone Changes? a. By law the Zoning must comply vlith the adopted General Plan. b. There is no satisfactory recourse for the people 30 days after the adoption of the General Plan on Jan. 20, 1975. c. If the City Council did not intend to use the ciea ides and heights , etc . e:ny di: they put them in the General Flan. 4. d. Citizens can not and •:ill not attend every meeti712; of the I Planning C^mnission, Architectural Cormittee and City Council to prevent adverse decisions. If the General Plan is correct then: the zoning is correct and correct developments must follow. Then only changes in the General Plan (a maximum of 3 per year) need citizens input. 3. L'hy must density be kept to a maximum of 5 resi-dential building units per acre in Palm Desert? n a. Later - experts say critical - "possible rationing . b. Air - experts say critical in "llth Hour" . c. poise. d. humidity. e. Adverse traffic, f. Destruction of the Palm Desert image that made Palm Desert famous . g. Adverse effect on all environmental factors . 4. Will expensive changes in the General Plan be necessary? P:'o. The desired changes can be inserted in the wording of the Ceneral Plan at very little expense. .l r k m r r H w V V Ln U U N Ln O H V a 1-h aC ro o ro nro o cs n o C o nn o o no oc1 0 m (ci a m ((DD rt (D �C d n �C ►' C7 o Q0G m o m w a H. n� N H � F . ro no z H O ro O y ro' p tt- rt M ro m W a M t+i hi F'• (t m O rt r ro rt " rt Ki H w Hw n w . nHw w m z d S3 ,l 0 (D Or O FJ- O• rt V n rrj n P. r m P. H yd5 m H 7 r H cn w r• 0 G r• ( ro P. H. m H• Cl) t+i Cm mnN NH m cn t+i 10 S F'• :D' ri m G' - H. rt H Y• P+ (D wNm w0m m (D 0 rt G m r 1 0 H N (D � N �d roo cn wm �J rt Hn � PO (D w v am roO 5 o m w n :!S rt P• w H• 4 K H. '.J' P. Ci rt H. N m m m m F a � G :J rr �3 G myN o0 ii � rw-+ 0 O0 H K O Hm tON F'hm w wG rG p o m roo art' rx- ft mmnr mR �h` PJ (D Hni -n W n N o G: I �. g V O0 dP• mH+ NO p � � r r• rr ro G (D o a 0 aq � w� m r• -It rt H rt •7 M n ''! O v+ (D waG A o rt E w N G 0rt rt i j V•' rt ,wy ;,r '� s a' P. m '-e 5 O 3 w v A LIST OF SOURCE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN AND ITS PROCESS 1. WHY HAVE A GENERAL PLAN? The State of California, under the State Law requires that every city have a General Plan containing specific elements . For the City of Palm Desert, the state requires that a General Plan be completed by June 31, 1975,aTrd—t:� Pl Land Use El ent B. Circulation lement C. ousing Eleme t D. C servation E ment E. Ope Space Eleme t F. Seis " c Safety E1 ent G. Noise lement H. Scenic 'ghway Eleme t I . Safety E1 ent In addition to t ese elements the adopteV Gener lan includes an Envir enta1 Impa Report which des ibes all the effects of e implementation of the\G�enera Plan. 2. WHAT IS A GENERAL PLAN? The\no'wt e of a General Plan is the goals and objectives whis the City to express he general values and goae citizens in regard t future development. Thrch a statement a concens s of future development polbe formed. Because it i dicates broad objectives andey can be realized, it pr vides rocus for the forf. plans . It is from thes goal and objectives thac ual General Plan is deve oped: It tries to indow rivate and public actio an achieve certain community go\aBs and objectives within, the next 40-50 years . A General Plan\* s the synthesis of ava lable information and organizes it in various ways to mee specific problems . A General Plan is not a rigid design fo the future ; it suggests solutions ' to current specific p oblems and those future problems tha ',,can be foreseen. I is a program for action and a gui e\for future develop ent . For it to be effective, the %mmuni�y must carry ' t out not in 50 Nc years but continuousl �,�If a plan is vie d as a directive for action, its succes �pends on the way b is implemented. One way a plan can be p into operation is y public action. If a community builds its ublic buildings an its civic developments in acco dance with the Plan, much can be done P to carry proposal out thes f the Plan. Private act ion is more important in/effectuati g a General Plan. The General Plan can mold prrfvate development in .two ways : by regulations , such as subdivi/son regulations and zoning ordinances , requiring minimum deve pment standards ; and by influence on private citizens to develop their land hn accordance with broad community jectives , benefiting the developers and the whole communit . 7 . HOW CAN A ZONING 0 INANCE BE CHANGED? A Zoning Ordinan e is modified after approval by both the Planning Commissi and City Council during a public hearing, the introduction o an ordinance at the Council public hearing, a second re ing of the ordinance in two weeks and a 30 day waiting perio before it goes into effect. During that 30 days the ordina ce is published in the newspaper for all persons to revie WHAT LEAD TO THE DEFINITION OF THE PLANNING AREA OF THE GENERAL PLAN? As a new city, Palm Desert was faced with the necessity of defining its sphere of influence. - an area of concern to the present city and containing areas that might be subject to future annexation. - if requested by a majority of the property owners . On June 7, 1974, alternatives were discussed with the Citizens ' Adivsory Committee and the City Council and the generalized boundaries of the planning area were agreed upon. During June, some modifications were made based upon discussions with property owners in adjacent cities . This lead to generally the area bounded by Interstate 10 on the north, San Bernardino National Forest on the south, Bob Hope Drive on the west and Washington Street on the east. 3 -9, WHAT LEAD TO THE POPULATION DENSITY APPROVED IN THE GENERAL PLAN? First .,the desire of the community for a low density city. Second,the desire of the community for a variety of dwelling units to meet a variety of family and individual housing needs and to have a variety `ice between neighborhoods . '1-6-. HOW MUCH HIGH DENSITY IS PROPOSED IN THE GENERAL PLAN? Within the 14500+ residential acres of land in the existing city, approximately 40 acres or less than 1% is proposed for high density.of 7-18 units to the acre . This is substantially less than under the Cove Communitie' s General Plan which showed approximately 344 acres or 6. 4% of the area as high density, 10-20 units to the acre. c'Z- --H, WILL THIS 1% OF RESIDENTIAL LAND AT HIGH DENSITY CONSIST OF HIGHRISE? No. Highrise development is not possible within the range of 7-18 dwelling units per acre. Highrise development requires a minimum of 50-60 dwelling units per acre with over 100 per acre being common. (o_-1-2, DOES THE PLAN TURN THE EXISTING CITY OF PALM DESERT INTO A TOURIST CENTER LIKE PALM SPRINGS? The Plan proposes to add 300-400 motel/hotel units over the next 20 years bringing the total in the city to 700-816 units . This compares to 7200 existing units in Palm Springs and 385 existing in Indian Wells . Thus Palm Desert may someday have approximately 9-11% as many units as Palm Springs and 100% more than in Indian Wells . 7 +3,- WHY SHOULD THERE BE ANY HOTEL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN PALM DESERT? A well planned hotel development can provide an attractive entrance to Palm Desert; maintain the present community feel without becoming tourist oriented; allow existing hotel units to achieve present occupancies ; provide for executive seminars , local meetings , as well as to provide accommodations for friends visiting Palm Desert residents ; and provide eating and drinking facilities for local residents . (l 1-4. WHAT DOES THE GENERAL PLAN SUGGEST FOR THE CHARACTER OF THE HOTEL DEVELOPMENT? The General Plan indicates that hotel development along Highway 111 should be low rise in character, possibly some cottages with meeting and banquet and eating facilities . Recreation amenities such as swimming pools , tennis courts , should be a part of the development. �-r�'c, 1-5. DOES THE GENERAL PLAN SUGGEST THAT PALM DESERT BECOME THE REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY? No. This would not even be possible since Palm Springs and Indio are currently major regional shopping centers and will continue to do so. In fact, in ultimate development both Palm Springs and Indio will have more regionally orientated commercial than Palm Desert. -16- WHY DOES THE PLAN INDICATE SOME REGIONAL COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT 11ft WITHIN THE WESTERN PORTION OF HIGHWAY 111 . Because the provision of some regional shopping facilities within Palm Desert will lessen vehicle trip miles and create less pollution; provide sales tax revenues which will be vital to maintaining a balance of city cost and revenues without a property tax; provide goods , services , and employment conveniently to local residents. -1-7, WHY WOULD DEVELOPERS OF REGIONAL SHOPPING FACILITIES WHOSE TRADE '-k AREA EXTENDS THROUGHOUT THE VALLEY BE INTERESTED IN PALM DESERT? I Z Because access by Interstate 10, Highway 111, Avenue 44 and Country Club is good. Because Palm Desert is a geographic center of the valley. Because vacant parcels are of sufficient size for well planned mini-regional facilities to exist. I-& ARE THERE ANY OTHER FACTORS TENDING TO THRUST THE ROLE OF REGIONAL Aq, PROMINANCE ON PALM DESERT? l3 Because of its setting, access and geographical location Palm Desert has the realities of the College of the Desert , the Living Desert Reserve, and Eisenhower Medical Center to work with. Another indication of Palm Desert' s regional significance is the location of the offices of the Coachella Valley Association of Governments and the request by the University of California at Riverside Board Research Center to be included within our sphere of influence . 1.. DOES THE GENERAL PLAN MAINTAIN THE POSITIVE ASPECTS OF EXISTING I� CHARACTER OF PALM DESERT? First it is proposed that the city in its sphere of influence develop in a series of carefully planned residential neighbor- hoods . Neighborhoods can each have a sense of identity and community by providing open space and trail systems that join separate developments to public facilities such as schools or to private amenities such as golf courses . Secondly, the urban design element of the General Plan is strongly based upon the conservation of natural environment including preservation of the natural environment including preservation of the hills and mountain views ; preservation of the major sand dunes and date groves ; and preservation of desert corridors where natural desert vegetation and wildlife can be preserved. 20 . SHOULD THE GENERAL Pb BE CHANGED SI E IT HAS BEEN ADOPTED AND ARE CHANGES LIKEL Good planning as we 1 as state law r quires that a General Plan be amended at 1 ast once a year. The law also provides that General Plans ca be updated up t three times per year. Plans must be flexible and change in re ponse to changing economic , social and e n physical condi ions . The current slump in housing starts nd general demise of single family construction as well as a energy and raw materials crisis are but several examples f the kinds of changing factors to which viable plans must relate. .-12�1. WHAT ARE SOME OF THE MOST VITAL ASPECTS OF THE GENERAL PLAN? This questions requires a judgemental answer as opposed to 1 statistics . In the opinion of the City and consultants the five most basic aspects of the General Plan that maintain the good qualities of Palm Desert and meet the challenges of the future are: 1. Establishment of a viable neighborhood planning program for existing and new development. 2. Development of implementation program for the open space element, cooperating with appropriate regional agencies . 3. Creation of a system of balanced transportation with non-automotive options. 4. Redevelopment. of the downtown corridor to solve current and possible future drainage, circulation and land use utilization problems. 5. Balancing the regional roles already inherent in the City in which citizens desire for maintaining a special village or a neighborhood feeling. 22. HOW CAN THE CITIZENS BE INVOLVED IN FURTHER REFINEMENTS OF THE 'tz!57_ GENERAL PLAN? ! g Revisions to the General Plan will occur through a number of meetings including: the yearly review of the General Plan; the preparation of sub area plans such as the Core Area; the preparation of the Zoning Map which would be based upon neighborhood or sub area plans ; the preparation of detailed system plans for elements such as bicycle ways , trails , transit and open space, etc. Adoption of a plan for any of the items noted above requires public hearings , assessment of the General Plan consistency or need to modify the General Plan. All these steps requires citizen input and evaluation and every citizen is of equal value in the evaluation of such programs . L SHOULDN'T THE PERMITTED DENSITIES IN THE GENERAL PLAN BE LIMITED TO TWO CATEGORIES , 1-3 UNITS TO THE ACRE AND 3-5 UNITS TO THE ACRE? SHOULDN'T ALL RESIDENTIAL CONSTRUCTION BE LIMITED TO ONE STORY NOT TO EXCEED 15 ' IN HEIGHT? SHOULD THERE BE ALLOWED NO REDUCTION OF LOT SIZES FOR THE CURRENTLY SUBDIVIDED RESIDENTIAL LOTS? The adopted General Plan has two classifications greater than requested by the Referendum Committee, with those being medium density 5-7, and high density 7-18. The General Plan was developed on the basis of retaining the existing character of Palm Desert . As a result, the existing densities were analyzed in the community. These densities range from 1 unit to the acre up to as high as 46 units to the acre . In order to make the densities in the General Plan compatible to this existing character, additional ranges of 5-7 and 7-18 were developed to make future development compatible to the existing development. To L m; * the_dens.ity-x�anges-4T-t-he-General Plan ta-two cl`bs9i-fications-beiow 5-units_to the acre would--be h gh-ly-restrictive-and-woul-d-not-be-logical_on_the_bas s of t xis iir g clza^�a`cter-of-Palm-Deser.t . With regards to limiting one story construction not to exceed 15 ' in height, this view is not -am appropriate item for a General Plan. In addition, in the proposed Zoning Ordinance , that is presently being developed by the city' s Planning Commission, the permitted height in residential areas has been thoroughly analyzed and the Commission has indicated that in some of the residential zones the maximum height should be limited to 18' in height. In addition, in the multiple zones , the maximum height should be limited to 30' or two story in height, whichever is less . These heights were based upon the belief that there should be architectural flexibility in the development of residences and therefore, the additional height is necessary to provide for architectural variety. In addition, the topography is a major consideration and since a majority of the city, particularly on the south side does have slopes to contend with, the greater height was felt to be necessary in order to make the designs of the buildings compatible to the topography. Finally, one of the paramount considerations is the maintenance of views . In order to accomplish the maintenance of views , it is the feeling of the Planning Commission that the permitted height can be restricted where views may be affected and that the height can be reduced as part of the approval process to make the residence compatible to the existing are��With regards to maintaining the existing lot sizes in Palm Desert, the General Plan again is not the area where such a restriction is appropriate. It is in the Zoning Ordinance and subsequent Zoning Map that such a restriction is implemented. It is the idea of both the Planning Commission and the City that the existing lot sizes shall be preserved wherever z possible, and that built into the Zoning Ordinance is this ability. -Z4,, SHOULDN'T THE COMMERCIAL BUILDING HEIGHTS BE LIMITED TO TWO STORY NOT TO EXCEED 25 ' 7 SHOULDN'T THERE BE PROPER BUFFERING BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT? The City in review of the preliminary Zoning Ordinance has felt that the buildings in the commercial area should be limited to two story not to exceed 30' in height, whichever is less , based upon the fact that 30' is necessary to provide for the two stories and the necessary roof equipment . The City and the Planning Commission is in total agreement that there should be proper buffer area between residential and commercial development and such a concept has been implemented both in the General Plan and the proposed Zoning Ordinance. 2-5. SHOULD THERE BE PROCESSING DURING THE MONTHS OF JUNE , JULY, AUGUST AND SEPTEMBER OF EACH YEAR? In the view of the city, the requirement of no processing of the General Plan amendments , zone changes , variances , conditional use permits , tentative maps , and plot plans for a four month period of the year is totally unrealistic . The Postmaster has indicated that during this four month period, approximately 10% of the population is out of the city for an extended time. To stop the processing on the basis of 4,000 leaving the city is totally unrealistic. It seems that the concern that the Referendum Committee has with regards to no processing during this period lies with the problemsthey had with the County prior to incorporation. With the incorporation &the establishment of a qualified City Council , which brings the decisions closer to home , it appears that these people should be confident with the City Council and to realize that they represent the total community and will do their job during this four month period as they do during the rest of the year; and to tie the hands of the Council during this period is totally unrealistic. -2-6-. SHOULD HOTELS AND MOTELS BE LIMITED TO 100 ROOMS WITH MEETING AND 'wt DINING FACILITIES NOT TO EXCEED 300 PEOPLE IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT? While such a limitation could be placed within the adopted General Plan and/or the Zoning Ordinance, it is the city' s feeling that such a requirement should be based upon logic. It appears that such a limitation would drastically effect the economic feasibility of any hotel development of the type that would be proposed by the General Plan which is low rise bungalow type development. For example, the type of development that has been promoted would be similar to the Erawan Gardens Hotel or the Indian Wells Hotel in Indian Wells . These hotels have the following number of units capacity for meeting and eating : A. Erawan Gardens Hotel - 200 units Capacity for eating & meeting - 740 B. Indian Wells Hotel - 118 units Capacity for eating & meeting - 300 The General Plan indicates that hotels and motels should be limited to an additional 300-400 above what we have now which is approximately 416. It further indicates that a large portion of those units should be placed in an area adjacent to Highway 111 west of the Palm Valley Channel. To limit maximum size to 100 rooms would further disperse the hotel rooms throughout the community. -27-. SHOULDN'T THE DESIGNATION IN A GENERAL PLAN OF LAND USE IN THE SPHERE a� OF INFLUENCE OUTSIDE THE PRESENT CITY LIMITS BE CHANGED TO THE PRESENT <t:5:r COUNTY CLASSIFICATION? f �O 'In essence, if the city were to revert back to the County Plan outside its present city limits , the city would not be adequately planning for its total planning area, which is opposite of the planning process that is envisioned by the State Law and commonly carried out within the state of California. The planning area that was established after lengthy work by the city' s planning consultants , the city staff, the Citizens ' Advisory Committee, the .city Planning Commission, the City Council , all of whom gave substantial thought to the development of the ultimate sphere and what was appropriate as to land use in terms of the General Plan. It-is�r e=considered appropriate to�onti-nxe-w1t-h the-Gessera]._P�.� ^^.,erg-tiles•e-ar�as�as—i-t---g�e$e�rt�q�ex-i-s�s . 28-. SHOULD ALL REFERENCES TO VILLAGE TYPES , 25 NEIGHBORHOODS AND PLANNED � RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS BE REMOVED FROM THE GENERAL PLAN? The neighborhood concept was developed on the basis that the community has historically developed with different characters XXXX3F#XKTYiFti KKK being established for specific areas of the community. For example , the character of the area of the Palm Desert Property Owners is in many ways distinguishable from the area known as the Silver Spur Ranch. The General Plan indicates that these differences in neighborhoods should be amplified and preserved since they are an element of the character of the community. Such a concept is innovative and required for such a community as Palm Desert. In addition, through the establishment of neighborhood 'concepts the areas such as around the college could be developed in a manner to amplify the character of the college and to. improve upon its charact _fWith reference to planned residential districts , to exclu g such developments would not permit developments that have recently occurred such as Marrakesh, Ironwood, :° T s—G].uh,�lttuntainbaek'zn447an a iu� ueve�-e—m.��ex:s > t , Sandpiper , Sands and Shadows which are a substantial part of the communityti r -29. IF THE GENERAL PLAN IS OVERTURNED BY THE VOTERS, HOW LONG WILL IT TAKE 2 THE CITY TO ADOPT A NEW GENERAL PLAN? If the General Plan is overturned and a new one is required to be developed, it would be necessary to prepare the new General Plan which will take an estimated 45 days .To obtain input from citizen groups and Citizens ' Advisory Committee which would take an estimated additional 30 days . It would take a 75 days to process it through the various bodies of the city for a total of 150 days . 30. WHAT ITE14 ARE PUT IN JEOPARDY IF THE GENERAL PLAN\nobe OVERTURNED? First\�of all the Redevelopment Program would able to be Carrie,forward this year which would 'wean a of approximately $57 , 000 � year in tax increment that could be spe to improve the commercial area of Palm Dest. Secondly„ the city' s funding under the Federal Community Development Program\of approxi ately $33 ,000 would be lost for this year . \� 3-1. SHOULDN'T THE GENERAL PLAN PROHIBIT NON RESIDENTIAL USES IN RESIDENTIAL 2.3 AREAS? Such a restriction is normally found in the Zoning Ordinance and the attempt 'he-r-e is preserve the residential character of the residential areas . , Typically, in Zoning Ordinances certain specific uses th" -are considered commercial are permitted such as operations related to country clubs . For example , the golf courses , the pro shops , restaurants , bars , dress shops , and so forth. If they were restricted from the residential areas then activities that are found in Ironwood, Marrakesh and Shadow Mountain Country Clubs could not o ur. In addition, only-�-4-n Zoning Ordinances i-s- �axat ^^_ ^f home occupations w 1 to occur in the XKXXXXX residences as long as they are secondary to the residence . In essence, this means that the residence is used for a mail address and telephone of such uses such as a contractor, insurance man, or a real estate man, or an investment broker and so forth. Under the County' s Zoning Ordinance which is in effect at this time in the City, the restrictions for such uses are somewhat permissive. Under the proposed Zoning Ordinance being developed by the City Planning Commission, these activities are being strongly #XXKKgKKKMH limited and will be further restricted. Palm Desert Boosters Committee • 73-394 El Paseo, Palm Desert, Cal. 92260 B40 TER A broad based organization of Palm Desert citizens - joined together to sup- port the actions of the Citizens Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council in the adoption of the Palm Desert General Plan. The goal of the organization is to encourage qualified voters of Palm Desert to VOTE YES - at the Special Election, July 8, 1975 - on the proposition "Shall the General Plan of the City of Palm Desert (adopted by Resolution No. 75-2) be adopted and approved" . Clip and mail to 73-394 E1 Paseo, Palm Desert, CA 92260 ❑ I want to be a Palm Desert Booster I would like to help in campaign ❑ Enclosed is a donation to help defray expenses for stationary, literature, mailings , etc. ❑ Please send more information Name Address Phone A � INFORMATION SHEET: INCORPORATION OF "CONCERNED CITIZENS, PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND REFERENDUM COMMITTEE" VIEWS INTO GENERAL PLAN The views of these groups expressed throughout the General Planning process may be summarized as follows: 1 . Desire for a residential community with business and service adequate to support it; 2. Desire for recreation possibilities for residents but not as "tourist attractors" ; 3. Desire to maintain as much as possible of the native desert character; 4. Desire that codes and ordinances be developed to ensure acceptable architectural design and quality of construction; 5. Desire for low density in all developments; 6. Desire that no industrial zoning be included within the present City boundaries; 7. Desire that hotel/motel additions be held to a minimum; 8. Desire that support be given to a cultural center to be located near the College of the Desert; and 9. Desire to show Palm Desert Property Owners Association area at less than 5 units per acre. The Citizens Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and City Council had the same concerns, therefore, the General Plan was developed with an awareness for these concerns. The following comments indicate how each has been addressed. Desire for a residential community with business and service adequate to support it. To address this concern, policies such as the following were incorporated in the adopted General Plan: Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents (Pg. 1 .G.1 ). Develop relationships between land uses within the City that will bring City costs and revenues into balance over time (Pg. 1 .G.1 ). 2. The General Plan stresses the importance of the residential development within the City and indicates the need to strengthen residential identity through the cultivation of distinct neighborhood units which would provide a cohesiveness to the community. The Plan encourages a pattern of development which is low profile and densities are considerably less than what could have been ultimately developed in the Cove Communities Plan. Regulations, such as height limitations, are deliberately not addressed in the Plan because they more appropriately belong in the Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the commercial uses proposed in the General Plan are for the use of the residents of Palm Desert. However, there currently exist many shops serving residents outside of the City. These shops and other new developments in the amount indicated in the Plan are necessary to provide sales tax revenues. Without such revenues, property taxes may be necessary. This is because residential uses -- particularly at the low densities shown in the Plan -- do not "pay their own way" even in cities that have a property tax (as indicated in the Council on Environmental Quality's recent report, "Cost of Urban Sprawl ") . Therefore, the commercial uses were developed to protect the needs of the communi- ty and to provide for a tax base which would preclude the need for a city property tax. Desire for recreation possibilities for residents but not as "tourist attractors". To address this concern, policies such as the following were incorporated: . Require developer dedication of park space or fee in lieu at the rate of 4.5 acres per 1 ,000 population for neighborhood parks (Pg. 7.P.2) . Purchase additional acreages at the rate of 2.0 acres per 1 ,000 population for community parks (Pg. 7.P.2) . Neighborhood parks shall be located centrally to the residential development served (Pg. 7.P.3). Encourage the development of rest areas within neighborhoods (Pg. 7.P.5) . As indicated on the Plan's Land Use Map (Figure 1-3) only limited regional serving facilities have been shown within the City's boundaries such as the Living Desert Reserve. Desire to maintain as much as possible of the native desert character. To address this concern, policies such as the following were incorporated: Develop parks for recreation and open space preservation which maintain the natural desert environment (Pg. 2.P.1 ) . Utilize the provisions of the Zoning and Design Review Ordinance to maintain the beauty of the mountain areas surrounding Palm Desert (Pg. 2.P.1 ) . 3. Support the continued maintenance and development of the Living Desert Reserve as a wildlife preserve and Museum of the Desert's natural environment (Pg. 6.4.P.1 ). Develop a 'Desert Corridor' system (Pg. 6.4.P.2). Designate the sand dune park shown in the land use element as a wildlife and natural preserve (Pg. 6.4.P.1 ) . Desire that codes and ordinances be developed to ensure acceptable architectural design and quality of construction. To address this concern policies such as the following were incorporated: Establish a planning process for creating good neighborhood design (Pg. 2.P.1 ) . Utilize provision of its Zoning Ordinance to provide guidelines in areas such as hillsides, civic areas and other special areas (Pg. 2.P.1 ) . Promote the continued utilization of homeowner and community associations to maintain housing quality at the individual development level (Pg. 4.P.3) . Desire for low density in all developments. While the densities in the General Plan, as indicated on the Land Use Map (Figure 3-1 ) are not as low as those desired by these groups, the densities pro- posed in this Plan are lower than those of the Cove Communities Plan which it replaces. If, in fact, the densit limit were 5 d.u./acre as su ested, a number of the well planned condominium evelopments present y existing in t e City would not have been allowed. Furthermore, the amount of high density, 7-18 d.u./acre, indicated in the Plan is less than one percent of the residential land area. At the request of the Property Owners Association, the Council did establish a density of 3-5 units per acre on a majority of the property under their control . It is the responsibility of the City to provide the potential for the development of a range of housing styles and price ranges for a variety of income ranges to meet the needs of all the existing residents of Palm Desert. Desire that no industrial zoning be included within the present City boundaries. As indicated on the Plan's Land Use Map (Figure 3-1 ) , no industrial uses are shown within the City boundaries. Industrial uses shown in the Planning Area are near the Interstate Freeway and adjacent railroad lines. Desire that hotel/motel additions be held to a minimum'. The number of hotel/motel units proposed in the General Plan has been held to the existing ratio of units per capita. This limit will provide for hotel/ motel units that will : 4. "be low rise in character, possibly some cottages, with meeting, banquet and eating facilities. Recreational amenities such as swimming pools and tennis courts should be a part of the development. Well planned hotel devel- opment can provide an attractive entrance to Palm Desert; maintain the present community feel , without becoming tourist oriented; allow existing hotel units to achieve present occupancies; provide for executive seminars, local meetings, as well as provide accommodations for friends visiting Palm Desert residents; and provide eating and drinking facilities for local residents. " (Pg. 3.6.11 ) The assertion that a convention center is planned is simply not true and is not in the Plan. Desire that support be given to a cultural center to be located near the College of the Desert. To address this concern, the following policy was incorporated: Encourage the development of a regionally oriented cultural center in cooperation with the College of the Desert (Pg. 7.P.6) . The opinions and ideas of the Concerned Citizens, Referendum Committee and the Palm Desert Property Owners Association have been welcomed. Most of their concerns and ideas have been incorporated. Where they have not it has been for carefully considered reasons as noted above. INFORMATION SHEET: INCORPORATION OF "CONCERNED CITIZENS" VIEWS INTO GENERAL PLAN The views of the Concerned Citizens, expressed throughout the General Planning process may be summarized as follows: 1. Desire for a residential community with business and service adequate to support it; 2. Desire for recreation possibilities for residents but not as "tourist attractors"; 3. Desire to maintain as much as possible of the native desert character; 4. Desire that codes and ordinances be developed to insure acceptable architectural design and quality of construction; 5. Desire for low density in all developments ; 6. Desire that no industrial zoning be included within the present City boundaries; 7. Desire that hotel/motel additions be held to a minimum; and 8. Desire that support be given to a cultural center to be located near the College of the Desert. The General Plan was developed with an awareness for these concerns. The following comments indicate how each has been addressed. Desire for a residential community with business and service adequate to support it. To address this concern policies such as the following were incorporated: Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for residents (Pg. 1 .G.1) . ' Develop relationships between land uses within the City that will bring City costs and revenues into balance over time (Pg. 1 .G. 1) . -ti The General Plan stresses the importance of the residential development within the City and indicates the need to strengthen residential identity through the cultivation of distinct neighborhood units which would provide a cohesive- ness to the community. The Plan encourages a pattern of development which is low profile and densities are considerably less than what could have been ultimately developed in the Cove Communities Plan. Regulations, such as height limitations, are deliberately not addressed in the Plan because they more appropriately belong in the Zoning Ordinance. The majority of the commercial uses proposed in the General Plan are for the use of the residents of Palm Desert. However, there currently exist many shops serving residents outside of the City. These shops and other new developments in the amount indicated in the Plan are necessary to provide sales tax revenues. Without such revenues property taxes would be essential . This is because residential uses--particularly at the low densities shown in the Plan--do not "pay their own way" even in cities that have a property tax (as indicated in the Council on Environmental Quality's recent report, "Cost of Urban Sprawl") . Desire for recreation possibilities for residents but not as "tourist attractors". To address this concern policies such as the following were incorporated: • Require developer dedication of park space or fee in lieu at the rate of 4.5 acres per 1 ,000 population for neighborhood parks (Pg. 7.P.2) . Purchase additional acreages at the rate of 2.0 acres per 1 ,000 population for community parks (Pg. 7.P.2) . Neighborhood parks shall be located centrally to the residential development served (Pg. 7.P.3) . Encourage the development of rest areas within neighborhoods (Pg. 7.P.5) • As indicated on the Plan's Land Use map (Figure 1-3) no regional serving facilities have been shown within the City's boundaries. The Living Desert Reserve is within the Planning Area but outside of the City. Desire to maintain as much as possible of the native desert character. To address this concern policies such as the following were incorporated: Develop parks for recreation and open space preservation which maintain the natural desert environment (Pg. 2.P. 1) . Utilize the provisions of the Zoning and Design Review ordinance to maintain the beauty of the mountain areas surrounding Palm Desert (Pg. 2.P. 1) . Support the continued maintenance and development of the Living Desert Reserve as a wildlife preserve and Museum of the Desert's natural environment (Pg. 6.4.P.1) . Develop a 'Desert Corridor' system (Pg. 6.4.P.2) . Designate the sand dune park shown in the land use element as a wildlife and natural preserve (Pg. 6.4.P.1) . Desire that codes and ordinances be developed to insure acceptable architectural design and quality of construction. To address this concern policies such as the following were incorporated: Establish a planning process for creating good neighborhood design (Pg. 2.P. 1) . Utilize provision of its zoning ordinance to provide guidelines in areas such as hillsides, civic areas and other special areas (Pg. 2.P. 1) . • Promote the continued utilization of homeowner and community associations to maintain housing quality at the individual development level (Pg. 4.P.3) . Desire for low density in all developments. While the densities in the General Plan, as indicated on the Land Use Map (Figure 3-1) are not as lay as those desired by the Concerned Citizens, the densities proposed in this Plan are lower than those of the Cove Communities Plan which it replaces. If, in fact, the density limit were 5 d.u./acre as suggested by the Concerned Citizens a •number of the well planned condominium developments presently existing in the City would not have been allowed. Furthermore, the amount of high density, 7-18 d.u./acre, indicated in the Plan is less than one percent of the residential land area. It is the responsibility of the City to provide the potential for the development of a range of housing styles and price ranges for a variety of income ranges. Lack of such provisions could endanger the receipt of state and.federal funds by the City. Desire that no industrial zoning be included within the present City boundaries. As indicated on the Plan's Land Use map (Figure 3-1) , no industrial uses are shown within the City boundaries. Industrial uses shown in the Planning Area are near the Interstate Freeway and adjacent railroad lines. Desire that hotel/motel additions be held to a minimum. The number of hotel/motel units proposed in the General Plan has been held to the existing ratio of units per capita. This limit will provide for hotel/ motel units that will : "be low rise in character, possibly dome cottages, with meeting, banquet and eating facilities. Recreational amenities such as swimming pools and tennis courts should be a part of the development. Well planned hotel devel- opment can provide an attractive entrance to Palm Desert; maintain the present community feel , without becoming .tourist oriented; allow existing hotel units to achieve present occupancies; provide for executive seminars, local meetings, as well as provide accommodations for friends visiting Palm Desert residents; and provide eating and drinking facilities for local residents." (Pg. 3.B.11) The assertion that a convention center is planned is simply not true and is not in the Plan. Desire that support be given to a cultural center to be located near the College of the Desert. To address this concern the following policy was incorporated: Encourage the development of a regionally oriented cultural center in cooperation with the College of the Desert (Pg. 7.P.6) . The opinions and ideas of the Concerned Citizens and the Palm Desert Property Owners Association have been welcomed. Most of their concerns and ideas have been incorporated. Where they have not it has been for carefully considered reasons as noted above. Patin 0eded Raetmadm onnu ttee - L8x 444, Palm 0e4e4t, (aCifonnia 92a50 0«a. Palm &seat Votea; —Ch;u4t 8A you rr.l•L have the oppoafu,u fg to help decide uhaf hind o� a mawou.v we a4w ii.ve in. 8jt Suuppeeioa (Co�uat Oulea a A4eaou6m a,i.0 be held L, deride uheAex tree p edati (OweaaL Ptah 4AW be adopted oa d6we . The utc�y,+poaleee o� Ae Pliny uiA 6ueineee injetee#e, vent i.t approved ad Avi:tten uu,,b5. itd tun tel aeata.tctioad. The opp,ne.4 w ly aedidetta mud home omn , uwa it changed.4, pa Mi erploei_ve and ummwtw LLed 9aomdh. &A aided have etnong vimm and wLa be puaing A Aaand Acin bed.f aa9,mattd. The iddue paamided much o,niwveady and midlemdin9 in{oarafion. The R4eaam6m uad odeaed by tie Count fo pc,=U the r r` & decide, not fact a err local posit U=u and mmne4ZZa. developena. Land We deteamined tie diaectio n a m m aou ty yoowd, and mmuou fi.ee and a aepecfion o�.the Ample a,i.t/iin .then. The Weaaed,m Cvw ttee uvatd a �eheaaL Plan that matw Cd: I. Redidettiai deuity o� I ;61 j eats to pee ache, as j t, 5 wdyd mmcimmn - h197 uupp /8 wU fd oa 54 ptople peh acre. —2. Reeidetu 6ua&,A a - one Aw - 15 Pet high - AN /8 fleet jot aing.Le aedldatce OAP �eet `oa uuLfiple housing. —j. No non-aedidential 6uL&anga ut aedidahfia( aaead. No mcceptlond. 4. (oareetial 6uUdZnV4 Hosted to 2 ab,nied and 25 �eet -- N07 li0 b 50 �eet. _ --5 No used - aced eva Ltd, (i9U manuActuninn, etc. — 6. No tand use dwnged dating tie em,mea /rah many and mwy. f/, These ace only a �eo o� tie maiwla uhi.oi aAoald be in. the pcedeni yehe,al Nan, 1 but ace not. l Patin 0edett today[ i.d in a pnai.tion nheee u dint go titiea uay - an attaacfive, weq plmuted mm�uot.—, uheee Ample ate proud .d, live, uaah and ploy, on one hx tv +�9 ", taaf�ie pw lend, lath o�.ideri ty and dtadaatet. Palm Ameet i'd wu4ue. —R id not a trmde eeetm- . —It tw not a ZGU afafion cecten. . 1 R id not a mane eettet. R se'nat an aq.ee catte¢. (float i.d i V Paldt Oedeet Zd a nkdoaf cattea - a 6eauti one. Patin Ameat td a aeZe oa suttee - a hap one —Patin &jeht id a ate- wU eeatea - a one Patin Dueat id a ±ea,v—nZt`8vm,am.Lfy - e 6eeL Lef'a keep Zt that urW. Vote NO on the pauett ymetal Plan - July 8ti It ian t good W,qhLf can be 06,9ed.twee breed a yet,, but tha .L,.la"'2� Couaca didn't any o� oua eu9ged#al dime9ed the (wt tine ue hied Amohed one think ue'U hme any bet{en ludo nacf time? Vote 40 on the pneoett Plan July 84 ao we can aU get t m,nh on a nea one WLAOat ioopWed. 45 MRE 70 WST Ya R Ads -%7&f MU.07 7ODN - FOIA YCLL 6,9 �� !$ aeFee# }roe an RQS NT 8 U11T 0 VOTf it�s e d erclo�m(. IBC yGY/ Dice g04- ."0 be mmy Awm Palm Oedeat t on ULV 8ayi, a edt waE 46.den#ee Bello#. LpY'T LQSf YaR RIFT TO VUIf OIL cut a adua #hat Vi&Ug ajActe Ae value o� rjLo PAP Jl, and dee �utuac o� Palcs Oeaeet. Retain Palm Oedeet ad a place to live, aelax and 'rom .flee eu6cvt diearlvantaged me a'Ine Palm Oedezt io eocgoe, evteRe liatel a# one Pa& Oadeat OVAe." ey 4c9n on .tote 4me lZ pe.44 /42a .to m=e and addtead Aoun on 'ldCred# All r46do,-tee FILL Lg/1 AO /MIL 70LW / R(eembea - you cauat Receive Smua Abeentee Ba!!o# in time to .tetevae i t 0 ZPUNC 0ROINAVI c 7 ;P AU o� .ate Cupra Aagcmee,etd aR¢ 6a4ed on Ae S 0 Zo &ALA hadn't 6eran ado S Ordinance ptel erred mag be °�*ad timed 6epae adoption, — IF 1 t cd xYee Ct tg'e infcxstion do adopt e#.a a a'- ctiort4, aee $ate �¢ .b put Aerie M tWtd in fee y�teRaL Plme7 — The adop&d-§meaal Plan, a.Uoead 18 redid up #o ja eat in en#ial eautd Pea acre - hei-ph.ti .wed ma�eaci,aC 6ui,ldi�e8e .6� 40 oc 50 ��i 04 even rw e, Thecae der&4L&ed and heigle.td ame, be ata ad long, ad Aeg P l°rAd in � aRea P bg .toe § neRaC Plan. 6a foo.W again bg wed. Inai.at dcaf #/te §eneral Plan lncica& Ae deal.¢eI mn#.m.(d on dM,,Xtg, ,VOTC "NO /" — Thie eail( demege toe Ceeeeal Plrnt include Aede mn#avLe. =e SUMMARY Or CHANGES IN 'THE PAMI DESERT GENEWU PLM I. No changes in the General Plan or 'Zoning during the months of June, July, August and September of each year when many people are away. 2 . Residential Areas : Maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre (delete 5 to 7 and 7 to 18 per acre) ; one story maximum of 15 ft. height (delete 30 to 40 £t. ) ; no commercial or other_ non-residential units in a residential area; delete "Row Houses" . 3. In areas now subdivided (with less than 7000 sq. ft. .lot size) allow developments consistent with lot size and maintain quality. One story maximum of 15 ft . No lot splitting. 4. Eliminate separate "Village Type" areas with mixed uses . Continue to have Palm Desert as one city with residential and commercial. separated from each other . 5. Hotels and Motels located in commercial areas only. Maintain low i profile to comply with existing and desired image (delete 30 ft. to i 40 ft. ) G. Commercial areas located on Highway III - E1 Paseo and adjacent streets as presently zoned . No regional shopping centers that would create adverse traffic, pollution, fire and police problems . 7 . Delete automobile new and used car service or other commercial uses that would create unsightly appearance or undesirable traffic, or adverse environmental conditions . 8. Delete regional shopping centers and convention type projects . 0r 9. Revise the Environmental Impact Report to legal standards and pro- vide facts for the rigid control of noise, air pollution, water quality and quanity, energy requirements and all other factors that seriously affect our health and daily life . PAL14 DESERT REFERENDUtd C01*1ITTEE Z C\ P . 0. Box 4.44 May 12 , 1975 Palm Desert , Calif. 92260 The following pages list the issues , other changes and the specific con- trols desired in the General Plan . 6;e believe you will agree that they are reasonable and should be incorporated in the General Plan. It is important - Please read on - This is YOUR CITY! 1 THE ISSUES - 1. The City Council ' s attitude has been that the desired land use f changes should be made in the Zoning Ordinance . The Zoning Ordinance I can be changed frequently after limited hearings as only property owners within 300 feet of the land under consideration have a right to be heard . Citizens should not be expected to attend frequent meetings of which. . most citizens are not even aware and few can speak. Proper public par- ticipation is impossible under these circumstances . 2 . One of the basic purposes of the Referendum is to put the desired controls in the General Plan which can BE CHAl�CED ONLY 3 TIMES PER YEAR and can be broadly publicized and on which any resident of Palm Desert may speak. This assures proper public participation. Any land use regulation that may be placed in a Zoning Ordinance may be placed in the General Plan . As citizens , we should insist that the basic land use policies should be incorporated in the General Plan. The active support of all registered voters of Palm Desert will be neces- sary to realize our goals of repealing the General Plan and establishing a new Plan that meets our community needs . During the period of revising the General Plan your Referendum Committee will have to incur expenses for printing of literature, mailings , etc . Please contribute according to your ability. This is the time for all residents to participate. The Referendum action will also require people to: -- make telephone calls -- write letters to persons who are out of the City but who can vote -- 'conduct study groups -- conduct coffee klatches -- be a block leader -- assist in mailing activities . Please send your contribution today to the Palm Desert Referendum Com- mittee and tell us how you would like to work with us . IMPORTANT: If you are going to' be away from Palm Desert be sure and send your for- warding address to us so that we may forward you an application for an absentee ballot. Make your vote count! PA114 ERT REFERENDUM COH111ITTEE P . 0 . Box 444 Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 May 12 , 1975 LETTER TO VOTERS OF PALM DESERT This is report on the status of our citizen effort to force the City a e General preserve Plan of Palm Desert to Council to amend the present r G J the present life style and image of Palm Desert. The General Plan should establish clear and precise policies which would govern future land use in Palm Desert and should provide all ,/safeguards, necessary for the orderly development of the City. This is important as the zoning ordinance for density , height and other basic standards must comply with the General Plan . , > 1� In the opinion of many interested citizens the General Plan as adopted by the City Council did not provide adequate safeguards to ensure sound land use within the City. Many attempts were made to have the City Council incorporate desirable changes in the General Plan before adoption, or amend the Plan after adoption . The City Council arbitrarily, in our opinion , . rebuffed all the efforts . . As a result, a petition for a referendum to repeal the -General Plan or put it to the vote of the people was filed . 638 registered voters signed the petition and this number_ substantially exceeded the minimum number required . The City Council initiated a suit in the Superior Court- to nullify the effect of the petition by contending that the Council' s action in ap- proving the General Plan was administrative rather than legislative and therefore not subject to a referendum. The Superior Court upheld the legality of the petition and required the City to either repeal the General Plan or to call a special election for the purpose of allowing the voters to determine whether the current General Plan should govern the future of Palm .Desert . As of this date the Superior Court Ruling that the City must either can- cel the General Plan or submit it to a special election still stands . We have submitted the City the changes , additions and deletions to the General Plan that we are requesting. The revisions are listed in this letter . The City has been unnecessarily delaying action since our petition for referendum was authenticated by the election department on March 19, 1975 . The issues could be settled with a minimum delay if the City would follow the procedures in the Referendum 'Law. PALM DESERT REFERENDUM COMMITTEE By c't 3o e1 , Chairm an' PA?.h DESIsRT RE11liRENDU11 ...t,NM'jTTX1 , Box 444 , Palm Do ct , Calif . 92260 I Nere are the Controls we are requesting , (Please retain and explain 0 your friends and neighbors) Your neighbors , who have been working in your interest- , have compiled a list of items which they believe should be incorporated in the General. + Plan We believe you will agree that they are not unreasonable restric- tions . i i The suggested charges are as follows : ADD TO THE GENERAL PLAN: 1. Residential - two classif.ica.ti.ons 1 to 3 and 3 to 5 units per acre with one story construction not to exceed 15 ft in height , no reduc- tion in lot size for currently subdivided residential. lots . (This eliminates 5 to 7 and 7 to 18 units per acre allowed by the City' s General Plan and Zoning Ordinance) . 2 . Commercial - hotels and motels located along Highway 111 (including area from Monterey to 44th Avenue) , El Paseo, and other areas ad- jacent thereto presently zoned commercial . a. Two story not to exceed 25 feet in height b . Proper buffer areas between residential and commercial (This eliminates 40 ft & 50 ft height allowed in the Proposed Zoning Ordinance) 3. No city agency shall process or approve any subdivision, plot plan , variance , zone change, or change in General Plan in the months of June, July, August or September of each year . (This eliminates decisions during the Summer months while many residents are away) 4. Hearings before the Planning Commission and/or the City Council on subdivisions , plot plans , variances , zone changes , or changes in the General Plan shall be public with public participation through docu- mentation or oral presentation . Agenda for meetings dealing with land use shall be available 14 calendar days prior to hearing . (This provides for proper participation by residents) 5. Motels and hotels shall not be larger than. 100 rooms and with meet- ing and dining facilities to accommodate not more than 300 people . (This controls size to actual needs of Palm Desert) 6 . No non-residential activities of any kind will be permitted in residential. areas . (This separates Residential and Commercial into separate areas as they are now) 7 . No regional shopping centers . This allows stores to accommodate the needs of all Palm Desert without attracting undesirable traffic , noise and other environmental pollution. DELETE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN:. 1, All reference to subsidized housing. 2 . Delete the classification and zoning in the "Sphere of Influence" and to comply with Riverside County. 3. Change classification on all reference to Village Types , 25 Neighbor- hood and Planned Residential Districts . l 1 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IN THE PAL14 DESERT GENERAL PLAN 1. No changes in the General Plan or Zoning during the months of June, July, August and September of each year when many people are away. 2 . Residential Areas: Maximum of 5 dwelling units per acre (delete 5 to 7 and 7 to 18 per acre) ; one story maximum of 15 ft . height (delete 30 to 40 ft. ) ; no comet rcial or other non-residential units in a residential area; delete "Row Houses" . 3. In areas now subdivided (with less than 7000 sq. ft. lot size) allow developments consistent with lot- size and maintain quality. One story maximum of 15 ft . No lot splitting. 4. Eliminate separate "pillage Type" areas with mixed uses . Continue to have Palm Desert as one city with residential and commercial separated from each other. 5 . Hotels and Motels located in commercial areas only. Maintain low profile to comply with existing and desired image (delete 30 ft. to 40 ft. ) 6. Commercial areas located on Highway III - E1 Paseo and adjacent streets as presently zoned . No regional shoppi;.ig centers that would create adverse traffic, pollution, fire and police probi.ems . 7 . Delete automobile new and used car service or other commercial uses that would create unsightly appearance or undesirable traffic , or adverse environmental conditions . y k 8. Delete regional shopping centers and convention type projects . 9. Revise the Environmental Impact Report to legal standards and pro- vide facts for the rigid control of noise, air pollution, water quality and quanity, energy requirements and all other factors that seriously affect our health and daily life . I • . r-- �� i s rsr Chr 1'!tYm Ues^; t-Itcfcrcr dr.ra Coramittoc nubmi.t,r, the fol.PG!:r!t �;i!7Cu',(iT'l IIPtLL than 300 word r,tatcr.,ant, to be used as na arFt:r,ont in favor of tiro referenenm if the General Plan is sull,aitted to vote: ly law the General Plan dictator, the zor.ir,g that may be granted by the • ,:recent = or future Councilr; and they mnv re-s•)r.e property accordingly. Tile enly practi- cal Control avai.l:cble is to allo:r in tho Gencral Plan only those thini;s that are acceptable to citizens. the l,re +ent General Plan and Proporsed 150 page Zoning Ordinance Permits the :oJ.lorri ,:r nt!;oct.i.onalrle developments among other's trio numercur to mention l:ere. 1. Residential area; allow 18 tanits per acre; 40 feet in height-, Row Fousin,;; Motels 36 u:ri.ts per acre; government offices; co:m, orci.al and other ncn-residential uses. 'Pile maximum density choul.d be S u;:its per acre; loer profile, one-•story design, com- pat.ibl.e %r th the cxi.sting image of Palm Dcsor'i. No rOW houses , or non-residcnt.ial use. 2. Co,,mercial, areas z.11orr large buildings .SO feet high. This ad- rcrsely effects traffic, rL0g, r .e and rri.ere - all the thingr> rre ca:ae here to escape. Control building size and height to tWe stories. B. The Gencral Plan now encoura;cs high-density, multi-story build- S_ng in both residential and c0❑^ercial areas. This is not in accord with the expreczed wishes of the uajority of residents. Detcloomen.t should be tigi:tly controlled by changing the present Gencral Plan and exceptions rarely granted. The law alYovu th ec chen;;es per year .in the General Plan. Public participation and control of t.hrec chz.n c3 is possible but. citizens ` participation and control is not. pcssi.bie if attendance at every hearing is necessary. Ci:anges in the Gencral flan and Zonin.- Ordinance can be made now to provide for the orderly future development of Pala Desert.. Control bad zoning and bad developments before they get etarted by makinC the disired changes in tl:e Generai Plan 1:'Sat the General Plan allows ias rrha!: Palm Desert. ::ill et.. Vote YES to change the present Palm Desert General Plan. PADI DESERT P.EeERENDUM COMMITTEh �� ^ �. �� 6- P. 0. Dox 444 Palm Dcsert, California . 92200 141 r i i f { J PAT-1+ .; KEPT REFERENDUM CO1 MITTi__.E 1 .0 . Box 444 Palm Desert, Calif . 92260 Palm Desert City Council. 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 Dear Members of the City Council: You asked that we present all desired changes in the General. Plan at one time as you did not wish to consider them separately. We are submitting to you herewith the desired changes prior to the promised date of March 28, 1975 . We have carefully examined , page by page , the General_ Plan adopted on January 20, 1975 . Notations have been made on each page and on each map or graphic illustration as to changes , deletions , or addi- tions . The changes are too numerous to cross reference by page and line in a written report. If you feel it would be meaningful , they are available for discussion. Recent changes in land-use laws have made necessary and desirable tightening up on the terminology and statements of policy in a General Plan. Mann recent General Plans have followed this policy . We are advised there is no restriction on the degree of speci.fi- city of a General Plan. In broad terms , if you can enforce a land- use regulation through zoning, you can enforce the same regulation through the medi,Lm of a General Plan. We have used the more modern and up-to-date approach by taking some of the undesirable zoning specifications out of the Palm Desert "Proposed" Zoning Ordinance and placed the restrictive terminology in the General Plan. By doing so developers know what to expect as the Zoning Ordinance must exactly follow the General Plan . There can be no misinterpretation of the vague and broad or non-specific terminology of the Palm Desert Adopted General Plan. Also the restrictions in a new General Plan will apply to all Palm Desert. Changes on the General Plan may still be made three times per year but the proof of desirability is on the developer . In our opinion this is what the people of Palm Desert desire and it should work no hardships on the City. We hope that the City will make these changes so that the revised General Plan can be adopted quickly. Respectively submitted , PALM DESERT REFERENDUM COMMITTEE By cc: Planning Commission Dave Bond , C airman Citizens Advisory Comm. INT K0111CHON TO CEINERAL PIA4 Paln hcscrt should continue to saintain its current image as a low profile residential community with business limited to that which is adequate to support the present City in its gradual and noi^aal growth. It. shoiuld be free from the cncroachment of developments and busir:esscs that destroy the ii.,mgc that: has ::lade Palin Descrt iuuique in its life style and "environment. Hxtreme care should be exercised in the choice of both v.,ords and charts to indicate to developers and land oi•.vaers that quality and uniqueness are the iqatc}mgrds of Palia Desert. If developers have developments that are compatible with these stmiclards they will. be welcomed with open arms even if it requires a change in the General Plan. z 1 I. SPHERE or I;]ri UI:NICG June 19 :1 ; Jul 1974 The area pro,osed should he included in the New General Plan. The recor7.iended Land Use (Pig. 1-3) which is a part of the General Plan, covering Vie Sphere of Influence, should be revised entirely and reclassified in compliance with the Riverside County General Plan and Zoning Map. Substantial changes in the Riverside County Plan could discourage property owners from seeking annexation to Palm Desert. Changes in dcveloiTnent standards prior to tim-! for annexation could influence property owners to seek new zoning classifications for their property. At that time the property owners desiring annexation could participate in a change of the general Plan satisfactory to the whole Coimunity. The General. Plan could then he amended to reflect the desired changes. The following' thins should he changed, deleted and re-written to be consistent with the changes in the Sphere of Influence data under June 1974 and July 1974. Range of services, projected population growth, estimated economic tlip acts, revenue projection,, expenditure projections, fiscal analysis., policy implications (no regional policies) , change in env ironaental factors. L'lirninate recommendations for future development of Ili-Rise Developments (40 to 50 ft. in height) , jurisdictional and develoth'ttent factors as per figure 3 following page 13 of July 1974 report and figure 5 covering land use proposals. PIuiCI----------- Page 15 Fwy. 111(Ihy. 74 to Intersection of la. Paseo f, buly. 111) Remove from 1st paragraph any reference to k-Mari: and future development of 2 story dept. store 150,000 sq. ft. and 320 residential units. Page 16 Remove all reference to large Hotels or ?lotels with meeting rcoms, etc. on Western find of Ih,.y. 111. Illustrative sight: flan figure 7 and other graphic illustrations tl-ru figure 11 should be revised or eliminated to comply with specifics in new proposed General Plan. Proposed traffic flow, ;tap 12 4 Map 12A, should be revised according to new density and other changes in the Ceneral Plan. Page 35 "Esti;aated Tax Increment Chart" at bottom of page revised to conform with Chan es and deletions to bring up to (late. Verbage in the Precise Plan should be chancled to confom, with stated intent of the neo: General Plan. a SUGGESTION'S ON NEW GENI'M PLAN Three revisions in the General Plan are allowed per year. The following regulations shall apply thereto: 1. During the months of .Tune, July, August and September of each year, no applications for changes shall be accepted, no hearings shall be hold, and no actions be taken on previously filed applications by the City Council, the Planning Commission, the City Staff, or any commission or committee appointed or formed for tine purpose of recommending or taking action on the General Plan. The number of voters and/or property owners who are away from Palm Desert during these months prevents proper public participation as required for changes in the General Plan. Z. No zone changes or variances on 5 or more units shall be processed or approved during the months of June, July, August and September of each year. Separate submission of 5 or less units in the same general area shall not be permitted and shall be considered as an attempt to evade the regulations. 3. The General Plan shall require, by Ordinance or otherwise, that proper public participation be assured on subdivisions, plot plans, tenative tract maps, final tract maps, zoning, variances and changes in the General Plan as follows: a. All hearings before the Planning Commission, the Archetectural Committee and the City Council shall be public. b. The agenda for each hearing shall be closed 14 days prior e to -the date of each hearing and at that time shall be posted for public review including mailings to civic groups who have so requested, in writing. Suggestions on New General Plan Page 2 e. Any recommendation that will be made by the City Staff at the hearing shall be available for public review at City hall at the time of publishing the Agenda. d. An appeal may be filed with the City on the recommendation or the approval made at any public hearing on sub-divisions; Plot Plans tenative tract maps, final tract maps, zoning variances and changes in the General Plan within 15 days of the date of the hearing by any of the following: (1) Any member of the City Council, Planning Commission or Archetectural Committee of the City. (2) Any property owner within 500 feet of property under ; consideration. (3) Any group of 10 or more citizens who feel their property would be adversely affected. (4) No final approval shall be granted until a public hearing has been held on the appeal. LA'dD USE 1. Residential Classifications Lose Vonsity - 3-5 du/ac Vcry Low Density - 1.-3 du/ac T1:c foll.rnaing zoning definitions shall apply: R-ps - Residential - previously sub-divided Lot size .less than 7209 square feet. C1no story max or 15` heic;lt. No lot: splittin;' R-1 - C?aac family dwellinE ^0 ft. - rain. frontage 3000 sq. ft. Min. lot size - 3-5 Units per acre, - single story. Max. 15` In hel^Jtt. Living area min. 1500 sq. ft. 11-1 C);le f^,',ily ("welling - 90 ft. min. frontage - 10,000 so. :.t. Min. lot size - max. of 4 units per acre - single story. ' Max. 15' in height. Living area min. 16SO sq. ft. -1+a nnC fvniiv duelli.t.^ - 150 ft. Min. frontage - 20,000 sq. ft. Nin. lot size - max. of 2 units per acre - living, area min. 2500 sq. Pt. . R-2 Multi faPllly dWcll.ims units - maxiravii of 5 units per :acre - one story max. of 15' in height. Eliminate all other residential classifications (R-3 etc.) No raw housing. No ca!,ercial or other non-residential units in residential areas. 2.. Commercial Classifications CPS - Scenic ilighway Canaercial located on both sides of Ilighvay 111 from the 1lcstcrn to the Eastern boundary of Palm Desert and on Highway 74 from highway 121 South. CP - located other than on a scenic highway. LAND USL Pace 2 No couaercial bldg. shall be more than two story with a max. height of 25 ft. 50% or more of the land shall be for parking and landscanin; . Hotels and Motels consistent with the low profile design Of Palm Desert may be located in the designated cuTwercial areas. No nex or used car automotive sales and service facilities. No otter ca:avrcial Use that wculd create UnSi);htly appearance or tuidesirable traffic or other adverse crrvirorunental conditions. Densities per acre - both reci.d yntial. and cormiercial. 1. Allovmd on a net basis after de('.uctin,; roachvays from the total acreage. 2. Deduct 40's of the acreage of a golf course fray the total acreage in figuring, densities. 3. Deduct GDP: of the acreage of tennis courts from the total acreage in figuring densities. LAND USE, Goal and Objectives 1-G-1 Eliminate next to last paragraph. (As printed would cause Urban High Density) Change last paragraph to read as follows: "Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for all residents." See "Basic Changes in the General Plan" that apply to land use. BASIC CiLLNGES iN TIIE GENERALPI/uti Eliminate all unnecessary words in all sections of the General Plan that have no specific purpose in giving direction to the future development and that are so broad or ambiguous as to be confusing. Simplify each statement so the intent is clear and understandable. Eliminate any statement or grafic illustrations that would create the impression that "Regional" developments of any nature were desired or permitted. Eliminate all statements or grafic illustrations that would permit "Planned Residential Areas" with residential, commercial and mixed uses (including non-residential units) in the same area. Eliminate separate "Village Type" areas with mixed uses. Continue to have Palm Desert as one city with residential and commercial separated from each other. Eliminate any reference to Industrial Areas in the Palm Desert area other than those shown on the Riverside County General Plan in the Sphere of Influence. Whenever the printed form or grafic exhibits are not conformative with the changes in the new General Plan, they shall be modified and/or eliminated. UP.it,1� l71;;iIC\ LLi;'fli\1' 2-H-2 -- "Neighborhoods'' Eliminate idea of 2; neighborhoods. All one city with separate areas of residential - commercial , etc. 2-B-4 -- "Problems" 1'he"city has not generally developed as a piecomeal wnq)osi.te." Areas are well defined for their individual and separate uses. 2-Cla -- Eliminate Districts , Neighborhoods , etc. 2-M) 2-C2c - Elininate Pcsidential \ci ;hbori)ool structure. 3. Population/Economics Element Ip. 3.G.1 Goals 1'A - Eliminate "Industr_ial" as applied to present city bowidarics I'g. 3.G.1 Obj ectiv�_s • P. 6- Change "Industrial" to ''GoijIDanrcial` . Pg, 3.B. 3, 3.8:9, 3.B.ID Industrial No industrial classification in present Pale Desert city limits Pg. 33.10, 33.10a , 3.8.11 hotels I'l;. 3. .10 _Y 1 - Eotels Reiaove "Convention' tyre hotels as a viable source of growth. Convention type hotels Ln P$Ilii S•prltings have not been a success and are Currently i.n financial difficulties. The activities of conventions are not in keeping with the image of Palm Desert. There are no factual predictions that could support success of this type of operation in Palm Desert as opposed to its failure in Pabn Springs. P.2 The statistics on hotels as presented do not indicate the most i.inportant factor - vacancy factor on an annual. basis. Currently many unsold and unoccimied condaai.niums are competing with the hotels. The uniqueness of Palm Desert should be maintained and should not be compared to .other cities lacking this quality. It would be desirable to have hotels with suitable facilities to serve the needs of Palm Desert, abut not to serve the desires of external exploitation. , Pg.B.11_ P_1 The description set forth here is predicated on 'Tourism" which would destroy the desired image of Palm Desert. P.2. - Proble^ls External fact.ors are the ones that will destroy the image of: Palm R-�sert. The many citizens who, for many years, have lu_rd to create ;u;d r.mintain the ilsaFc of Paba Desert should aJo,t tilt followirl� Giotto: "Il ycu like P31.111 Lescrt as it is - Welcom( - if yUil C01) ,t - 1;o SOC!e place else-." E'ie (10 not aave to Yield to external pressurc. r i, 3. PoPulat:icni./I.COI?enlic JACI-Iont 3,1'.1 kUI Acricntation POl.ie1CS' The Implci,ientation Policies riust be changed to comply with the Riverside General flan. 1. The new Sphere of Influence changes "Industrial" and various categories of cclimiercial and regional developments. 2. Pdany other items are not consistent with the Present or proposed future uevol.•opnejits in the corporate botmdaries of PaL;i llesert. H011S1NG EL1.MNT Objectives - Palm 1?esert is unique in its requirements for housing. 1. The % of low income families is low. a. Work is seasonable as many residents come and go from the desert during the year and especially in the months of June, July, August and September, b. Service industries such as electrical, plwnbing, television repair and service, receive wages nigher than average employees in average cities. c. Excessive employees would create social and economic problems during months of lowered business voluune. 2. Vacancies in the developments completed in the last three years is at an all time high. Smaller units are now available for rent on a monthly or yearly basis. 3. The demand for quality residential housing will continue for all economic ranges. 4. The type of work available in PaLn Desert is such that there is little or no demand for federal subsidized housing. To create this type of housing would brim, in people who could qualify for. occupancy for whicli there is no employment. It would be unfair to them and would create unnecessary problems for Palm Desert. 5. The figures quoted as to low income ($4000 to $8000) and moderate income ($3000 to $1s000) should be brought up to date as the figures quoted are from the 1970 census. MUSING FLL'M'\7 PACE: 2 6. The charts should be revised to reflect the vast changes in inco�,ie, demand for the better quality homes, the vacancies in the yes., attractive homes with fewer amenities and less quality. 7. The Housing Element section should be revised to reflect the changes in the Ceneral Plan rather than try to fill the needs of people who either do not exist in Palm Desert or who are so few in number they should not distort the plans for the future. 8. There are many areas of Palm Desert with smaller size and there- fore less expensive lots on which good quality homes can be built within the price range of the residents of PaLn I>esert. 4 UNVIRO NTEXI'AI, ITIPACI' REPORT' Young, lienric t, T'cCarthy, a rccopnized legal firm of experts in the effect of land developments on the latviroTanit, ea Dec. 16, 1974 issued a 9 page review of the Environmental Lapact Report: prepared by the Consultants for the Central Plat of Palm Uesert. Unfortunately the attorneys state "The hnvi.raunental Impact Report -Violates each of the secti.Gns of California Code on 1:nviratunent No. 15140 thru lS166." "Since the Environmental Impact Report is inadequate, the Gencral Plan (of Palm Desert) is open to attack by any land developer i:ho is not entirely pleased with what the General Plan does to his Property." The result could be a series of costly law suits and delays for the City. In spite of the adverse report from the experts, i:he Coixicil approved, without any changes, the Qvironcental. Intact Report. At the sane tv�e (June 20, 197S) they adopted the General Plan without any Changes. ie have been advised by other experts that the Environmental Report of Palm Desert is not legal and s.,ould be revised before the adoption of a now General. Plan. The Environmental Report is one of the most important and basic parts of a Gencral Plan. (See- Attorneys report attached) e 1 PIIGLIC FACILITII-S 1;11,PUW-f 7.1t,1 later - In so c areas of Palin Desert the water lines are not large enough to Provide the, proper gallons her minute for fire protection plus domestic use as gpecified in the Codc. Ihose should be kinediatcly brought tip to standard by installing near lines of proper d1nonsion. 7.13.1 Parks - '171e parks at the Middle School; off of Painters Path ; Indian 'lead; and one to be located near the City i ll complex -- are all the Parks needed or desired in the incorporated area of Palm !),sort? Not more than 5 du/ac in Pa La `.lesert will provi,Je a-ihlc outdoor areas is+mediately adjacent to dwelling units where they can best he used. Condo:ainium developd,u:nts should be required to provide ample space adjacent to each unit in addition to co!xmon ground for co�rauty use of swi);odng pools, barbeque areas and other aacMtics. Rnthe'r than to require developers to provide areas for public use, they should be required pore space .,it:hin their develop ejlt to nalce it unnecessary 'for then to go elsewhere. In cony developed areas of single Wily units as well as condomiiniiu, this has already been done. To establish additional parks ulhich must be maintained at considerable expense to the City is wasteful. The 4 parks are easily accessible to any resident of Pabn Desert. 'fhe s wording, charts and maps in the Public Facility Section of the General. Plan should be revised to comply wi.th these changes. c S - IIP.'LI �?1:MC/�1'30ti iiL:iPll:.^;I' The goals and ohjccti.ves will have to be revised to reflect the chajiges in the General. Plan. I �- co - 13C ? 7o • J6-t f CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMTSSION RESOLUTION NO. 47 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSI0N OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT RIiPORTING TO THE CITY COUNCIL, A RECOISIENDATION ON THE CO?lllENTS SU13I4ITTED BY THE REFERENDUM COMIMITTEE ON THE GENERAL PLAN. S WHEREAS, on March 27, the City Council referred the recommen- dations of the Referendum Committee to the Planning Commission for study and report; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, at the regularly scheduled .� meeting of April 14, did review the recommended changes by the Referendum Committee; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is of the opinion that none of the recommended changes have sufficient merit to require a General Plan amendment; and, WHEREAS, the Planning Commission is presently involved in reviewing the implementation tools of the General Plan such as 'the Zoning Ordinance, Zoning Map, Subdivision and Grading Grading Ordinances;and, WHEREAS, many of these suggested changes by the Referendum Committee really deal with these implementation tools. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission - 1 of the City of Palm Desert that it recommends the following to the City Council regarding the recommendations of the Referendum Committee- 1. That no General Plan amendment occur at this time regarding the suggestions of the Referendum Committee. 2. That the recommendations of the Referendum Committee be utilized by the Planning Commission and City Council in their development of the implementation tools to the General Plan. 1 - Z_ 3 3. If, as a result of the creation of these implementation ddd; tools a General Plan amendment is required to fine tune the General Plan as a result of this new information, the Referendum Committee's suggested changes will. be utilized as citizen input . PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED this 14th day of k,•ri1 4 } �. � 1975, by the following vote: AYES: BERKEY, MULLINS, SEIDLER, VAN DE MARK, WILSON NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: //. �� kJ .� o� . l�th SEI DliEl�, CflAi.ti�iAN ATTEST: '-UL WILLIAMS,, SECRETARY rd 1 iiii INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Paf m Desert TO: HONORABLE MAYOR & CITY COUNCILMEMBERS FROM: HARVEY L. HURLBURT, CITY MANAGER SU BJECT: General Plan Referendum DATE: April 15, 1975 I am forwarding herewith the planning staff evaluation of the Referendum Committee recommendations on General Plan revision and zoning ordinance revision. Also included is a copy of the Resolution passed by the City Planning Commission on Monday, stat- ing their opinion of the recommendations . In addition, I would like to present the following cost analysis : Attorney' s fees thru the month of March $ 362. 00 County charges for petition verification 174. 00 Fees to Wilsey & Ham and Attorney Joehnck approx. . 500. 00 Sub Total - Approximately $1036 . 00 Staff Time (approximate - up to and including 4/15/75) City Manager 160. 00 Director of Environmental Services 300. 00 Secretary 35. 00 Sub Total - Approximately 495. 00 TOTAL - Approximately $1031 . 00 In addition, the combination of City Council, Planning Commission, and Citizens Advisory Committee has spent a total of approximately 15 meeting hours . HLH/jt (04/10/75) STAFF REPORT TO: PLANNING COMMISSIONERS REPORT ON: EVALUATION OF THE REFERENDUM COMMITTEE'S SUBMITTAL OF DESIRED CHANGES IN THE GENERAL PLAN. BACKGROUND At the regularly scheduled meeting of March 27, the City Council received a list of the desired changes to the General Plan from the Palm Desert Referendum Committee totaling some 16 pages. The Council referred the request to the Planning Commission for a study and report. This Staff Report encompasses an evaluation of the submittal and recommended course of action for the Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION By Planning Commission Resolution No. 47 it is recommended that the Planning Commission report back to the City Council that the submitted document will be utilized by the Commission as a part of the Study Sessions on the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map and that the document will be considered as a part of the amendment of the General Plan which may be necessary as a result of the development of the implementation tools to the General Plan, particularly, the Zoning Ordinance and Zoning Map. Justification is based upon: 1. The recommendations of the Referendum Committee not only deal with the General Plan, but also deal with the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map, the Interim Core Area Plan and previous city Sphere of Influence studies. As the result, it is almost impossible to say that the Referendum Committee's concerns are with just the General Plan. 2. Since the submittal by the Referendum Committee is not a valid request for a General Plan amendment, the City can only consider it as additional citizen input to the various processes which are presently deemed completed. 3. There is little in the recommendations of the Referendum Committee that could be considered a specific change in the General Plan that has sufficient merit for the City to cause an amendment to the General Plan at this time. However, if as a part of the development of the General Plan implementation tools, newer information developed which brings to light some validity to the proposals of the Referendum Committee, the Committee's work will have had some validity as a catalyst for creating an intellectual environment in which concerns would have developed which may not have occurred without the Committee's actions. REVIEW OF THE REFERENDUM COMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATIONS Introduction: In order to adequately reference the comments made by the Referendum Committee to evaluate them, we have attached page numbers to the memorandum submitted. The following analysis of the comments made by the Referendum Committee results from input by both the City Staff and the General Plan consultants of the firm Wilsey & Ham, Inc. General: It is the opinion of everyone that the Referendum Committee shares a common desire of the community, which is to see Palm Desert as a fine community. The General Plan, as it presently exists, stresses this feeling. The recommended changes by the Committee, if they were made to the General Plan, would not cause the General Plan to improve this objective. In fact, if the General Plan were amended as requested by the Referendum Committee, the resulting plan would be incoherent, illegal, and not usable for the following reasons: Staff Report -2- 04/10/75 1. The memorandum submitted by the Referendum Committee indicates major differences of opinion with the City and in some cases with the General Plan guidelines of the California Council on inter-governmental relations which is utilized for the preparation of General Plans and more importantly, it conflicts with what is the role of a General Plan versus the Zoning Ordinance and other planning tools and documents. 2. The Referendum Committee has an apparent misunderstanding about what the General Plan actually says which seems to result in part from reading certain statements out of context. 3. The philosophy of the Referendum Committee about both the ends and the means of the General Plan are different from those expressed by the majority of the Citizen's Advisory Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council in adopting the Plan. 4. The Referendum Committee's suggested changes in some cases appear to be illegal in terms of what is explicitly suggested or implied. The following is a page by page comment on the suggested changes by the Referendum Committee and these comments will relate where appropriate to the four categories of suggestions contained in the Referendum Committee's report. No effort has been made to comment on every statement since many of them do not appear to relate to suggested General Plan or Zoning Ordinance changes, but simply are general statements. For example, page 13, item 3 "The demand for quality residential housing will continue for all economic ranges." While the City has attempted to communicate many of the thoughts that follow previously to the members of the Referendum Committee, it is hoped that stressing these principles at another time, or another way may be helpful in reaching more mutual understanding relative to the precise role of the General Plan and other related documents. COVERING LETTER - "We are advised there is no restriction on the degree of specificity of a General ,Plan. In broad terms, if you can enforce .a land use regulation through zoning, you can enforce the same regulation through the medium of a General Plan." - ". . .placed the restrictive terminology in the General Plan." - ". . .the Zoning Ordinance must exactly follow the General Plan." These three quotes indicate a difference of opinion with the Guidelines `or local General Plans of the California Council on Intergov rnmental Relations. In the section of the Guidelines called "The Zoning Ordinance and the General Plan -- An Approach to Determining Consistency" the Guidelines state: "The requirement that there be consistency between the zoning ordinance and the general plan emphasizes the importance of clearly defining the purpose and nature of the zoning ordinance as having immediate force and effect on each parcel of land and the general plan as a body of long range public policy. Although many general plans are becoming more comprehensive and at the same time more detailed, the plan is intended to provide a broad base of policy for guiding decisions. On the other hand, the zoning ordinance is a set of specific legal regulations which prescribe the various uses allowed within each zoning district in the jurisdiction. The range of uses allowed and the standards _ related to each district set forth in specific detail and are controlling until changed`through amendment procedures. Staff Report -3- 04/10/75 For this reason, there will be differences between the zoning map and the general plan. The zoning r- p indicates the location and extent of zoning districts as applied, whereas the general plan indicates the general extent of use areas and relationships between those areas." These Guidelines suggest: 1 . There should be differences in the nature of a General Plan (long range) and a Zoning Ordinance (immediate effect) ; 2. There will be differences between the zoning map and the General Plan map. The time scale and level of specificity relationships between the General Plan and its implementation tools, including the Zoning Ordinance, are discussed in the Implementation Element of the General Plan in re- lationship to Figure 8-1 . Pace 1 - "Palm Desert should continue to maintain its current image as a low profile residential community with business limited to that which is adequate to support the present City in its gradual and normal growth." The "normal" growth of Palm Desert, as indicated in Figure 3-1 of the Population/Economics Element, has been far from "gradual" with a 377% increase in the 60-70 decade. Market demand is a basic determinant of growth. Public policy can regulate or manage growth for valid environmental and health, safety, welfare purposes. -The General Plan stresses managed growth and the Zoning Ordinance contains provisions such as overlay zones and review procedures designed to achieve that end. Other comments on page 1 relate to Palm Desert's "image as a low profile residential community." From our listening to participants in the General Plan process it seems that the image of Palm Desert means many things to different people. To merchants along E1 Paseo Palm Desert is at least partially an office and commercial complex serving both residents and people outside the City. To the supporters of the Cultural Center, to educators at the College of the Desert and to other insititutions such as the Living Desert Reserve, it also has roles which are regional or valley-wide in nature. Other examples could be cited about the variety of viewpoints that make up Palm Desert's "image" in a variety of eyes. Certainly, the Urban Design and the Conservation and Open Space elements stress preservation of the sand dunes, date palms, desert areas, hillsides, drainage ways, etc, , that create the natural beauty and distinctiveness of Palm Desert. Finally, the proposed pattern .of residential land uses is "low profile" -- although not limited to 15 feet in height in every area. Staff Report -4- 04/10/75 Page 2 The discussion of the Sphere of Influence Report suggests that the Sphere of Influence be modified in relation to the General Plan. This suggestion indicates a lack of understanding of the purposes and history of the Sphere of Influence planning effort. The Sphere of Influence Report was developed in response to the request of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) which, in turn, was receiving requests from adjacent cities to resolve the Sphere of Influence question. In order to define the Sphere of Influence a series of analyses were under- taken. Among the analyses were preliminary land use plans developed for the purpose of defining estimated cost/revenue impacts of the proposed Sphere. With the recent decision of the LAFCO regarding the Sphere of Influence, that study has fulfilled- its purpose. The staff of the LAFCO agreed with the City's recommendations but the western boundaries were modified, in response to considerations felt to be compelling enough to override the staff recommendations by the LAFCO members. The suggested City Sphere of Influence was used in the General Plan as the Planning Area: Cities are free to define planning areas for their general plans which overlap other jurisdictions. Therefore, there is no legal or planning requirement that the City change its Planning Area to make it identical with its Sphere of Influence. Though the City, at some future time, should refine its cost/revenue projections in response to the availability of more historic data relating to Palm Desert, there is no point now in changing the Sphere of. Influence report for the basic decisions related to that report have been made. Page - "Remove from 1st paragraph any reference to K-Mart and future development of 2 story department store 150,000 sq. ft. and 320 residential units." Again the historical context of the Highway 111 study needs to be understood by the Referendum Committee. This study was undertaken prior to most of the planning for the entire General. Plan area. Its purpose was to develop preliminary guidelines for land uses and circu- lation improvements in the downtown area in response to immediate development pressures and problems. The analysis of existing develop- ment patterns simply mentioned K-Mart as a statement of fact for at the time of the original Core Area planning it was a proposal and has since become an approved plan. The precise plan referred to is assumed to be the same as the City's adopted Interim Core Area Plan. "Remove all reference to large Hotels or Motels with meeting rooms, etc. on Western End of Highway Ill ." - • Both the Interim Core Area Plan and the General Plan refer to the addition of hotel/motel units designed not to serve conventions but primarily residents and their visitors. "Hotel/Motel development along Highway ill is envisioned to be low-rise in character, possibly some cottages, with meeting, banquet and eating facilities," (page 16, Interim Core Area Plan; page 3.B.11, General Plan) . Page 16 of the Interim Core Area Plan and page 3.6.11 of the General Plan further stress that hotel/motel facilities should be oriented towards the needs of local residents and their visiting friends and to the existing character of Palm Desert. An earlier City Information Sheet indicated tha existing ratio of hotel/motel rooms to residents will be maintained. Pa 4 and 5 These pages contain a number of suggestions' which are legally questionable. While some of these suggestions may be matters of City policy, the majority have clear legal implications that should be reviewed by the City Attorney. Staff Report -5- 04/10/75 Page 6 and 7 The suggestions indicate that the General Plan incorporate many statements which more appropriately belong within the Zoning Ordinance. The General Plan is a guideline for development whereas the Zoning Ordinance is one of the specific tools utilized to implement the recommendations of the General Plan. While there is admittedly a requirement that the General Plan and Zoning Ordinance be consistent with each other, the Plan is a long term instrument which indicates the final objectives and the Zoning Ordinance is short range and immediate. It is therefore thought that the Plan should include only the broader land use categories whereas the Zoning Ordinance should incorporate the specifics with regard to use designation and development standards. The following comments, therefore address themselves to the proposed Zoning Ordinance. 1. Zoning Districts Suggestion is that there be only two density classifications: Very low density (1-3 du/acre) and low density (3-5 du/acre) . These density classifications conform to the General Plan proposals although the Plan also allows medium (5-7 du/acre) and high density (7-18 du) . The additional densities have been included in the Zoning Ordinance to implement the proposals of the Plan since a need for a range of densities, price ranges and residential unit types is considered important for the future development of Palm. Oesert. 2. Comments on Use Classifications R - ps (Residential - previously subdivided) : The Zoning Ordinance does not include this classification since it is not considered a necessary distinction but would properly come under one of the proposed zoning districts. The height requirement of 15 feet is not considered appropriate since the intent of the Ordinance is to, in certain districts, allow two- story residential structures. The no lot splitting suggestion is not considered appropriate since some lots previously subdivided may be of such size that lot splitting could be allowed. R_1 (One family dwelling), This su ested district corresponds to the Ordinance's Residential- 88 Single Family district with the exception of one story limit. This limit is not considered appropriate for the same reason mentioned earlier. ' P,-l* and R-1--` (One family dwelling districts of 10,000 and 20,000 square feet minimums) : These district size distinctions can actually _ be incorporated by the Council since the proposed Zoning Ordinance allows the Council to set higher lot sizes than the minimum at their discretion. R-2 (Multi-family dwelling units) : As noted earlier, the Zoning Ordinance reflects the General Plan' s concept of allowing a higher density than 5 units to the acre because it is believed that such densities are neces- sary to provide the range of residential developments needed in Palm Desert. Commercial Classifications: Suggestions are made for two commercial districts (CPS and CP) with only a distinction made for scenic highway considerations. The proposed ordinance has a scenic highway overlay district which would accomplish the intent noted above. The proposed ordinance has three basic districts - General commercial , office commercial and planned commercial complex. These districts are considered appropriate In order to develop distinct commercial use entities in the community which will enhance the character of the commercial .development. The suggested building height limits are lower than those provided in the Zoning Ordinance which are considered appropriate for the type of commercial uses anticipated in Palm Desert. The Ordinance restrictions are "low profile" as we interpret the words. The question is, haw low is low I Staff Report -6- 04/10/75 The suggestion that 50% of the land be in parking and landscaping is considered too general , statement and the proposed Zoning Ordinance more adequately covers these areas in its development standards. The proposed Zoning Ordinance allows hotels and motels in its General commercial district and the restrictions to be imposed through the Ordinance's development standards will assure they be of "low profile design". The proposed Zoning Ordinance allows automobile sales and services in Industrial Districts because it is thought that they can be developed in a manner which will keep them from creating an "unsightly appearance or undesirable traffice or other adverse environmental conditions." 3. Comments on Densities Per Acre Proposed Zoning Ordinance calculates densities on a gross acre basis rather than on a net acre basis in order to give the City and the devel- oper the greatest flexibility in developing appropriate land use patterns. It is not considered necessary to reduce the acreage calculation because of golf course or tennis court development since developers are required to include recreational uses in their planned developments and should not be hindered in terms of density for providing recreational uses. Page 8 - It is suggested that the objective "minimize premature p-_blic costs through development of a compact nonsprawling land use pattern" be eliminated because it would "cause Urban High Density." . This objecti.ve, in our opinion, should not be removed because it relates to the goal of keeping City costs and revenues in balance over time. A compact nonsprawling land use pattern can be achieved regardless of what density development occurs at. The concept does not deal with density per se but rather with avoiding leapfrog or non-contiguous development which creates a high ratio of public utility and service costs for existing residents. - "Change last paragraph to read as follows: 'Maintain the character of Palm Desert and create the best possible living environment for all residents." Adding the .word "all" to the last objective on page 1 .G. 1 certainly appears to be an acceptable suggestion. The suggestions to eliminate unnecessary words to clarify ambiguous statements, etc. , should be supported by specific recommendations. Page 9 - "Eliminate idea of 25 neighborhoods. All one city with separate areas of residential - commercial , etc." The Urban Design structure suggests means for developing a one-City image which includes the concept of well related neighborhoods as one of those means. Therefore, the suggestion of the General Plan to develop a City of Neighborhoods does not mean that Palm Desert cannot also have the unity of being one City. As the City grows it will be useful to have subareas with which people can identify in addition to their identification with the overall City. - "The City has not generally developed as a piecemeal composite." • While certain subareas of the existing City have been developed with unified plans there has not been an overall plan for the City. In this sense, the City has developed to date, as a series of piecemeal composites. This is not to suggest that some of the . individual pieces are unattractive, but rather that there was a problem in not having an overall plan. Staff Report -7- 04/10/75 - "Eliminate districts, neighborhoods, etc." • The urban design section describes natural districts which exist. These districts, defined by common characteristics such as hills or kinds of desert areas, cannot be eliminated. Therefore, a concept of the Urban Design element is to build upon the positive qualities of the districts as they are defined by .a combination of natural and man-made factors. The concept of both districts and neighborhoods is suggested in order to provide the City with a structure which has both an overall unity yet a diversity of parts so it will possess the aesthetic qualities inherent in good art and function - diversity within unity. Page 10 - "Eliminate ' Industrial '. as applied to present city boundaries." No industrial uses are shown within the present City boundaries. Industrial uses shown in the Planning Area were included for consider- ations relating to both cost/revenue projections for the future economic viability of the City because industrial uses were felt to be the most appropriate use in relation to the noise problems associated with the Interstate Freeway and adjacent railroad lines, and to develop a balanced City in terms of employment opportunities and availability of goods and services. - "Change ' Industrial ' to 'Commercial ' ." Rather than change the word "industrial" to "commercial", it might be more appropriate to add the words "and commercial ." - "Remove convention type hotels as a viable source of growth." Convention type hotels are not recommended in the General Plan. - "It would be desirable to have hotels and similar facilities for certain needs of Palm Desert, but not to-serve the desires of external exploitation." This is what the General Plan suggests on page 3.B. 11: "hotel development along Highway ill should be low-rise in character, possibly some cottages, eating/banquet facilities. Recreational amenities such as swimming pools and tennis courts should be a part of the development. Well planned hotel development can provide an attractive entrance to Palm Desert; maintain the present community feel , without becoming tourist oriented; allow existing.hotel units to achieve present occupancies; provide for executive seminars, local meetings, as well as provide accommodations for friends visiting Palm Desert residents; and provide eating and drinking facilities for local residents." - "The description set forth here is predicated on 'Tourism' which would destroy the image of Palm Desert." • This statement is not true. (See background section of Population/ Economics element of the General Plan.) Page 11 - "If you like Palm Desert as it is - welcome - if you don't - go someplace else." "We do not have to yield to external pressure." . The General Plan does not propose to yield to external pressure but rather to recognize the realities that development pressures do exist because of vacant land and Palm Desert's central , accessible geographic location within the Coachella Valley. The General Plan and Zoning Ordinance outline means for managing these growth pressures in a way intended to have positive benefits for the City. It is pointed out that arbitrarily restricting growth has been ruled illegal . Page 12 - "The implementation policies must be changed to comply with the Riverside General Plan." Staff Report -8- 04/10/75 Palm Desert, by law, is free to adopt its aan General Plan recommendations for both the incorporated City and the Planning Area. Similarly, the City is free to adopt its own categories of commercial or any other land uses. - "Many other items are not consistent with the present or proposed future developments and corporate boundaries of Palm Desert." This statement cannot be commented upon apart from specific references. Page 13 and 14 These two pages contain a number of general statements which do not relate to suggested changes for the General Plan. They also contain suggestions that lower income housing is not needed in Palm Desert. While figure 3-5 in the Population/Economics element indicates that Palm Desert has a somewhat lower percentage of laver income families than Coachella Valley or Riverside County, the number is still significant. Similarly, to suggest that there is not employment for lower income families in Palm Desert is not accurate. Figure 3-9 in the Population/Economics element indicates that Palm Desert has a spectrum of occupations that could be reflected in a broad range . of housing types and price ranges. Other comments related to the Housing Element indicate a reluctance to acknowledge that lower income people either exist at present or should be provided for in future plans for the City. To -ignore this present and future need and to incorporate the kinds of statements contained in this memo in the General Plan would probably violate the legal requirements of a Housing Element and negate the City's pzIrticipation in receipt of Block Grant monies within the provisions of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974. . Page 15 Our response to the letter from Young, Henry and McCarthy regarding the Environmental Impact Report is contained in the Staff Report on the General Plan. Page 16 "In some areas of the Palm Desert the water lines are not large enough to provide the proper gallons per minute. . ." • The General Plan policies do provide that domestic and fire protection requirements be met. The Subdivision Ordinance, rather than a General Plan is the place to deal with gallons per minute. • The comments also suggest that more public parks are not needed and that recreational needs should be met solely by private developments. The General Plan suggests an approach of having both public and private recreational facilities in the City. For example, page 7.3.2 does provide a policy which allaas neighborhood parks to be privately owned and maintained. However, the provision of private parks does not eliminate the need to have some public parks which can offer larger specialized facilities than those available in private parks and can provide recreational opportunities for residents whose means may not allow purchase or rental of developments containing elaborate recrea- tional facilities. Page 1 - "The goals and objectives will have to be revised to reflect the changes in the General Plan." • Since the Implementation element does not contain goals and objectives, it must be assumed that the reference here is to the goals and objectives contained in other sections. Staff Report -9- 04/10/75 SUMMARY The Referendum Committee's recommendations on the General Plan seems to result from a lack of understanding of what precisely is the purpose of the General Plan concept and the role of the implementation tools of the General Plan. More importantly the recommended changes fail to recognize the existing overall character of the community. Finally, the recommended changes appear to be an overreaction to all the actions taken thus far by the City in the area of planning. The Referendum Committee will find that as the City proceeds to the adoption of the various implementation tools to the General Plan, that many of the concerns that they have "will be overcome." The one area that has not been commented on which the Referendum Committee has suggested, deals with the planning processing procedure utilized by the City. In essence, they indicate that no projects should be processed during the four month period of the year since a number of citizens are not in the community during that time period. Based upon the best estimates we could receive from the Postal Service, approximately 20% of the populous leave during this four month period for an extended stay. The question then becomes is this the sufficient amount of populous to require the City to close down its planning activities for a four month period, particularly since this specific period is the time of which many developments are submitted so that all the planning approvals could be obtained to begin construction for the next sales season. To close down the planning process for four months would add substantial lead time to the processing of these projects. At this time, it does not appear reasonable, in Staff's opinion, to implement such a procedure. -�� }? l . t .t ! jr- l'rfr,./•^ rl O �i),f I : ch• n•": J:,�:t �C1rni - 13 r `.t,/• It PROPO:i'?.D CHANGES TO THE GE,s'SR L PLAN Note : There mro suppectcd policies. Precise langun.Lu to be drafted if there is uErcemcnt in principle. ADD TO THE GE:(ORAL PLAN: 1. Residential - Two classifications, i to 3 and 3 to 5 per acre with one story construction not to exceed 15 fact in height. No reduction in lot size for currently subdivided residential lots. 2. Commercial - Hotels and Motels ---located along Highway Ill (including area from Monterey to 44th avenue), E1 Pasco, and other areas adjacent thereto presently ;zoned commercial. a. Two story not to exceed 25 feet in height. b. Proper buffer area between residential and commercial. 3. No city agency shall process or approve any subdivision, plot plan, variance, zone change, or change in General Plan in the months of June, July, August or September of each year. 4. Bearings before the Planning Commission and/or the City Council on subdivisions, plot plans, variances, zone changes, or changes in the General Plan small be Public with public participation through documentation or oral presentation. Agenda for meetings dealing with land use shall be available 14 calendar days prior to hearing. 5. Motels and hotels shall not be larger than 100 rooms and with meeting and dining facilities to accomodste not more than 300 pebple. 6. No non-residential activities of any kind will be permitted in residential areas. 7. No regional shopping centers. DELETE FROM THE GENERAL PLAN: 1. All reference to subsidized housing. 2. Change the classification and zoning in the °Sphere of Influence° to comply with Riverside County classification. 3. Remove all reference to Village Types, 25 Neighborhood and Planned Residential Districts. 1 H O O O � x P rG O O O O O O O F. O O O t+7 Y 0 CQ tCy LA7rt z n cn H H [i7 ro Cal w H G td H 'Tl r H. m H pr r G O H. • ' x G C m in G• P `4 G' O w 0 m m a m b v m w m r m �b 0 m H 00 a w r K P = m cn to P rt x m r m r' m m H. 14 m m ro in rt b m 0 a ri is m �J m w m m rr G m m ID H £ m m cn m rt hA H' :r rt V M rt m 0 M H. ri M m O H. h'• �3' m m m In 'U 4&4 hi w w %< m rt G 9 G A) rt Ft m m r-' G ,ro r B WI-4 'O ao rt w m G t" p w r' ti O H. Ft O O tt G G olw rt Cl 1.4 G O O M O U] N• rt P- m £ r 'Tl G `C w ro C H M r• G rt ro N• com F'• P• M rt m O w 5 w w r En - t1 r r tt w M 'r Eg ro rr r ',7 w ro 0L m rt r; m (D U) ,31 n rt `J 0 w ro 4 > ro H. m ° am d m m O r• m aw G z Oo rt rt ti F. m n w P. F ' a b g fD H m m .r ,31 m a, m :J H. n z rt x z d m m m P. m G On rt m m z m U N. n I m rt r O m m rt :31 0 O P• m In m n n = m 9 tt m m w m H m - cn m 0 o m w =m m n v m m O i 5 n rt r m m r� m rt � C ro G G r• �r O ro W rt w ro p p r O r ti _ ro °• £ rt t" M H N• F'• Q. O w w m r m r'- U O rt rt ti r G 4 w w r' H. t" ro 14 14 m oa G tt �j z n l--' M ro Z$ 1 ti H• m m d F'• m cal ro ro - W m m m m rt d rt tzl twt N m H P• W m W � C7 'C m N H bp m (D N ~o rn P o • n ro il OD N P' rt P � H. rt [ rrr z i U1 cn m U rt w m 014 i O O M P• QG m F' rt r O [%7 [ro=1 H wt m O r P m H t7 ty P•rt 0 rt o m d a m � tC 6 O G m can w rt o n x m G rM z r °o °H. p ro tmi r � t~t m w� t" rt O 0. ° � w rt tt OD �3 m Referendum Committee of Palm Desert P. 0. Box 444 , Palm Desert ,. California 92260 TEN REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE "NO" ON THE GENERAL PLAN JULY BT.H VOTE "NO" Against possibly 90 , 000 people residing in Palm Desert . VOTE "NO" Against extravagance in Palm Desert City Government . Present budget $1 . 3 million and more each year thereafter . VOTE "NO" Against increasing our population above our water supply. It ' s decreasing now. No one knows what the future holds . VOTE "NO" Against buildings five, six, or more stories in height . VOTE "NO" Against 18 living units per acre. Should not be more than five. VOTE "NO" Against large commercial centers that would create traffic , pollution and police pro.blems. and destroy the character of our community. VOTE "NO" Against changing the present qualities which have made Palm Desert a comfortable, friendly place in which to live. VOTE "NO" Against "fast buck" operators who would be in and out and gone , leaving us to live with their actions . VOTE "NO" Against increased taxes that are sure to follow a city . government dedicated .to unlimited growth. VOTE "NO" Against a city government which has proven itself to be unresponsive to the wishes of its citizens .. VOTE "NO" AGAINST APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN ON JULY 8TH If a "yes" vote carries , your property values will be in danger and much of the enjoyment of living in Palm Desert will be lost . Don ' t let it happen . Referendum Committee of . m Desert V £ >0 -7� P.O. Box 444, Palm Desert, California 92260 r, TEN REASONS WHY YOU SHOULD VOTE "NO" ON THE GENERAL PLAN TULY 8TH VOTE "NO . . . Against pos^siblMy, 9il0,, 000 people residing in Palm Desert VOTE "NO" . . . Against extravagance in Palm Desert City. Government. Present budget $1 . 3 million and more each year thereafter. VOTE "NO" . . . Against increasing our population above our water supply. It's decreasing now. No one knows what the future holds . VOTE "NO" . . . Against buildings five, six, or more stories in height. VOTE "NO" . . . Against 18 living units per acre. Should not be more than five. VOTE "NO" . Against large commercial centers that would create traffic, pollution and police problems , and destroy the character of our community. VOTE "NO" . Against changing the present qualities which have made Palm Desert a comfortable, friendly place in which to live. VOTE "NO" . Against "fast buck" operators who would be in and out and gone, leaving us to live with their actions. VOTE "NO" . Against increased taxes that are sure to follow a city government dedicated to unlimited growth. VOTE "NO" . Against a city government which has proven itself to be unresponsive to the wishes of its citizens . VOTE "NO" AGAINST APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN ON TULY 8TH If a "yes" vote carries, your property values will be in danger and much of the enjoyment of living in Palm Desert will be lost. Don't let it happen. STATEMENT OF EFFECT OF PROPOSITION PURSUANT TO SECTION 5010. 5 .0F THE ELECTIONS CODE. -TiTe"fol�owi-ng"ana-�ys- d—a�nd �_ ed�t�� A "YES" vote on the proposition by a majority of those persons voting at the election on July 8, 1975, shall cause the General Plan of the City of Palm Desert to become effective on the date provided in the Elections Code of the State of California. The City will have complied then with the requirements of the Government Code regarding the adoption of a General Plan. A "NO" vote on the proposition by a majority of those voting will cause the General Plan to be rescinded and, by the judg- ment of the Superior Court in Indio, bring back into effect the County General Plan (Cove Communities General Plan) , which was in effect prior to incorporation of the City of Palm Desert . The City will further be required to rebi ' 1 t e General Plan , redo the Environmental Impact Reports � o a time consuming and expensive procedures necessary for the adoption of soh new General Plan . i FACT SHEET REVIEW OF LETTER SENT BY REFERENDUM COMMITTEE WITH ABSENTEE BALLOT APPLICATIONS. IF IT IS THE CITY'S INTENTION TO ADOPT STRICT RESTRICTIONS, WHY ARE THEY REFUSING TO PUT THESE CONTROLS IN THE GENERAL PLAN? Because the General Plan is not the appropriate place for these specifics, it is the Zoning Ordinance that should have the specific controls. The Referendum Committee has indicated on many occasions, that the General Plan is a constitution. Anyone familiar with any constitution knows that they are not specific, but deal with general concepts and goals. DOES THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN ALLOW 18 RESIDENTIAL UNITS PER ACRE - UP TO 30` IN HEIGHT AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS UP TO 40-50' OR EVEN MORE? The adopted General Plan indicates three areas where high density, 7-18 units/acre is allowed. The General Plan does not specify buildings of up to 30' in height in residential areas and commercial buildings up to 40-50' . It is the Zoning Ordi- nance that establishes the maximum permitted height. CAN THESE DENSITIES AND HEIGHTS BE PLACED IN ANY AREA AS LONG AS THEY ARE PERMITTED BY THE GENERAL PLAN? High density locations are severely limited in the General Plan. Contrary to the Referendum Committee's statement, they cannot be placed in just any area by the General Plan. SHOULD THE CITIZENS INSIST THAT THE GENERAL PLAN INCLUDE THE DESIRED CONTROLS ON DENSITY, HEIGHT, ETC.? The General Plan does specifically control density and requires that height be limited from the standpoint of protecting the existing view of the City. There- fore, a no vote is not necessary to obtain these changes in the General Plan. WILL THE CITIZENS OF PALM DESERT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY ON JULY 8 TO DECIDE WHAT TYPE OF COMMUNITY WE WILL HAVE TO LIVE IN? No. The election will merely determine whether the City is to be run by your elected representative, the City Council, or whether it will be run by a self- appointed splinter group. WHY DOESN'T THE GENERAL PLAN LIMIT DENSITY TO 5 UNITS/ACRE ON ANY PROPERTY IN PALM DESERT? The existing development in the present Palm Desert ranges in density from 1-46 units/acre. The Citizens' Advisory Committee of the City of Palm Desert, the Planning Commission and the City Council felt that there were existing areas in the city of higher than 5 units/acre which have vacant lots virtually surrounded by apartments. Therefore, to allow these lots to develop at 5 units/acre would not be compatible to the existing development. SHOULD THE GENERAL PLAN LIMIT BUILDING HEIGHTS TO ONE STORY, 15, IN HEIGHT, IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS? No. The General Plan should state as it presently does that one of the major concerns of the citizens of Palm Desert to the preservation of the existing views of the mountains and valley floor which make up the character of Palm Desert. It is through the Zoning Ordinance that specific heights are established with the additional requirements that even the maximum permitted heights may be reduced if they affect views. SHOULD THE GENERAL PLAN SAY THAT NO NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING BE ALLOWED IN RESI- DENTIAL AREAS? No. It is the Zoning Ordinance that clarifies the character of each of the residential zones. i FACT SHEET Page 2. SHOULD THE GENERAL PLAN LIMIT COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS TO TWO STORIES AND 25' ; NOT 40-50' ? No. These restrictions should be placed in the Zoning Ordinance; and the pre- liminary Zoning Ordinance now specifies a maximum of two stories or 30' in height, whichever is less, for commercial buildings. SHOULD THE GENERAL PLAN SAY NO LAND USE .CHANGES BE PERMITTED DURING THE SUMMER WHEN PEOPLE ARE AWAY? No. It is not proper to disenfranchise the approximate 10,000 people who remain in the community during the summer for the benefit of the approximate 4,000 people who leave during the summer. SHOULD THE GENERAL PLAN PROHIBIT ANY UNSIGHTLY USES? Yes. The General Plan attempts to restrict uses for the sole purpose of pro- hibiting unsightly uses. DOES THE ADOPTED GENERAL PLAN PROVIDE FOR A WELL PLANNED COMMUNITY WHERE PEOPLE ARE PROUD TO LIVE, WORK AND PLAY? Yes. The General Plan represents a composite of the desires of all the citizens of Palm Desert and its main emphasis is the preservation of the character of Palm Desert. IS PALM DESERT A TRADE CENTER? Yes. The existing businesses in Palm Desert serve residents of La Quints, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage, and adjacent unincorporated areas. IS PALM DESERT A TRANSPORTATION, MANUFACTURING, AND AGRICULTURAL CENTER? No. The adopted General Plan does not propose it to be any of these things. IS PALM DESERT A RESORT CENTER? No. It does not have the number of hotel rooms that Palm Springs has of 7,000 rooms;and the General Plan does not propose to make it a resort center. IS PALM DESERT A RECREATION AND RETIREMENT CENTER? Yes. For certain portions of the citizens in the community, the City serves these functions. For other portions of the community, it is a place to live and to work. IS PALM DESERT A SEASONAL COMMUNITY? No. At one time, Palm Desert was a seasonal community. Today, that role has changed with over 70% of the citizens living in Palm Desert year round. DID THE REFERENDUM COMMITTEE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS TO THE CITY COUNCIL; AND WERE ANY OF THEIR SUGGESTIONS ACCEPTED? . Yes. Various members of the Referendum Committee were on the Citizens' Advisory Committee which developed the General Plan. Also, they were normally represented and spoke at the it public meetings and hearings conducted for the General Plan. They expressed their views repeatedly and ardently. Many of their suggested changes were included in the General Plan by the Citizens' Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission and the City Council. Those changes suggested by the Referendum Committee which did not reflect the total character of Palm Desert were not accepted for that logical reason. tz-5�s vy76- s - — I,t C#14jr.L 4175 ate- Yam - PALM DIESERT BOOSTERS COMMITTEE STEERING COMMITTEE ]Marren Bailey 346-1090 C. Robert Hubbard 328-0529 Edward Benson 346-8131/4019 Nelson Mills 346-8453 James Harmon 346-1181 Donald Shayler 346-6165 CO-CHAIRMEN EXECUTIVE SECRETARY Anthony Kane 346-3271 Gray Minor W. J. MacFadyen 346-8453/9769 346-6677 Office Rowland Sweet 346-9401 346-4620 Residence TREASURER SECRETARY Joseph LaLiberte 346-3212 Laurette Aubry 346-0819 BOOSTERS Ralph E. Adams - Sandpiper Anthony Kane Chairman Richard W. Kite Ben Barnum Rheo Lawman, Fund Raiser - R.E. Robin Barrett Richard Little Rod Bartow W. J. MacFadyen Ben Bear Don McNeilly - Information, Co- Edward Benson - Governmental Chairman Relations Rev. Dean W. Miller Caroline Berkey Nelson Mills George V. Berkey Gray Minor Rev. Daryl Bjerke James Moir Wally DeFever Betty Munday Graham C. Dexter Ted Munday Gregory Finn Tedd B . Palmer John Finn George J. Ritter - Speakers Phyllis Gorman Chairman James Harman - Community Don Shayler Relations Chairman George H. Smith Bill Hobbs - Retail Business Hugh J. Stratton Chairman Rowland F. Sweet Wm. II. Holabird Wayne W. Weber Michael Ilomme - Construction Chairman r