HomeMy WebLinkAboutGeneral Plan Ltrs & Stf Reports 1975 s.;4•`
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM RECEIVED
City of Palm Desert J U N 18 1975
eNvAto MMA SMVKZS
TO: Paul Williams CVfV 3F PALM OMM
FROM: Dave Erwin
SUBJECT: CIR Limits Extensions of Time DATE: June 17 , 1975
For your information, I am enclosing a copy of
a portion of the League of California Cities newsletter
dealing with subject entitled "CIR Limits Extensions of
Time for General Plan Element Preparation. "
Youxs"`very truly,
DAVI D J. E RWIN
DJE/ml
Encl.
w
yew
subjects of general interest to local government officials; to provide
technical assistance to local agencies; and to provide an expanded program
of training opportunities through labor relations seminars. Mr. Bell, who
has had considerable academic and practical experience in the labor rela-
tions field, will operate out of an office in the llth and L Building in
Sacramento and will be available for consultation on matters within the
scope of the new service program by contacting the Leagues Sacramento
office.
c. CIR Limits Extensions of Time for General Plan Element Preparation
We again call your attention to the fact that CIR, by unanimous action at
its April meeting, voted that no further extensions of time be granted
under Government Code section 65302.2 beyond September 30, 1975. Section
65302.2 authorizes CIR, in cases of extreme hardship, to extend the date
for local adoption of seismic safety, noise, scenic highway and safety
elements of general plans beyond the required adoption date of September
30, 1974. As a result of this action, no further extensions can be ex-
pected to be obtained from CIR.
Carlyn F. Reid
Senior Staff Attorney
CFR:pc
-7- 6/2/75
ADJOURNED CITY COUNCIL MEETING
JANUARY 20, 1975
PALM DESERT MIDDLE SCHOOL
I. CALL TO ORDER
II . PLEDGE
III . INVOCATION
IV. ROLL CALL
V. PUBLIC HEARINGS
A. Continued Case GENERAL PLAN EIR - Consideration of
the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on the
Palm Desert General Plan, December 1974.
Rec : Certify as being complete.
Action:
B. Continued Case PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN, DECEMBER
1974 - Consideration of the first General Plan
prepared for Palm Desert, covering a planning
area of approximately 82 square miles and extend-
ing from approximately Interstate 10 on the north
to the San Bernardino National Forest on the
south and Bob Hope Drive on the west to Washington
Street on the east.
Rec : Approval by City Council Resolution No . 75-2
Action:
VI . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Any person wishing to discuss any item not otherwise
on the agenda may address the City Council at this
point by stepping to the podium and giving their
name and address for the record. Remarks shall be
limited to a maximum of five (5) minutes unless
additional time is authorized by the City Council.
VII . REPORTS & REMARKS
A. City Manager
B. City Attorney
C. Mayor & City Council
VIII . ADJOURNMENT
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT #2
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
SUBJECT: Supplemental Report on Final Environmental Impact
Report and General Plan
I. INTRODUCTION: This report is being forwarded to the City
Counci in preparation for the continued public hearing
on the final E. I .R. and General Plan scheduled for January
29 , 1975 . This report should be considered a supplement
to the two previous reports on the General Plan and E . I .R.
which have been included in the packets for your review.
The actual General Plan and E . I .R. document should be
brought to the meeting.
A. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Agenda Packet
Item Subject
C - Supplemental Report on Final E . I .R.
D - Staff Recommendation on Final E . I .R.
E - Documents Related to Final E . I .R.
Letter from Ed Peck and Wallace Barrett
Letter from T.P . Burrell
Memo from Wilsey & Ham Inc .
F - Report on Planning Commission Recommendations
on items referred back to City Council
G - Original Staff Report on items referred
back to Planning Commission
H - Staff Recommendation on General Plan
I-J - Proposed City Council Resolution No . 75-2
K - Previous Staff Rev_ ort on E. I .R. and General
Plan
II . RESPONSE TO ADDITIONAL COl`'Li�'IENTS RECEIVED ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT PREPARED FOR THE PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN
A. BACKGROUND
At the public hearing on the General Plan on January 6 ,
a response was received from Mr. Tim Burrell of the
firm of Young, Henry & McCarthy, Attornys , with regards
to the content of the Environmental Impact Report for the
Palm Desert General Plan. This report is being prepared
to respond to the comments received and to elaborate on
any areas that merit additional data, as a result of these
comments . The appropriate action if these comments are
considered adequate , would be to incorporate them into the
final E . I .R. to be certified by the City Council . These
comments are the accumulation of the responses of the rep-
resentatives of the firm of Wilsey & Ham and the City
Staff.
B. RESPONSES
1 . DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT
Mr. Burrell indicates that the State Guidelines require
certain summary information to be provided as a part
of the E . I .R. . In addition, the report should summarize
the environmental characteristics and engineering pro-
posals that are in the General Plan. He states that the
report must indicate the effect this plan would have on
public services . In addition, he indicates that the
E. I .R. for the General Plan does not contain a thorough
economic analysis of the effects that should occur if
the plan is implemented. Finally, he indicates that
there should be some reference for precise location and
boundaries of the General Plan planning area.
COMMENT
Mr. Burrell ' s comr+gents , in this section and in subsequent
sections of his letter regarding, the E. I .P . on the
General Plan, deal in a large *part , with the estiria-
tion on the part of the City Staff and Citr' s Con-
sultant firm to the amount of specificity that should
be included in the General plan. The rulinn
section with regard to specificity in the State Guide-
lines is Section 15147 . It states that the degree of
specificity required in any E . I .R. will correspond to
the degree of specificity involved in any underlining
activity which is described in the E. I .R. . In that
section under subpoint B, it indicates that the adop-
tion or amendment of a comprehensive Zoning Ordinance
or a local General Plan should focus on the secondary
effects that can be expected to follow from the adop-
tion, but the E. I .R. need not be as detailed as an E . I .R.
on the specific construction project that must follow.
Under subsection C of the same section, it indicates
that the requirements for an E . I .R. on the local General
Plan or element thereof will be satisfied by the General
Plan element document--i. e . , no separate E . I .R. is
required if, (1) , the General Plan addressess all the
points required in an E. I .R. , Article 9 of these guide-
lines , and (2) , the document contains a special sum-
mary Section or coversheet identifying where the Gen-
eral Plan addressed each point required. The dormer
has been the format utilized in the E. I .R. and the
zeneral plan addressinn each point required. In Staf.f_ ' s_
opinion this General_ p1�.n E. I .R. cannot be evaluated in
terms of its relationsa.ip to an Environmental Impact
Report on the specific development broject as proposed_
by P1r.. Burrell .
3
The purpose of this section on the description of the
project as is implied, is an attempt to require an
E. I .K. to begin -with the .full description of the project
involved, in terms of setting the stage for the sub-
sequent environmental evaluation of said project . The
State Guidelines in setting up criteria for establish-
ing the description of the project attempts to require
certain precise information to be provided so the pro-
ject can be accurately described. To describe a plan-
ning document as extensive as the General Plan cari be
done in a number of ways . The Consultant has chosen
to use the route of referencing the various sections of
the General Plan that fully describe the paramters
under which a project is established. Another alter-
native would have been to summarize each element in
terms of what is attempted to be done by the elements
and to describe their relationship to each other. How-
ever , in the Staff' s opinion the methology used is in
conformance wiCh the State Guidelines in terms of pro-
viding an adequate description of the project . This
is particularly true since the Guidelines under Section
15141 indicate that the information should be limited
to the amount needed for the evaluation and review of
the Environmental Impacts .
Mr. Burrell ' s statement with regards to the fact that
the report must indicate the effect of the plan on
public services does not correspond with the require-
ments of the State Guidelines . However , it should be
noted that throughout the General Plan the emphasis
was placed upon the ramifications as to the policies ,
goals and implementations in relationship to their
effect upon the public services . It is stressed through-
out , that the General Plan was created upon the basis of
providing adequate public service without a requirement
of a property tax. To achieve this ideal , it was nec-
essary, therefor, to construct the General Plan with
a considerable concern for the ramifications on public
services . It should be noted that the E . I .R. on Page
E .12 does describe the impact of the General Plan in
terms of public services in figure 9-3 , which is
entitled "Impact on Urban Infrastructure" .
Mr. Burrell' s comment with regard to the E . I .R. having
no thorough economic analysis as to the effects would
not seem to be appropriate in the description of the
project. To make this statement with regards to the
description of the project seems to be totally unap-
propriate. In addition to the thorough economic analysis
not being required by the State Guidelines , it should
be noted that Assembly Bill No . 938 which would require
such analysis was vetoed by Governor Reagon on September
27 , 1974. Also, an economic analysis was prepared by
the Consultant in conjunction with the General Plan
and is referred to in the E . I .R. on page E . 10 . Finally,
Mr. Burrell ' s comment with regards to lack of some refer-
ence to the precise location and boundaries of the Gen-
eral Planning area seem to be totally incorrect since
the E . I.R. document clearly states that a detailed des-
cription of the plans ' purpose is in the introduction
and the land use element describes the planning area.
2. DESCRIPTION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
Mr . Burrell indicates that this section is in violation
of the State Guidelines and cites as an example the
information presented on the air quality. He states
that this City' s contribution to such problems as air
pollution should be stated.
4
COIMNT
That State Guidelines establishes this section so that
the setting in which the project is proposed can be
described as a starting point for the evaluation of the
environmental effects of the project, in relationship
to the previous description of the actual project. Fur-
ther, the description of the existing environment is an
attempt to describe the regional environment and the
specific site environment in a reasonably comprehen-
sive manner, in order to give the reader of the E . I .R.
a broader perspective in which to view the proposed
project . The information provided in the E . I .R. with
regards to the description of the environmental setting
is in relationship to all the elements of the General
Plan, and in the Staff' s opinion is an adequate descrip-
tion.
3 . ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Mr. Burrell indicates in his letter a concern with
regards to the description of the Environmental Impact
of the proposed project with regards to the lack of
specific facts and figures used to describe the Envir-
onmental Impacts . He uses as an example the statement
with regards to the increase in humidity in relation-
ship to population, and the fact that the Consultants
failed to designate an exact .figure, such as a range of
humidity levels in relationship to the population base--
in terms of a rise in humidity. Secondly, Mr . Burrell
indicates that the report fails to state the amount of
animal and plant life that exists in the various areas
of the City of Palm Desert and its sphere of influence .
He states that the information with regards to the
amount of animal and plant life that will be displaced
or destroyed due to the implementation of the General
Plan should be stated, Thirdly, he comments with
regards to the levels of air pollutants that are
expected with regards to implementations of the General
Plan. He indicates a concern that this amount is not
stated in the General Plan.
In addition, Mr . Burrell, indicates a concern with
regards to the relationship of the General Plan with
population concentrations and distribution. He indi-
cates that an assumption could be gained that the
General Plan has no effect on population. He indicates
that the population calculations made seem to be with-
out any regard to the General plan to the City. He
states a concern with regards to the lack or the effect
of the plan with regards to controlling or chanelling
growth either away from or into the City of Palm Desert,
and states that such figures should be contained in the
E. I .R.
He also indicates a concern with regards to noise
levels ; and the fact that there is no statement made
with regards to the increases of noise that would occur
because of the implementation of the General Plan.
Finally, he indicates that the most serious deficiency of
the E. I .R. is the lack of economic data. He illustrates
this concern with regards to the lack of economics data
in terms of a lack of knowledge with regards to the cost
of various land uses proposed in proportion to their
economic benefit. He uses as an example , industrial
development adjacent to the freeway, and questions the
cost for this industrial development in relation to the
taxes returned to Palm Desert. He goes on to illustrate
potential, premature extension of service provided for
this industrial development which would result in a bur-
den on the City versus a benefit .
COlZIENT
Mr. Burrell ' s statement on the E , I .R. with regards to
the lack of reference to specific facts and figures
simply is not true. An example would be section 4,
pages E8A, E8B, E9 , E12A, and E12B. With regards to
his example as to humidity levels and ranges as they
relate to population increases , such data simply is
not available and could not be given under the exist-
ing facts . It could be truthfully stated that such
evaluation could not be qualified scientifically.
Such an exercise would be beyond the scope of an E . I .R. .
In regards to Mr. Burrell ' s comment as to the state-
ment of the amount of animal and plant life existing
which would be displaced, as a result of the imple-
mentation of the General Plan ,, the plant and animal
life were analysed in some detail in the impacts of
development with regards to the form of the Plan and
was given careful consideration throughout the prepar-
ation of the General Plan. The E. I .R. in Section 4A. 3
page E. 8 references the description of vegetation and
wildlife that appear in the appropriate sections of the
General Plan. In relationship to the State Guidelines ,
it appears that the Flora and Fauna was adequately
addressed in the General Plan and the related E . I .R. .
However, the City has been provided with three docu-
ments on the Philip L. Boyd Deep Canyon Research Center
which deal extensively with the Flora and Fauna of
the area. They are the annual report 1973-1974, "Bird
List for Boyd Center and Deep Canyon Transect" , and
"Floristic List for Deep Canyon Watershed, Oct . 1973" .
Staff recommends that these documents be included
in this final E. I .R. . With regards to Mr. Burrell ' s
concern with regards to air pollutants , the E . I .R.
addresses air pollutants in as complete and detailed
manner as possible on the basis of studies that have
been conducted in the valley. The E. I .R. on page
E. 8 clearly indicates that there is a need for a regional
air pollutant study, and the letter received from the
air pollution control district clearly illustrates the
need for this study. A more complete analysis of the
air pollution problem is a study that would require
analysis on the regional basis which was beyond the
General Plan.
Mr. Burrell ' s concern with regards to the lack of a
strong relationship between population projections
and the General Plan is not true. The General Plan
does have a strong relationship with the population
projections that exist in the General Plan. For
example , if the varous densities were modified in
the General Plan, the effect would be a substantial
change to the population projections . The Environmental
Impact Report clearly states that there will be a change
in regards to the social makeup of Palm Desert as a
result of the implementation of the General Plan which
results indirectly from the increase in population.
The E. I .R. states that the population and economics
element does have the amount of Dopulation and
the effects from that population.
With regards to Mr. Burrell ' s reference to effect on
noise levels resultin7 in the iniglementation of the General
Plan, the General Plan and the E'. I .P,. both discuss
noise and indicates the existing noise levels and the
relationship of noise to the land use patterns . The
statement by Mr . Burrell with regards to quantifying
future noise levels which would result from the imple-
mentation of the General Plan simply is not possible.
This would require a detail analysis of traffic volumes and
6 .r
knowledge of facts which relate to the future that
would have to come from a crystal ball ; and is not
possible in terms of a quanitifiable item to the Con-
sultants or the Staff. To provide Mr. Burrell ' s
request to establish the noise levels that will
result from the implementation of the General Plan
simply is not possible. However, the Consultants
preparation of the plan does indicate measures to be
used in the development of the General Plan as sub-
sequent implementation tools to be utilized to reduce
the impact of noise levels . These techniques are
accepted techniques throughout the State and the
Nation, and are to be implemented only for the purpose
of reducing the noise levels which would result from
the increase in traffic and population that is pro-
posed in the General Plan. His reference to both
population and noise again deal with the level of
specifics that exist in the General Plan. To get to
the level of detail Mr. Burrell has requested is not
possible in an E . I .R. on a General Plan and indeed,
is not required by State Guidelines .
With regards to Mr. Burrell ' s concern to the lack of
economic data in the E . I .R. , again it must be stated
that the State Guidelines do not acquire an economic
analysis . It should be stated, however, that the
General Plan does include a detailed economic analysis
which is referenced on page E . 10 . Mr. Burrell ' s con-
cern with regards to premature development of land
specifically with regards to industrial development
along I 10, it seems to Staff would be more appropri-
ately addressed in subsequent implementation tools to
be adopted by the City as a result of the General Plan.
Therefor, his concerns at this time are premature and
do not relate to the E . I .R. . Mr. Burrell ' s desire to
have the amount of increases and certain adverse affects
to be quantified simply is not possible. Both the Gen-
eral Plan and the E. I .R. related to it , deal with second-
ary effects and cannot possibly quantify in detail the
degree of increased adversity.
It should be stated that the completion and adoption
of the General Plan will not have a direct adverse
impact upon the environment, because these are simply
studies , reports and policy documents designed to
guide the future decisions of the City in matters con-
cerning community development. They will , however,
stimulate many secondary impacts as a result of the
actions that are likely to follow the actual adoption
of the General Plan. These affects have been adequately
derived and described both in the General Plan and
related E . I .R. .
4. ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT EFFECTS 11HICH CANNOT BE
AVOIDED
Mr . Burrell in his letter states that without facts or
information it is not possible for the City to be aware
of the level of various adverse environmental effects of
the General Plan. He indicates that the state law
requires that the reason for proceeding with the pro-
ject despite its adverse environmental effects must be
stated in the E. I .R. . He states that there seems to
be no reasons why the General Plan has been proposed
despite its affect of eliminating the small town char-
acter of Palm Desert , over burdening the supply of water
for the area, increasing the humidity, and providing a
great traffic problem for the highways . Finally, he
states the E . I .R. should indicate the effects on human
health to be expected from air pollution, high humidity,
increases in noise , and seismic dangers .
COMMENT
In so far as the General Plan itself is intended to
investigate the impacts of urban development , it could
be argued that some of the elements of the General Plan
could contribute benefits in excess of the adverse
impacts that they promote. Mr. Burrell ' s statement to
the fact that the state law requires reasons for proceed-
ing with a project despite adverse environmental effects
is only an inference made by Mr. Burrell by reading the
State Guidelines . The state law, Section 15143 , subsec-
tion B indicates a permissive description with regards
to why the project is proceeding even though there are
adverse effects that cannot be alleviated. It is Staff' s
and the Consultant' s opinion that an E. I . Z. should not
be a justification for a General Plan; and, infact ,
it should state the impacts . This is the attempt under
the adverse Environmental effects that cannot be avoided
addressed on page E14. As stated at the first public
hearing before the Council in the General Plan, the
wording in this section seems to be somewhat strong,
particularly with regards to the view of the night
skies . It is impossible to state that thev-.would- be
eliminated. However, it can be stated that it would
be possible to reduce the views of the night skies as
a result of the implementation of the General Plan.
Staff believes that Mr. Burrell is overly reacting
to the wording in the E . I .R. . In addition, Staff is
of the opinion that the statement made in the E . I .R.
do comply with State Guidelines . Finally, Mr . Burrell' s
states that the E.I .R. doesn' t indicate the effects
on human health to be expected from the adverse effects .
This again, gets down to the basic conern that Mr.
Burrell has regarding the E . I .R, with which the Staff has
an opposite opinion, that is the degree of .specificity
of the information provided. Staff must again state
that the E . I .R. for the General Plan must be as gen-
eral as the General Plan and in those terms this does
E. I .R does comply with the State Guidelines .
5. MITIGATION MEASURES
Mr. Burrell in his letter states that the section on
Mitigation measures has no mitigation measures that
would lessen the adverse environmental effects . He
states that the report should state and indicate the
various tradeoffs that would lessen the adverse conse-
quences of implementing the General Plan. He states
that the crucial portion of this section of the Q . I .R.
in terms of the General Plan would be data that indi-
cates a level of the environmental impacts that are
acceptable. He again states that the City must have
information to show that a particular level of humidity,
air pollutions , seismic risks or other environmental
affects are acceptable for the residents in the City
of Palm Desert. He again stresses the fact that, the
E . I .R. must provide noise levels that will be curbed as
plan is implemented in various portions of3the City.
He states , in addition, that the E. I .R. must provide
information that indicates that a particular level
of noise is acceptable to the citizens of Palm Desert
and to the proposed land use .
COMMENT
Mr. Burrell ' s statement to the effect that the Miti-
gation measures had not been indicated in the E . I .R.
on the General Plan simply are not true . The E. I .R.
rr
8 IWO
clearly states that one of the basic criteria for the
General Plan and its associated elements is the Miti-
gation of detrimental environmental impacts . Mitiga-
tion measures are stressed in each element of the Gen-
eral Plan. The E . I .R. stresses that the policies to
be established by the Council and subsequent imple-
mentation policies will have a drastic effect on
adverse effects in terms of their ultimate levels .
As stated previously, the estimated level with regards
to noise, with regards to air pollution and humdity,
have been indicated throughout the entire E . I .R. and
the General Plan to the degree of specifics as pos-
sible with this type of planning document . Mr.
Burrell ' s statement as to the lack of specific data
does not relate to the document that he is reviewing .
6 . ALTERNATIVES
Mr. Burrell in his letter indicates that the E . I .R.
does not analyze in detail the various alternatives
to the General Plan. He states that the alternatives
are absolutely essential so that the citizens and
the City may point out the different proposals that
may be more beneficial to the City than the proposed
plan.
COMMENT
It should be noted that the Staff report prepared on the
Final E I .�. indicates the several alternatives that were dis-
cussed which Mr . Burrell was not able to review as a hart of
the final environmental impact report . Therefore , _
in this area he was not able to see the alternatives .
Under this section the possibility of a no_.project alternative
does not exist since the state requires a r'eneral 11_an be
adopted and the Cite has no alternative but to adopt a_ Gen-
eral Plan. Another alternative that is not available
to the City in this project is to delay the project ..
Since the General Plan is mandated by state law, it
is not possible to delay- the project beyond the spec-
ific deadlines established by the state for this City
which is June 30, 1975 . The third alternative , there-
for, and the acceptable one is to allow the project .
The Staff report as indicated above does address the
various alternatives that were reviewed in establishing
the public hearing draft on the General Plan and
realted E. I .R. .
7 . RELATIONSHIP TO SHORT TERM USES AND LONG TERM PRODUCTIVITY
Mr . Burrell in his letter indicates a concern to the
effect that the guidelines in the state sections that
established the criteria for this section of an E . I.R.
is longer than the information provided within the
E. I .R. on the General Plan. He states that the E. I .R.
should indicate the short-term losses that will occur
after the implementation of the General Plan. In add-
ition, this section should provide facts and figures to
justify the conclusion that the General Plan will be
a long-term benefit to the City of Palm Desert .
COMMENT
Throughout the General Plan and the E . I .R, this rela-
tionship was considered. It is Staff' s opinion that
the accumulative effect of all the General Plan Ele-
ments are that they regulate, eliminate , and shape
the development of the community so as to promote the
greatest efficiency with the least amount of conflict .
The role of the subject elements is to further decrease
conflicts between the City and the environment by
officially making the various qualities specified in
the General Plan, a part of the required planning process .
9
If this is accomplished, then the short-term effects
of the implementation of the General Plan will be
drastically reduced with the long-term effect of
the General Plan being a positive effect . In the
end there will be developed a well-planned community
which will create an attractive and desirable environ-
ment within the area. It is , therefor , the opinion
of the Staff that the General Plan as it is proposed
maintains a balance of the short-term effects and
the long-term uses . It is on this basis , therefor ,
that Mr . Burrell ' s statements with regards to this
section do not apply.
8. IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES
Mr. Burrell in his letter indicates the irreversible
environmental effects should be described in detail
so that the City is aware of how much each of the
resources will be concerned in implementing the Gen-
eral Plan. How much of each resource would be nec-
essary for the maintenance of the community as invis-
sioned by the General Plan.
COMMENT
The irreversible or irretrievable environmental changes
are indicated throughout the General Plan and Mr.
Burrell ' s statement is simply not true . On page E18
the E. I .R. clearly indicates that these environmental
changes are offset through the acquisition, develop-
ment and/or maintenance of parks , open space, along
with adequate levels of public service Tthic':i will
minimize these adverse changes . The specific analysis
of these areas for changes would have to be done on the
project basis at which time the specific quantified
amounts can be evaluated with regards to each project .
An attempt to do this at this stage is not possible;
and, if the attempt was made, it would not be of any
value since the specific implementation tools such
as the zoning ordinance, subdivision ordinance , etc . ,
are the documents that will specify the specific envir-
onmental changes that are irreversible or irretrievable.
On this basis , therefor, it could be stated that the
adoption of the General Plan would not have substantial
irreversible or irretrievable changes which are contrary
to Mr. Burrell ' s statements .
9 . INDUCING IMPACTS
Mr. Burrell in his letter states that by providing
improvements of public services , the General Plan
would encourage growth within the City of Palm Desert .
He states the effects of this General Plan will be
enticing additional development within the City, and
this should be described, 1Dut is not in t1he General
Plan.
COMMENT
Again it must be stated that the growth inducing impacts
are discussed in various sections of the General Plan.
Mr. Burrell ' s statement with regards to adoption of a
General Plan enticing development cannot be considered
true in that the present adopted General Plan known
as the Cove Communities General Plan, in essence is
doing the same thing; and it is honed that the new Gen-
eral Plan as adopted would reduce this element and is
an approvement in terms of planned growth with regards
to the City of Palm Desert. In addition, the Staff
report on the E . I .R. stresses that fact that the Gen-
eral Plan will provide the City with an opportunity to
10
control the growth.
10. ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS CONSULTED
Mr. Burrell in his letter states that the City must
consult with an agency which would be responsible for
providing services within the area covered by the
General Plan and he questions why the various agencies
that are affected by this General Plan were not con-
tacted.
COMMENT
The list of those agencies contacted is in the
E. I .R. . In addition, the City Staff upon receipt
of the E. I .R. on the General Plan did forward it to
some 33 different agencies and their response have
been outlined in the Staff report on the General
Plan and the E . I .R. . On this basis , therefor, Mr .
Burrell ' s comments to this section do not have merit .
The reason that the City did not notify the State
Planning Agency was on the basis of the belief that
the affects of this General Plan was more localized
in nature than the statewide concerns . On that
basis , therefor, the various cities in the valley
and the local regional agencies , C-VAG, were the
agencies to which the City circulated the General
Plan document. The State Department of Resrouces
did receive a notice of the completion of the Gen-
eral Plan by the City and a copy of the actual Gen-
eral Plan.
11. A TIME FOR REVIEW
Mr . Burrell ' s letter indicates that the period of
review for the City' s E. I .R. on the General Plan
-- was from November 12 to December 9 . lie states
that state guidelines indicate that there should
be a 90 day review for the review of the E . I .R.
and that another 30 days should be allowed for
the review of the final E . I .R. .
COMMENT
Under section 15160 of the State Guidelines on
environmental impact reports, the State Guidelines
state that the public: agencies may establish time
periods for review in their implementing procedures
for reviewing agencies . The City Council in their
adoption of their Resolution No . 73-14 which is the
City' s guidelines did establish specific review
periods . Under section 23 of this resolution the time
for review of the draft E . I .R. was established for
20 days . In that the State Guidelines , with regards
to review periods , only suggests certain time periods ,
this time for review does comply with these guidelines.
Since the document was reviewed by other agencies
within the time specified by Resolution 73-14, 'it would
appear that this E . I .R. does comply with City guide-
lines and therefor , State Guidelines . Upon completion
of the review period the Staff did prepare a final E . I .R. .
This was forwarded to the Planning Commission as a part
of their consideration of the General Plan and was
acted upon then as their part of their evaluation of
the General Plan.
Mr . Burrell' s statements do conform with the state
guidelines in that the permissive wording
is utilized throughout the guidelines. '.1ith regards
to review periods , in Staff' s opinion the processing
of this E. I .R. does comply with the City' s guidelines
and the State ' s Guidelines .
12 . PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
Mr. Burrell states that the E . I .R. must contain certain
basic information. The comments by governmental enti-
ties , the public and the City' s replies to these com-
ments . He states that the Environmental Impact Report
has no replies with regards to the environmental issues
raised in the process of the E. I .R. . He further states ,
that while the City held a public hearing on the plan
that the members of the public were limited to three
minutes a piece.
COMMENT
Mr. Burrell' s statement as to the requirement that
the E . I.R. must contain certain basic information
is true and the Staff' s prepared Final E .I .R. does
contain all this information which was not avail-
able to Mr. Burrell in his review of the draft E . I .R. .
This information as required by the City' s Environ-
mental guidelines was available in the City' s offices
prior to the hearing on the General Plan. In addi-
tion, the report by the Staff on the Final E . I .R. did
include all the letters received on the E . I .R. responses
to each letter.
Mr. Burrell' s statement that the public was limited
to three minutes with regards to the General Plan
before the Planning Commission was simply not true
and should be noted that the Chairman prior to the
hearings on both the E. I .R. and on the General Plan
requestea that statements be limited since there
was a great amount of detail with regards to both
the E. I .R. and the General Plan. Also , that sT)eci=-
ically on the General Plan, the public was to be
allowed to speak on each element of the General
Plant, which would have allowed up to 27 minutes by
each person on the General Plan, On that basis ,
therefor , Mr . Burrell' s comments with regard to
the public hearing do not have merit .
13 . SUMMARY OF AN ENVIRONMENT IMPACT REPORT
Mr. Burrell in his letter completes the evaluation of
the E . I .R, with two sections . The first section deals
with the summary of the E . I .R. . He restates that the
letter that he has written is not intended to describe
in detail each and every deficiency of the EIR. It
merey sites examples that indicate the report violates
each of the critical sections contained in the State
Guidelines . He states that since the E . I .R is considered
inadequate by himself that this would open the General
Plan to an act by any land developer who is not entirely
pleased with what the General Plan does to his property.
He feels that the City should, therefor , require
the Consultants to revise the E. I .R. so that the
;wishes of the citizens of Palm Desert cannot be affected
by a squawk of a land owner.
COMMENT
Mr . Burrell ' s statements do not seem to hold water with
regards to the E. I .R. and the General Plan. What
Mr. Burrell fails to realize is the real purpose of
the State Guidelines which is to establish criteria
on which to evaluate the environmental effects of any
project that is being considered. The purpose of the
Guidelines is to provide public agencies with princi-
pals , objectives , criteria, and definitions for the
statewide application of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970 . Contrary to Mr. Burrell ' s concern
it is not a collection of specific data that describes
in every detial the total environmental effects of a
12
project that encompasses 82 square miles ; and,
infact, is a planning document whose purpose: is to
improve the environmental quality of development,
that will inform the public decision-makers , the
Council, and the General Public of the effects of
the project that is proposed. An E . I .R. may not be
used as an instrument to rationalize an approval of
a project or to indicate adverse impacts and require
that a project be dissapproved. While the guidelines
require that major considerations be given to pre-
venting environmental damage, it is recognized that
public agencies have obligations to balance other
public objectives including economic and social factors
in determining whether and how a project should be
approved.
Mr. Burrell ' s approach as to reviewing this document
has been typical of a review of a specific , precise
project that can be quantifiably evaluated from the
standpoint of its environmental effects . Mr. Burrell
in reviewing of this project has failed to consider
that the General Plan is a planning document which
tends to guide the orderly development of the commun-
ity with particular emphasis placed upon the preserva-
tion of the environment , where possible. In addition,
the document attempts to evaluate the social and eco-
nomic factors in relationship to the environment with
the result being the optimum community possible under
the present planning criteria available to the City.
It is on this basis , therefor, the Staff must reject
a majority of Mr . Burrell ' s comments as not factual
and incorrect, with the reasons stated above .
13
C. RECOMMENDATION ON FINAL E. I .R.
In order to further clarrify the E . I.R. on the General
Plan, it is recommended that Mr . Burrell ' s comments be
incorporated in the final E. I .R. with the comments made
by Staff in this Staff report. Nith this information received
therefor, the Staff is of the opinion that the E . I .R. is
as-complete-as possible in terms of adequately addressing
the environmental effects of the General Plani it is on
that basis that the Staff again recommends the certifi-
cation of the Final E . I .R.
It is reommended that the City Council certify the Final
E . I .R. as being complete and to include :
1. The draft E . I.R. including the General Plan Elements .
2 . The original and supplemental staff reports prepared
on the E . I .R. including all written responses received
on the E. I .R. .
3 . All comments received during the public hearings held
before the Planning Commission on December 9 , 1974 and
the City Council on January 6 and 20 , 1975 .
4. The comments received from Mr. Burrell dated December 16 ,
1974 and the Staff' s response to those comments .
5 . Report entitled "Floristic List for Deep Canyon Watershed
Oct . 1973" included by reference .
6 . Report entitled "Bird List for Boyd Center and Deep
Canyon Transect Aug. 1974" included by reference .
7 . Report entitled "Annual Report 1973-1974 - Philip L.
Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center" included by
reference.
III . DOCUMENTS RELATED TO
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
NOT IN PREVIOUS REPORTS
NOW
PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 1244 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TzmwHorrs (714) 346-2804
A Non-Profit Corporation
January 17 , 1975
Palm Desert City Council
45-275 Prickly Pear
Palm Desert, Calif . 922.60
Dear Members of the Council:
The Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Property Owners Associa-
tion at a special meeting held January 17 , 1975 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 requesting annexation.
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, t
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 111 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
Palm Desert Property Owners Aol ation Jan . 17 , 1975
P F,.� 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 111, 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 commercial 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.
haler 1.)_-aert Property Ownera Ai%o iation Jan . 17 , 1975
It. 3
d . Eliminate the 10town 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
11Units projected for the existing City Limits will mean
an average residential density of "2 . 32 dwelling units
per acre .if 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
.'c)&6 Desert Property Owners hociation Jan. 17 , 1975
Pg. 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,
PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
l
FORGE J. SITTER 8
January 15, 1975
Members of the City Council
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: The Sun King property and Elmer C. Rigby property O
located, east of Portola Street and north of the Lincoln
School and Park Site in Palm Desert, 0
Dear Members of the City Council : D
I am requesting on behalf of Sun King and Dr. Rigby that the following
adjustments, corrections, or additions be incorporated into and be made
part of the Palm Desert General Plan which is currently under your
consideration for approval , Lq
First: The general plan ,page 1 , BA a, shows the Sand Dune Park encroaching r
into the northern one-third of the Sun King Mobilhome Park, I request
the southern limit of Sand Dune Park be established at the northern
boundry of the Sun King Mobile Nome Park property and that other gen-
eral plan exhibits be adjusted to reflect this change,
The reason for this change is that Sun King has city approval of a
tentative sub-division map, has already established extensive develop-
ment, and has prepared engineering drawings, studies, and has secured
financing in order to complete the development, Sun King would suffer
severe hardship if the Sand Dune Park is allowed to disrupt their
development plans. The exsisitng development is designed to tie together
with the future development and the Mobile Nome Park plan would suffer
both aesthetically and fuctionally,
Second: I request that the planning commissions ' recommendation of
medium density, 5-7 dwelling units per acre, be applied to all the
subject property including that property which is owned within the
Drainage Channel . The Drainage Channel is included in the develop 0
-
ment plans for the subject properties and is currently used as part
of the golf course,
w
1 �
D
8 73 899 HIGHWAY III PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92280
GORGE Jm '%RITTER 8
Page 2 of 2
Third: I request that the residential neighborhood structure, page 2.
G.2,c, of the general plan be amended to include the subject property
into the neighborhood number 3. The subject property and the Country 0
Club Village are the only residential areas not assigned to neighbor-
hoods. The inclusion on these areas into the neighborhood structures
will give the subject property the advantages provided for neighbor-
hood planning in the general plan. I include a revised drawing of the 0
Residential Neighborhood Structure showing this request, �
I shall appear at the public hearing and be available for questions, D
Sincerely-You rs, Y M
r
eorge R' ter
Architect A. I .A.
GJR/cr
0
Enc: Revised Drawing of Residential Neighborhood Structure I
Mi
m
N
w D
� W
D
0 73 899 HIGHWAY III PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92280
7 `
,%fIEQ It
2 O`'
f
7v) BERMUDA DUNES Cj
y�+ INDIAN WELLS H i
'C6 PALM DESERT y,
V' LA QUINTA `,a'
INDIO y'
Desert Sands Unified School District
83.049 AVENUE 46 • INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201 (714) 347.0901
January 17, 1975
Dr. Elmer C. Rigby
2200 Santa Monica Boulevard , Suite 109
Santa Monica, CA 90404
Dear Dr. Rigby:
At a regular meeting of the Board of Education held on January 14 ,
1975 the Board stated that it has no objections to a C. P. zoning
or to a commercial development which is compatible to existing
school use.
Very truly yours ,
BOARD OF EDUCATION
By Harold Schoenfeld
Secretary and District Superintendent
HS/crm
20
23
21
17
24
18
14 15 25
19 22
g 11
x 12
1 r." 13
2
4 6
5 •'
FIGURE 2-3
7
RESIDENTIAL
g NEIGHBORHOOD
STRUCTURE
I 1-25 Neighborhood
Numbers as
Referred to in
Figure 4-6
Palm Desert
City Limits
Planning Area
Sphere of Influence
2.G.2.c " -*
I LS IJ +` H A Earl P.Wilsey(1892-1957)
1631 HUNTINGTON DRIVE • P.0. BOX 430•SOUTH PASADENA,CALIF.91030•Telephone (213) 799-9181 • Cable "WHINT"
MEMO
To: Paul Williams, Director of Environment Service
cc: David Erwin, City Attorney
From: Wilsey & Ham - Larry B. Morrison
Subject: Response to Letter by Young, Henrie and McCarthy to Concerned
Citizens of Palm Desert - 12-10-74
Date: January 9, 1975
Page 1 - ". . .EIR does not comply with CEQA in . . .violates each. . . .section".
not valid statement
Analysis by Young. . . incorrect in many areas
- statement of fact often not true
- logic questionable
- reviewed draft EIR as though it were final EIR (missed entire
step in process)
- ". . . include a table showing where the information required by the
CEQA appears. . .after January 1 , 1975, such a table will be required. . ."
• a table would only be required if subject not discussed in paragraphs
(Sect. 15143 CEQA)
". . .table. . . in the general plan or EIR"
• table would be in lieu of EIR for a general plan, not incorporated
in a general plan EIR.
Page 2 - ". . .report must indicate the effect this plan will have on public
services"
• not specified in CEQA
• This is done in some detail (IVB-5 page E12, see Figure 9-3 Impact
on Urban Infrastructure)
planning engineering architecture landscape architecture surveying mapping systems
' Page 2
Page 2 - "No where in the EIR is there a thorough economic analysis..."
. not required in CEQA guidelines; AB 938 (Warren) which would have
required this was vetoed on September 27, 1974, by Governor Reagan.
. a detailed economic analysis was prepared in conjunction with the
General Plan and referred to in the EIR (IVB.2. Economic Impact,
Page E. 10)
- ".,.reference to the precise location and boundaries of the general
planning area."
Section 11 of the EIR (Description of the Project, Page E.3) refers
to the Introduction and the Land Use Element of the General Plan
which contain such a detailed description of the precise location
and boundaries of the general planning area.
- 11...information on air quality is in relation to the California
standards, which are less stringent than....federal government
(standards)..."
This implies that federal standards were not included, in fact both
Federal (CVS) and California (7-Mode) test procedures were incorporated
in the air quality analysis (see IVA.5. page E.8a and I11A.2. page E.5) .
- "The EIR contains no data for the air pollution due to hydrocarbons."
This is not true, hydrocarbons were included in the EIR (see IV.A.5.
page E.8a and IIIA.2. page E.5) .
• Page 3
�✓
Page 2 - ". ..such an EiR can avoid all references to specific facts and figures."
Not true (see sections IV pages E.8a, E.8b, E.9, E. 12a, E. 12b)
Data on humidity levels and ranges as they relate to population
increase are not available. It is doubtful that such an evaluation
could be quantified or qualified scientifically (it would certainly
be beyond the scope of the EIR) .
Page 3 - "The EIR should indicated the amounts of animals and plant life.. ."
Flora and fauna was analyzed in some detail and impacts of development
were given careful consideration through the preparation of the General
Plan. The EIR (see IVA.3, page E.8) references descriptions of
vegetation and wildlife to the appropriate sections of the General Plan.
- "...levels of various air pollutants. .."
Completed in as detailed and complete a .manner as possible with range
of EIR (see Section IVA.5) .
EIR recognizes need for a regional air pollution study (p. E.8) .
Letter from APCD states that they are not even monitoring air
quality in the Coachella Valley!
- "...population concentration...will have absolutely no effect on
population."
The EIR states that changes in the social makeup of Palm Desert will
be substantial as a result of the General Plan (p. E.10) .
gage 4
Page 3 (con'd)
The EIR refers to the Population and Economics Element where a
detailed analysis of population and its effect is made (p. E. 10) .
"...no effect on noise levels?"
EIR refers to the Noise Element which discussed existing noise
levels and the relationship of land use planning to various noise
levels (p. E. 13) .
To quantify future noise levels would require a detailed traffic volume
analysis and consideration of site specific factors. This is not
within the range of the General Plan.
- "...lack of economic data."
an economic analysis is not required by the CEQA.
a detailed economic analysis was included in the general plan and
is referred to in the EIR (p. E.10) .
Page 4 - "...premature development of land in between (industrial and other areas) .. ."
EIR in its economics impact section (p. E.10) refers to the Population
and Economics Element of the General Plan. An implementation policy
of this element is to prevent this from happening.
Page 5 - "... (amount of) increase in certain adverse effects. .."
A General Plan EIR deals with secondary effects; it could not possibly
quantify in detail the degree of adversity.
Page 5
Page 5 - "No reason appears (in the EIR) why this General Plan is proposed..."
An EIR is not a justification for a general plan.
" .. .describes no mitigation measures. . ."
not true, considered throughout general plan (p. E. 15)
- "...level of environmental impacts.. .acceptable"
considered throughout general plan
quantified in as much detail as possible
recommendations throughout plus policies to prevent impacts becoming
unacceptable to residents.
- "...provide information (on) . ..noise (levels) .. ."
. considered in general plan and section where this data is found is
referenced in the EIR (p. E. 13)
Page 6 - "...different proposals that could be more beneficial to the City than
the proposed General Plan."
• Various alternatives considered throughout the preparation of the
general plan (p. E.16) .
• The final general plan is the culmination of numerous alternatives
on various plan aspects and is therefore considered to be the most
beneficial to the City.
Page 6
Page 6 - "... indicate short-term losses. .. long-term benefits. . ."
considered and quantified throughout the general plan (E.17)
..Irreversible environmental effects should be described in detail . . ."
considered and quantified throughout the general plan (E.18)
- "...Plan encourage(s) growth within the City.. .affects this plan will
have in enticing additional development..."
• growth-inducing impacts are discussed in various sections of the
general plan (E. 19)
• enticing development?
Page 7 - "consult with agenc(ies) . ..responsible for providing services.. .
(specifically) Edison Co. (and) Gas Co. ..."
• City and County Planning Department provided some data on utilities
• the draft EIR was sent to all agencies, organizations, and utilities
which would service the planning area
list agencies who reviewed draft;
- "An EIR must contain certain basic information...comments by govern-
mental entities and members of the public....city's replies. . .present
EIR does not include any comments"
The EIR reviewed was contained in the Public Nearing Draft, November 12,
1974, of the Palm Desert General Plan. This is a draft report and, as
such, a draft EIR.
' Page 7
Page 7 (Cont'd)
. Draft EIRs do not contain review comments from government entities,
members of the public, etc.
. The EIR reviewed in the meeting on January 6, 1975, was a Final EIR
and had been reviewed by all interested agencies and comments
included.
- "The guidelines indicate that at least 90 days should be allowed for
review of draft EIR."
not true; review period for draft EIR suggested by State to be not less
than 30 days nor longer than 90 days (see Sec. 15160(c) CEQA) .
"...public limited to three minutes apiece to present testimony before
the Planning Commission. ..City (should) provide alternative method of
receiving input...
• Public was allowed three minutes comment on each element of the 9
plan elements. A total of 27 minutes.
. Written comments have been received from the public throughout
the EIR review process.
• CAC, Neighborhood Forums, etc.
_,
CONCERNED CITI?LNS OF PALM DESERT
P .O. BOX 1511
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
January 6, 1975
Mayor Henry Clark and Members of
the Palm Desert City Council:
My name is Edward W. Peck and I reside at 73-610 Buckboard Trail .
I •am President of Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert . In order to
save time a written report has been prepared, that I would like to
read for the minutes of this meeting.
On December 5 , 1974 , we furnished a resolution from our Board of
Directors to the Planning Commission , the City Council and the Citizen' s
Advisory Committee endorsing six changes in the General Plan that had
been presented by the Palm Desert Property Owners Association.
On December 6, 1974, we furnished a resolution from our Board of Direc-
tors to the Planning Commission, the City Council and the Citizens
Advisory Committee endorsing basic changes in the Environmental Im-
pact Report of the General Plan that had been presented by the Palm
Desert Property Owners Association.
On December 16 , 1974, we presented to the City of Palm Desert a resolu-
tion adopted by our Board of Directors as an appeal to the proposed
contract with Wilsey & Ham for payment of an additional $31 ,300. 00 to
Wilsey & Ham for plans for Improvement District #1, asking that this
payment be withheld.
Receipt of these documents have been acknowledged by the City of Palm
Desert . We respectfully request that each member of the City Council
review and study these documents as the reasons for filing them and
the changes suggested are spelled out in the reports .
Tonight we would like to focus attention on the Environmental Impact
Report of the Palm Desert General Plan. We asked our attorneys , Young,
Henrie and McCarthy of Pomona , California to study the Palm Desert
Environmental Impact Report of the General Plan and furnish us the
results of their review in writing. The single spaced typewritten
report is nine pages long. The report is long and too far reaching in its
conclusions to be studied and acted upon hurriedly. We have prepared
copies for each member of the City Council, three copies for the Staff,
and a copy for the News Media that will be given to you tonight.
The written report from our attorneys quotes several sections from the
Environmental Laws where the Palm Desert Environmental Impact report is
not in compliance or violates the law. I ,quote "The Environmental
Impact Report violates each of the cri-ical sections in the State Guide-
lines concerning its contents and manner of its preparation. Since the
Mayor Henry Clark aiii Pg. 2
Members of the Palm Desert City Council
Palm Desert Environmental Impact Report is inadequate, the General
Plan is open to attack by any land developer who is not entirely
pleased with the General Plan"
The report also provides ample proof that changing the character of
Palm Desert by including large regional commercial or hotel develop-
ments could have serious economic effects on Palm Desert. There is no
proof provided in the report that the expense of serving these develop-
ments would not be more -than the income derived from them. This has
happened in other Cities and the results have meant higher taxes and
a general down grading.
The reports from our attorneys who are specialists in environment also
provides adequate proof that people cause pollution and that a density
classification of 7 to 18 units to the acre in the General Plan would
cause serious adverse environmental effects . By law the zoning :rust _
follow the General Plan. 18 Units with an average of only 3 people per
unit would mean 54 people per acre . This would create an intolerable
condition. A maximum - not an average - of 5 units to the acre in any
area is all that the environment of the present incorporated area of
Palm Desert can support. This has been substantiated in the past two
years by experts . This would allow 15 people per acre . That is a
maximum.
In view of the expert analysis of the Palm Desert Environmental Impact
Report of the General Plan we respectfully request that the changes in
the General Plan be made as requested by the Palm Desert Property
Onwers Association and by Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert, and others
in the resolutions mentioned herein.
There is a great deal of controversy about the General Plan as sub-
mitted by Wilsey & Ham. We hear complaints from almost every factor
in Palm Desert - from the residents , the business people, the property
owners and the voters . The nub of the problem stems from density.
We respectfully request that a target date for the adoption of the
General Plan be set ahead to April 1, 1975 so that the complaints can
be analyzed, the Environmental Impact Report rewritten to comply with
the law, and the General Plan changed as requested to make it com-
patible and acceptable.
Very truly yours ,
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PAU1 DESERT
President
Secretary
January 2, 1975
Honorable Mayor and City Council
City of Palm Desert
City Hall
Palm Desert, CA 92260
RE: PROPOSED GENERAL PLAN FOR PALM DESERT
Section I, Township 6S 6E SBB & BM
Gentlemen:
The above referenced section of land composed of 640 acres more or
less, corners on the southwest corner of the city. It is totally
owned either in fee or in trust by members of our family who would
ask your consideration of the following:
1. The map accompanying the General Plan does not
clearly delineate the area on the west side of
Highway 74 which might be suitable for development.
We submit herewith copies of a topographical map on
which engineers have outlined those areas readily
usable without going into the hillsides, all of
which are within a very modest slope pattern.
2. The southeast corner of the property has a tract
of approximately 18 acres, on the east side of
Highway 74 and ten acres on the west side which
are presently designated open area. A check of
the topographical map will readily show that these
two parcels are suitable for development. Engineer-
ing studies which we have had done, show that flood
protection would be at minimum expense.
3. We are advised that your Planning Commission has
recommended for a parcel of similar nature (partly
flat and partly mountain side divided between very
low density and open space use) that the Council
allow credit for the total acreage in computing
the number of allowable units but that the development
be clustered within the residentially zoned area.
We would specifically request that:
1. That all of the property outlined in red on the
attached topographical map, be designated as
residential area.
w
I
r
Honorable Mayor and City Council
January 21 1975
Page Two
2. That the General Plan be amended to include the
southeast corner of the property as developable
land.
3. That the entire 640 acres serve as a base for
computing the maximum number of units permitted
on the property as is recommended by your Planning
Commission for the parcel cited in #3 above.
The foregoing has been informally discussed with your Messers.
Paul Williamson and Freeman Rader, and it is at their suggestion
that we submit it for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
F. T. KIEL Y J
2777 E. Baristo
Palm Springs, CA 92262
f!
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
• F
REPORT TO : Planning Commission
REPORT ON: FOUR (4 PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN
)
REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR j
FURTHER STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION.
BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting and public hearing
on the General Plan on January 6 , 1975 , the City
Council referred four items back to the Planning
Commission for further study and recommendations ,
the latter of which are to be presented to the
City Council at its meeting of January 20 , 1975 .
The four items referred back to the Planning
Commission are as follows :
A. A request by ST. MARCARET' S EPISCOPAL
CHURCH for changing land use designa-
tion on specific property to that of
"high density residential" . `
B. A request by BEKINS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
CO. for changing land use designation or
specific property to that of "specialty
commercial" .
C. A request by F.T. KIELEY for allowing
the total acreage on specific property
(including mountain sides) 'to be used
in determining "densities" .
D. A request by DR. ELMER RIGBY for changing
land use designation on specific property
to that of "very low residential" .
In order to most fully explain these cases , spec-
ific reports for each item are attached as separ-
ate documents.
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
Report on: A REQUEST BY ST. MARGARET' S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
FOR CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION ON SPECIFIC
PROPERTY TO THAT OF "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"
Background: A representative of St. Margaret ' s Episcopal
Church submitted a letter requesting that the
S acres under their ownership receive a land
use designation to permit "high density resi-
dential development" . The request was made
in order to permit the development of a 100
unit residential complex, with support facil-
ities , for elderly retired people .
The Planning Commission reviewed this request
and, at a public hearing on December 9 , 1974,
approved the request as a recommendation to
the City Council for its inclusion in the
General Plan.
Subsequent discussions have taken place , and
the issue has been raised that possibly a
more appropriate land use designation for this
property would be that of "institutional-general" .
Based upon the issue raised, the City Council,
on January 6 , 1975 referred this matter back to
the Planning Commission for further .study and
recommendations prior to the final adoption of
a General Plan.
r
I
r
Description of Property:
__.
Location 47-535 Hwy 74
Size 5 acres
Existing
Zoning: R-2
Adjacent
Zoning North R-2
South R-3 j ----- -- -- '�.-, `�
East R-3 �. lff
West W-1 ,
11 I 1
i
� / ter-------1-----
i
' Discussion of issue
Since the development of the proposed project is in fact
an institutional type facility which has requirements
different from conventional residential development , it
would indeed be more appropriate that it be classified as
such. Not only would the land use classification be more
consistent with the actual use , but a much greater degree
of flexibility would exist for the developer.
Staff Recommendation
Since the proposed development of this property would be
compatible with surrounding development and since the land
use designation of the property would be most appropriate
as "institutional - general" , the Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approves this change and forwards
its recommendation to the City Council for further action.
-4s-:.. ,• y..wy^ ,4..yS o--.. •.n.ss.:..a...q --rr'.r.'••r ^arn .•...nr rr �^'.'^'^s"'^'. y+'!'ww•'.'+.'w*+.,..w.+e.rw . >.+a
i I
i
P.O. BOX 2.01 /47-535 HIGHWAY 74/PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260/TELEPHONE (714) 346-2697
7heRcvcrend John D.Harrison,Rector
November 19, 1974
The Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, California 92260
Gentlemen:
St. Margaret's Church, presently ovming five acres of land at
47-535 Hi g1hway 74 in Palm Desert, respectfully requests a
change in land use designation for the five acres to R-3 zone.
The purpose for this request is the intention to construct a
home for retired persons on part of that land. . Your acceding
to this request will be much appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Cartwright Hunter
CH:tm Senior Warden
%W
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
Report on: A REQUEST BY BEKINS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. FOR
CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION ON SPECIFIC PROPERTY
TO THAT OF "SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL"
Background: A representative of Bekins Property Management Co .
submitted a letter (attached) requesting that the
parcel of land located at the southwest corner of
the intersection of Highway 74 and El Paseo Ave.
receive a land use designation to permit "specialty
commercial" development.
The City Council reviewed this request at a public
hearing on the General Plan on January 6 , 1975
and at that time referred the matter back to the
Planning Commission for further study and recommend-
ation. Subsequent recommendation area to be pre-
sented to the City Council for its consideration at a
public hearing on the General Plan on January 20 ,
1975 .
Description oz ProLU
p€ y
N 0. S T T c
r / 1
Location
SW corner of inter-
section of Hwy. 74 /
and El P a s e o
Existing Zoning:
R-Z-60oU
Adjacent Zoning: ('
North: CPS -
South: R-2-6000 UC�
East: CPS
R-2-6000
West : —
i
RSERA - ST
r ter- _ - --- ----
t �
I W/�
f
M }
Name
Discussion of request
As currently established, highway 74 serves as
a demarcation line between commerical oriented
development to the east and strickly residential
development to the west. The only exception
the commercial area adjacent to highway Ill as
bounded by El Paseo.
Since it is highly important that such demarca-
tions of land use exist , and since a spot reclass-
ification of land use as requested by the peti-
tioner would constitute a breach of this policy,
it would be ill advised to approve the request.
Further justification for not approving the
request exists by the fact that high quality
residential development adjoins the petitioners
property immediately to the south and west.
Staff Recommendation
In response to this request, the Staff recommends
that no change in land use on the Proposed General
Plan be made as it relates to this property.
BEKI NS PROPERTY MANAGEME'1T CO.
I *400.0.BOAC 1103,PALM DESERT,:.AUFORNIA 92260 NOW
MANAGEMENT DIVISION REAL ESTATE DIVISION
72-611 HWY III (SUITE 201( 72245 EL PASEO
PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
} 1 � PHONE(714( 346-1151 PHONE(7141 346-1154
December 6, 1974
Mr. Paul Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert, Ca 92260
Dear Sir:
Bekins Property Management Company respectfully requests that
our property on the Southwest corner of El Paseo and Hwy 74 be
re-zoned in the new city general plan to a Specialty Commercial
land use element; to permit us to use the property for a
Condominium Sales and rental office in our operations.
When this zoning change is made we will re-submit our building
plan with revisions to make the present building structure a
permanent type with foundations, etc.
Attached is a copy of the land plot and an architectural drawing
which will later be revised to include the proposed changes for
a permanent structure.
Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Since re4,
i
-m Chapman /
President
Bekins Property Management Co.
JC/bp
L-- 4
Cal
10,
y t A.,
—
A !a /PYJ'
D J O n`
n 4 V V t F
C �+ b
o p o
�� OS
a , ;
¢ v
w
t• 9/.60 �
* - A, pC
w
C t
1
y
C O
N
C- 0 '
• � w
c
ra �
Page 6
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
Report on: A REQUEST BY F.T. KIELEY FOR CHANGING LAND USE
DESIGNATION ON SPECIFIC PROPERTY TO THAT OF
"VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL" .
Background: F.T. KIELEY submitted a letter (attached) request-
ing that property owned by him and his family
receive a land use designation to permit "low
density residential development on all of the
property in order that those portions which are
developable be "credited" with those units not
permitted on undevelopable land.
This request was partially based upon what was
perceived as similar treatment accorded to another
petitioner with a similar situation.
The City reviewed this request at a public hear-
ing on the General Plan on January 6 , 1975 and
at that time referred the matter back to the
Planning Commission for further study and recom-
mendation. Subsequent recommendations are to
be presented to the City Council for its consid-
eration at a public hearing on the General Plan
on January 20, 1975 .
a
Description of Property
z C ( 'QUA
Location: (as shown)
Size : 1 Section (640 acres) aA
Land use as shown in General •. ?�c��'o
Flan:
Very low Residential (1/3 of
area) ------ -------_-_- " - -------- -
Wildlife Preserve (2/3 of �� ^
area)
t� r � it d •.
S� �ww9dlr'bwl�ww awwwn.-'}.i.%Aa.;.etlgwYywwwwawwwwm:;.
1 ., �iCttiwwliw0.^naiwef Y'w,:3 S
,i
Discussion of Request :
Since this property is similar to other property
along the mountains , the latter of which has
already been tentatively designated with the type
of land use classification which the petitioner
is requesting, it would seem appropriate that
continuity of policy be continued. Therefore ,
it would be appropriate to grant this request .
By classifying this entire area for "very low
residential" development , the number of units
which cannot be built in certain locales , due to
natural terrain features worthy of preserving , can
instead be built in those areas which are devel-
opable, along with the number of units normally
permitted therein. This is possible since the
entire area is under joint ownership .
Specific "Zoning" and "land use controls" will have
to be devised after the General Plan is adopted, and
adequate regulations controlling the development of
the property can be incorporated at that time .
Since serious drainage problems exist on the east
side of Highway 74 and are of the type which requires
engineering and protective measures for the entire
area, it is highly advisable that no development
be permitted east of Highway 74 until adequate pro-
vision are made. At this point in time this area
is , therefore, considered to be "undevelopable"
along with certain hillside areas .
Staff Recommendation:
In response to this request, the Staff recommends
that the following change in land use designation
be made on the proposed General Plan.
1. The 632 acre area of this property west
of Highway 74 be classified for "very low
residential development" (1-3 units per
acre) , with the understanding that street
hillside control provisions will be enacted
prior to any development being permitted.
' i
i >
a'
i
f
January 1975
Honorable :Mayor and City Council
City of Palm Desert
City Hall
Palra Desert, CA 9226Q
RE: PROPOSED GEP;GRAL PLAN; FO2 PALM DESERT
Section I, To.%,reship 6s 6E SBI3 w L':•i
Genticmcn:
The above referenced section of land composed of 640 acres more or
less, corners on the south:•rest corner of the city. it is totally
owned either in fee or in trust by members of our family who 1eou3_d
ask your consideration of the followin-;:
1. The map accompanying; the General Plan does not
clearly delineate the area on the west side of
Hibhl<-a.y 74 which might be suitable for devc-Iopment.
We submit heres•:ith copies of a topographical map on
which en-ineers have outlined those areas readily
usable cci_thout -oing into the hillsides, all of
which are within a very modest slope pattern.
2. The southeast corner of the property has a tract
of approximately 3.8 acres, on the east side of
Highway 74 and ten acres on the --west side which
are presently designated open area. A check of
the topo-rapiiical map will readily show that these
two parcels are :suitable for development. Engineer-
ing studies which ve have had done, ,slow that flood
protection would be at minimum expense.
3. We are :advised that your Planning Commission has
recommended for a parcel of similar nature (Partly
flat and partly mountain side divided bott•rcen very
lot�r dcn ity and open space use) that the Council
allow credit for the total acreage in computing
the number of allowable units but that the development
be clustered within the residentially zoned area.
We`would specifically request that:
1. That all of the property outlined in red on the
attached topographical map, be designated as
residential area.
- - r
r'
.f
Honorable DJayor and City Council
January 2., 1.975
Palge Two
2. That the General Plan be amended to include the
southeast corner of the property 'as developable
land. '
3. That the entire 640 acres serve as a base for
computi.n- the maximum number of units permitted
on the property as is recoi,imended by your Planning
Commission for the parcel cited in �13 above.
The fore-oiin has been informally discussed with your Messers.
Paul. Williamson and. Freeman Rader, and it is at their surrgesti_on
that we submit it for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted, -
F. T. KIELEF /
2777 F. Barist0
Palm Springs, CA 92262
r:
c
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
Report on: A REQUEST BY E . 0. RIGBY, M.D . TO CHANGE THE
LAND-USE DESIGNATION ON A SPECIFIC PROPERTY
TO THAT OF "SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL"
Background: A letter (attached) dated December 27 , 1974 and
addressed to Chairman Seidler was received from
Dr. Rigby, the owner of a nine acre parcel located
west of Portola Avenue and south of the Irihitewater
Storm Channel , requesting a change in the General
Plan to permit a neighborhood commercial develop-
ment at that site. Since the Commission had
already acted on the Plan, the letter was included
in a Supplementary Staff Report and sent to the
City Council along with the regular General Plan
material . The council decided that before they
would take final action on the proposal, Planning
Commission input on this matter 'should be obtained.
t
2#i
7
t
Description of Property, ,
CNrJE $.a7�:jr�
L t�
Location: (as shown)
Size : Approximately 9 acres SC H00 L
Existing Zoning - W-2
Adjacent Zoning -
�rr 1 TT�
North W-l
South R-1-9000
East W-1
1
West R-T
:F�
L ��_
1 T H
/J -L7�
I
1 '
L; Y-
'1 C TA; v �� ----� -.
Discussion of Issue
Talks between City planners and representatives of
the property owner as to the most appropriate land
use for the site have occurred several times in the
last three months . Zoned C-P under County juris-
diction, a plot plan was approved in September 1972 ,
for the construction of a trailer sales lot and office
on the site. Dr . Rigby also indicated his intention
of offering a long-term lease building site to the
Teen Center for a nominal price. As one of the
conditions of approval , the property owner was
required to dedicate a 44-foot half right-of-way
on Deep Canyon and Portola Avenue . An additional
44 foot dedication was also made along Magnesia
Falls Road. The approval expired one year later
without any construction having been done on the
project.
The land-use map for the Cove Communities General
Plan shows the property as appropriate for public
facilities , although Dr. Ribgy claims that this is
an inadvertent error by the artist. The proposed
Palm Desert General Plan, prepared in conjunction
with Wilsey & Ham, indicates the property as a
potential park site, to be developed in a manner
compatible with the proposed utilization of the
Whitewater Storm Channel for recreational facilities .
The current proposal is to build a medical office
and several service shops such as a barber shop ,
beauty parlor, laundromat , cleaning shop , and
market . Staff is of the opinion that the adjacent
recreational facilities such as the Storm Channel ,
and the Community Park would be more appropriate
if located adjacent to a residential use . In
addition, the amount of currently existing commer-
cially-zoned property appears to be more than
adequate for the city' s needs . Future commercial
sites are planned for sites which are more centrally
located and which offer greater accessibility.
Recommendation: That the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council
that the property be designated as
medium density residential.
ELMER C. RIGBY, M. D.
2200 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD,SUITE 109
THORACIC SURGERY SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90404
BRONCHOSCOPY-ESOPHAOOSCOPY
TELEPHONE 629-1300
CARDIAC SURGERY
December 27 , 1974
Members , Planning Commission
City of Pala Desert
P. 0. Box 1648
Palm Desert , California 92260
Attention : William Seidler, Chairman
RE : Property eastside Portola Avenue and North
of Magnesia Falls Road (Zoned by the County
for 10 years as C-P)
Dear Mr. Seidler:
It is requested a change be made in the general plan to continue
the C-P zoning on the above property. It is believed a village
service satellite area is needed for the 2 ,500 people who will
be living within a block or two of,this area.
It is my plan to have a medical office for myself, services
such as a barber shop , beauty parlor, laundromat, clearing
shop and a general village market with an appropriate early
California thene. It should fit in well with every environ-
mental consideration and will primarily serve the two mobile
home parks across the street , the subdivision south of the
elementary school , and the Sun-ring subdivision to the north.
Enclosed are pertinent documents . It will be noted that a
plot plan approval was in effect until last year for a sales
office which was planned to be the temporary beginning of
the development.
Attached are a map and a copy of the road dedication; note it
has been recorded. Also , included is a letter making; reference
to the support given by Mr. McCandless to continue this zoning
when it was overlooked on the county master plan by the artist
who inadvertently showed it as elementary school property.
s •
ELMER C. RIGBY, M. D.
• 2200 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD,SUITE 109
THORACIC SURGERY SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90404
BRONCHOSCOPY-ESOPHAGOSCOPY
CARDIAC SURGERY TELEPHONE 829-1300
Page Two
The County and the City have always received my fullest
cooperation. I strongly supported the annexation of the
Sun-King Mobile Home subdivision to the city. I am
planning to give the Teen Center a building site at the
east end on a long-term lease at a token figure. Also ,
it is contemplated that a joint parking area can be
devised for the city park to the south .
It was because of the permanent C-P zoning that I agreed
to dedicate 44 ' for the Magnesia Falls Drive Right-Of-Way
separating this parcel from the elementary school . This
road was in effect the beginning of the development of
the commercial property .
Hopefully, the Planning Commission will see fit again to
apply the C-P zoning to this property realizing any
development always requires final City Council approval .
S' --cere y yours , �,
--' lmer C. Rigby, M. D. r
ECR:rs
enclosures
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
To: Planning Commission
Report On: Item referred back t 'Planning Commission by the City
Council. (Subject :17GENERAL PLAN)
Background: On January 20, 1975 , e-City Council adopted the
General Plan for the City of Palm Desert . Some minor
changes were made, which require the concurrence of
the Planning Commission if they are to be affected.
If the Commission does not concur with these changes ,
then they will either not be included in the General
Plan, or else further negotiations between the Commis-
sion and the Council will be required.
The changes referred back to the Planning Commission
are as follows :
Page Line Change
01) 3 .P. 2 9 A regional and community complex
to a mini or sub-regional and
community shopping complex.
(#2) 3 .P . 2 . 14 Add after La Quinta the follow-
ing : the mini or sub-regional
shopping uses within the Core
Area should be designed to fit
into the general atmosphere of
Palm Desert. This means that
buildings and groups of build-
ings should relate to the
desert environment and to adja-
cent building and landscaping
scale and materials - thus avoid-
ing a monumental scale or appear-
ance. The mini-regional uses
should serve a trade area larger
than Palm Desert extending east
and west within the Coachella
Valley but not attempting to
replace the functions of regional
shopping facilities located in
Palm Springs and Indio .
(#3) 2 .G. 2 . C. N.A. Show total Rigby property south
of the wash in neighborhood no.
3
(#4) 1.G. 1 20 & 21 Change maintain the character of
Palm Desert as a low intensity
to maintain the character of
Palm Desert and create the best
possible living environment for
residents .
Land Use Map
(#5) 15 . Show total Sun King site north of wash as medium
density residential .
(#6) 16. Show the Kieley property west of Highway 74 as low
density residential on the area presently shown as
very low density.
Staff Recommendation regarding change #1 :
CONCURRENCE - The change would reflect the intent of
the community not to become a commercial center which
serves the entire Coachella Valley.
Staff Recommendation regarding change #2 :
CONCURRENCE (with minor change) - The change helps to
clarify what change #1 means . However, the wording
which refers to urban design characteristics should be
deleted, since that aspect is more appropriately handled
elsewhere. This would involve deleting the second sentence.
Staff Recommendation regarding change #3 :
CONCURRENCE - Since the Rigby property is contiguous
only with neighborhood no. 3 , and since it should be
included in a neighborhood, it is appropriate that it
be included in neighborhood no. 3 .
Staff Recommendation regarding change #4:
CONCURRENCE - The change would emphasize the community' s
concern for "quality" development.
Staff Recommendation regarding change #5 :
CONCURRENCE - The proposed change will merely reflect
what already exists in terms of previously approved
development plans .
Staff Recommendation regarding change #6 :
CONCURRENCE - It seems appropriate to zone the area of
this parcel which is "developable" to the type density
which is envisioned rather than to provide a lower
density classification to the entire section and then
allow for a density transfer.
The Staff recommends that the aforementioned changes be
approved by Planning Commission Resolution No.
14,00,
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
AND
GENERAL PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SUBJECT PAGE NO.
Environmental Impact Report 1-8
Letters Received on Environmental
Impact Report 9
General Plan 10-14
Letters Received on General Plan 15
Staff Recommendation 16
Attachment
Planning Commission Resolution
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
To : Planning Commission
Report On: Environmental Impact Report and General Plan for
the City of Palm Desert
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
Just as State law (Government Code Section 65000 et . seq. )
mandates that all municipalities prepare and adopt a General
Plan, so too does it require that reports on the environmental
impact of the paln (EIR' s) be prepared (Public Resources Code
Section 21000 et . seq. ) . These reports are designed to provide
the official decision-making bodies of the City and the general
public with sufficient pertinent information on the expected
environmental, social, and economic impacts of the proposed
long-range General Plan for the City.
Because of the non-specific nature of the Plan and the ex-
tensive research which went into the preparation of its twelve
elements , much of data that would normally be included in a
separate environmental document is found in the General Plan
itself. Therefore, a summary of the EIR process as it relates
to this project should begin on October 3 , 1974, when the City
received the Preliminary Draft of the General Plan from its
planning consultants . This first draft was studied by City ad-
ministrative personnel and members of the Citizen' s Advisory
Committee (CAC) during an intensive 3-week review period. At
the end of this time, the preliminary draft was returned to the
consultants so that the modifications recommended by the CAC
could be incorporated into the Plan.
The resulting document was the Public Hearing Draft of
November 12 , 1974, which, in addition to the twelve General
Plan elements , also contained a specific section dealing with
the Plan' s environmental impacts . However, as in the previous
draft, much of the environmental information was scattered
throughout the General Plan elements . This document not only
included the City-related input, but also included the input
from all the other affected public agencies .
AGENCIES RECEIVING COPIES
As soon as the Public Hearing Draft was received, a Notice
of Completion was sent to the Secretary of the State Resources
Agency in Sacramento indicating that the City was preparing to
circulate the General Plan/EIR document to other agencies for
their review and comments . The following have received copies :
1. Riverside County Air Pollution Control District
2 . Riverside County Office of Road Commissioner and
County Surveyor
3. Riverside County Planning Commission, Indio and
Riverside offices
4. Riverside County Sheriff' s Office
5 . Riverside County Airports Director
6 . Riverside County Health Department
7 . Riverside County Fire Protection Planning and En-
gineering Officer
8 . Coachella Valley County Water District
9 . California Department of Transportation
10. California Department of Parks and Recreation
11. University of California at Riverside
12 . California History Preservation Department
13 . U. S . Post Office
14. Bureau of Land Management
-1-
15 . Coachella Valley Television
16 . Coachella Valley Soil Conservation District
17 . Coachella Valley Association of Governments
18 . Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
19 . Desert Sands Unified School District
20. Palm Desert Chamber of Commerce
21 . College of the Desert
22 . Riverside Museum Associates
23 . City of Palm Springs
24. City of Indio
25 . City of Rancho Mirage
26 . City of Indian Wells
27 . Southern California Gas
28 . Palm Desert Disposal Services , Inc .
29. Palm Desert Community Service District
30. Southern California Edison
31. General Telephone
32. Living Desert Reserve
33 . Regional Water Quality C ntrol Board, Colorado
River Basin Region
The draft EIR, comments from other agencies , private indi-
viduals , and organizations who have reviewed the draft, the
Staff' s responses to those comments , and any input from local
citizens at public hearings are then combined into a single docu-
ment which is called the Final E . I .R. It is this final report
which must be certified as complete by the Planning Commission
and City Council .
SUBSTANTIVE ASPECTS OF THE E . I .R.
The heart of any EIR is determined by its substantive as-
pects . Sending out the proper notices and forms will not help
an EIR if its authors have overlooked a serious , adverse impact
or have recommended ineffective mitigation measures . Because
of its generalized content , the EIR for the Palm Desert General
Plan provides for an overall analysis of long-range effects
that would result from the adoption of the General Plan rather
than those short-range impacts created by the plan' s more spe-
cific proposals . These impacts will be assessed in future EIR' s
as implementation takes place .
SUMMARY OF E. I .R.
The early sections of the report outline the planning area
and describe the primary features of the physical environment .
Section 6 of the General Plan contains data on topography, geo-
graphy, soils , seismic and other geologic hazards , flooding,
vegetation, and wildlife . This is supplemented with discussions
on the climate, air quality, hydrology and mineral resources
found in the planning area. The existing man-made physical en-
vironment is dealt with in detail in the General Plan elements
on population and economics , housing conditions , circulation
systems , public facilities and archaeology.
The next section describes how the implementation of the
General Plan would affect the previously-described environment
and what has been proposed to minimize negative impacts .
- although topography would be altered as development occurs ,
most land is of little intrinsic value to man, except for
those significant topographic areas such as the sand dunes
and mountain areas which would be preserved.
- exposure to earthquake, blowsand, and flood hazard areas
can be minimized through the proper use of zoning ordinan-
ces and development controls-
- loss of most of the native plant and animal habitats due to
development of the valley floor is minimized by provisions
-2-
in the General Plan which protect all rare and endangered
species in the planning area, as well as provide a suit-
able environment for more common flora and fauna types .
- provisions for the conservation of unique natural areas
in the Conservation and Open Space Element , the preserva-
tion of scenic vistas in the Scenic Highways Element , and
the increased acquisition of public parks in the Public
Facilities Element all serve to offset the loss of exist-
ing open space as vacant land is developed.
- as development occurs , air quality is expected to decline -
primarily as a result of the increased number and distance
of automobile trips . Although emission control standards
are not in local hands , implementation policies in the
Land Use and Urban Design elements could reduce the amount
of increase of pollutants by encouraging cluster rather
than sprawl development , thus enabling the eventual use of
circulation systems other than the private car .
- controls on future growth will help to minimize the in-
crease in humidity caused by additional development.
- although an increase in population is expected to alter
the social stability and characteristics of the present
population of Palm Desert , implementation of policies
presented in the Urban Design Element, Population and
Economics Element, and Housing Element should produce bene-
ficial effects on the social fabric of the City.
- the overall economic impact of the Plan should have desir-
able consequences for Palm Desert by insuring a stable
economic base, thus allowing the City to meet expenditures
and provide a high level of services without a burdensome
level of taxation.
- transportaion will be affected by the Circulation Element
which contains recommendations for improving existing modes
of travel and for the creation of alternative systems .
- developmental and architectural controls should greatly im-
prove the aesthetic quality of the planning area.
- the General Plan will require an extensive increase in new
urban infrastructure and public facility needs at complete
development. Funds for these improvements can be generated
by a variety of revenue sources and without placing a bur-
densome tax load on the existing residents .
- additional highway and railroad noise is anticipated. Cor-
rective and mitigating measures have been recommended in
the Urban Design Element and Transportation Noise Element .
- impacts on existing and potential archaeological sites have
been evaluated in the Conservation and Open Space Element .
The next secion of the EIR Element lists those adverse environ-
mental effects which cannot be avoided. These include :
- increased traffic which will create higher air and noise
pollution levels .
- increased utility needs , especially water, which will create
a burden on the Coachella Valley County Water District to
meet demands at full development.
- Tamarisk rows planted to control blowsand will tend to elim-
inate views from the valley floor .
-3-
- humidity levels will rise as landscaping associated with
increased development becomes more pronounced.
- development will remove large amounts of open space be-
tween the Whitewater Flood Control Channel and the north-
ern boundary of the City' s Sphere of Influence .
- views of the night sky will be eliminated.
The following section addresses itself to mitigation meas-
ures which have been proposed to minimize adverse environmental
impact . In this case, the elements of the General Plan have
been prepared with mitigation measures as one of their princi-
pal design criterions .
Alternatives to the General Plan proposal are examined in
the EIR Element and will be further discussed in the section on
Staff response to EIR comments . In addition, as a part of the
development of the City' s Sphere of Influence, seven alternative
planning areas were analyzed with input from the public, Citi-
zen' s Advisory Committee, Planning Commission and City Council .
The approved planning area was established on the basis of En-
virnomental Impacts , ability to serve, etc . Subsequently as a
part of the preliminary General Plan analysis , at least three
alternatives were developed and evaluated. Therefore, a num-
ber of alternatives were analyzed before the proposed General
Plan was presented.
The balance between short-term and long-term effects of
the General Plan are also discussed. In the long term, the
Plan' s positive effects will become more evident as an attrac-
tive and desirable environment is created.
Finally, the EIR summarizes the irreversible or irretriev-
able environmental changes . For this project , urbanization and
urban expansion are reviewed as the major irreversible changes .
RESPONSE TO EIR COMMENTS
The Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Palm
Desert General Plan has been circulated to various public agen-
cies that may be affected by the proposed plan as it is imple-
mented. The following responses to the comments of the review-
ing agencies are included as information that should be con-
sidered in conjunction with the Draft EIR and the comments of
the public agencies .
Comments on the Draft EIR have been received from the following
agencies :
1. Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) - in-
formal staff comments
2. Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
3 . Coachella Valley County Water District
4. Palm Desert Property Owners Association
5 . United States Department of the Interior , Bureau of
Land Management
6 . State of California Resources Agency, Department of Parks
and Recreation
7 . Riverside County Air Pollution Control District
8 . Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District
9 . Southern California Gas Company
Responses to the comments relative to the content of the Draft
EIR are as follows :
-4-
1 . C-VAG: C-VAG comments were presented at an informal staff meeting on
November 27, 1974 and related to the need to include additional informa-
tion on the growth-inducing impacts of the Plan, alternatives to the
Plan, and economic analysis.
Response: In general , C-VAG comments relate to the need to document
the planning process utilized in development of the General Plan. It
is recommended that the following be incorporated into the final EIR.
A. Growth Inducing Impact of the General Plan
Implementation of the proposed General Plan will have a considerable
growth-inducing impact on the City of Palm Desert. However, it
should be noted that the land use proposals included in the Plan
are based on regional and local market factors as well as economic
base studies for the City and its sphere of influence. (See
Section 3 of the General Plan Public Hearing Draft.) Population
in the City and the sphere of influence is projected to increase
from approximately 19,510 in 1974 to approximately 45,800 in 1995.
This represents an annual average growth rate of 4. 15 percent. As
this growth occurs, Palm Desert will increase from approximately
18.4 percent of the Coachella Valley population to approximately
25.8 percent of the Coachella Valley population.
The growth projected in the City and the sphere of influence is
growth that can be anticipated due to planned developments in the
near future (1975-1980) and regional trends. Thus, while the Plan
projects a substantial growth in population, the growth that is
planned is a result of on-going regional trends. The proposed plan
will provide the City with the opportunity to control the manner
in which the anticipated growth will occur.
Impacts on Growth Policy
Population growth within the Coachella Valley has been rapid (100
percent increase 1950-1960; and 61 . 1 percent increase 1960-1970) .
While individual cities have been able to control growth and the
manner in which growth occurs, this has resulted in a shift in
development to unincorporated areas and other cities within the
Valley and the net increase in population has remained at a high
level . Thus, it appears that any alteration to the rate at which
growth occurs must come through the efforts and growth policies
of regional agencies rather than individual cities.
B. Alternatives to the General Plan
In addition to the alternatives to the Plan discussed on page 16
of the Draft EIR, several plan alternatives were discussed at
various stages in the planning process. These included:
1 . Development of the residential areas at different densities
than those recommended in the proposed plan: Alternatives
included discussions regarding both higher and lower densities
in portions of the planning area, and the current recommendations
were arrived at through a series of staff, town forum and
citizen meetings.
2. Development of different land use structures: Alternatives
included variations on the location, intensity and types of
use indicated in the proposed plan. The recommended plan
represents a refinement of all previous alternatives as well
as a land use pattern that balances the various fiscal and
service impacts of the plan.
3. Alternative to the circulation network: Alternatives considered
related to development of a section tine grid system. This
alternative was rejected due to current travel desire lines,
and the desire of the community to develop a circulation network
that would strengthen its unique identity.
-5-
The recommended plan is a synthesis of the various alternatives and
provides a balance of fiscal factors and community objectives. (For
details of the fiscal aspects of the plan, see the Palm Desert Sphere
of Influence Study.)
C. SB 938 requires general plans to consider energy conservation in
their development
The policies of the proposed general plan recommend the examination
of all development in light of energy needs. (See page l .P. l in
the Land Use Element.)
2. Coachella Valley Recreation and Park District: Comments related to the
need to reference various community facilities in the proposed general
plan.
Response: The major recreational , institutional , and public facilities
are referenced on the land use map and the open space and conservation
map.
3. Coachella Valley County Water District: Comments from the Coachella
Valley County Water District concern recommended changes to Figure 9-4,
Infrastructure Demand and Generation Factors, on page E.12c. They offer
this data:
(see attached letter from CVCWD)
Response: Changes noted and recommendation for inclusion in Final EIR.
4. Palm Desert Property Owners Association: Comments from the Association
concern: (a) The EIR will not withstand future attack by developers,
land owners or other groups seeking changes or relief; (b) data used
throughout the EIR is out of date and that projections based on this data
are understated; (c) disagreement over the future availability of suffi-
cient water supplies; (d) relationship between increased density and in-
creased air pollution and humidity; (e) social changes in the population
of Palm Desert; (f) high density promotes the uncontrolled increase of
property values, resulting in demands for even higher density; (g) ad-
verse impacts from solid waste, noise, and light pollution.
Response: (a) The EIR is an informational document only. It cannot be
used to approve or deny a project, which in this case is the General Plan.
The General Plan is only one of a series of regulatory devices, along
with specific plans, the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Regulations, etc. ,
that will be used to evaluate future development requests. Simply con-
forming to the land-use designation does not guarantee that the develop-
ment will be permitted. In no case should the General Plan• be inter-
preted as being so inflexible as to prevent equitable relief for members
of the community.
(b) Every attempt has been made to use the most current in-
formation available for this EIR. In some cases, the figures have been
adjusted to reflect change in the method of data collection. Data which
cannot be revised is presented in the form in which it has been received
and clearly labeled as such. To insure that more current information
has not been overlooked, the Draft EIR is circulated to all agencies
which may be affected, requesting their review and comments. Finally,
the General Plan is not a static document; it is updated each year and
undergoes a major revision every five years.
(c) The Draft EIR makes no attempt to ignore the potential
problem of adequate future water supplies. Page E.12 addresses this
issue and provides that "as the General Plan is implemented and updated,
it will be important for public utilities to review future needs and
-6-
specifically for the Coachella Valley County
Water District to make a determination of
the possible establishment of new water
sources . "
(d) The statement that higher
density will lead to higher levels of air pol-
lution and humidity is misleading and in-
correct . Numerous studies have shown that
urban areas with high to moderate densities
have lower per capita service costs than
equivalent size cities developed at very
low densities . Figure 9-4 on page E. 12c
points out that water consumption and sew-
age output are lower per dwelling unit for
medium and high density than for low or very
low density. Cluster development enables
the use of alternatives to the automobile
which would not be feasible in an area
developed exclusively at a low density
level.
(e) As stated in the report , "the
changes created by urbanization of the
planning area will doubtlessly be viewed
as detrimental by some of the current
residents of Palm Desert. " The Plan rec-
ommends changes that would improve the
social environment of the City for many
family types and income levels .
(f) As the cost of land, con-
struction labor, and materials continues
to climb, developers have been forced to
build more units per acre so that the
cost of the individual new dwelling unit
does not rise beyond the means of the
average family.
(g) Environmp-ntal impacts re-
garding solid waste, noise, and light
pollution have been adequately addressed
throughout the elements of the General
Plan.
-7-
5 . United States Department of Interior (BLM)
(comments) : The Bureau of Land Management
commented favorably on the EIR, indicated
some of their current plans and activities ,
and made some clarifications regarding BLM
property as it relates to the General Plan.
Response : No response requested or required.
6 . State of California Department of Parks and
Recreation
(comments) : The Department expressed appre-
ciation for having the opportunity to review
the EIR and indicated that the General Plan
will have no detrimental affects on the
State Park System.
Response : No response requested or required.
7 . Riverside County Air Pollution Control Dis-
trict
(comments) : The District commented in gen-
eral on pollution problems and indicated their
inability to conduct any studies on ambient
air quality at this time .
Response : No response requested or required.
8. (See Item 2 above)
9. Southern California Gas Company
(comments) : The Firm stated its willingness
to continue to provide utility services to
the best of its ability to meet all existing
and future requirements of the City.
Response: No response requested or required.
-8-
�%Ww, *mole
LETTERS RECEIVED ON
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
-9-
December 31 , 1974
Mayor Clark
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert , Ca 92260
Subject : GEidERAL PLAN
Sir:
The General Plan which is to be presented to the City
Council for consideration and expected adoption has been reviewed.
It appears to have been well researched, professionally presented
and excellent in format . It is however almost 180 degrees shy
of the mark.
This General Plan - had it been nrerared for example for
Lake Havasu City - would have been right on target . McCulloch
envisioned a medium sized , well rounded community on that desert
site . The scheme was and is advertised rationally, prospective
buyers are flown in company aircraft from Canada and the Eastern
states for, a look-see : suitable light industry is induced to
locate there ; every effort that 7ood promotion can exert is
being done to develop LHC into the well-rounded self sufficient
community t:Iat its founder intended.
We citizens of the existing community of Palm Desert are
a different breed of cats . We settled here for the reason that
we liked Palm Desert in its Dresent composition and its envi-
ronment . We elected the individuals to the Council on their
campaign pledges to "maintain the village atmosphere . "
Mr. Mayor, if this General Plan is adopted and its recom-
mendations become effective then we the citizens will be vic-
timized by the very officials whom we elected who promised to
represent us and to faithfully perform as the electorate indi-
cated was their desire .
Sincep,,ely ,
Citizens
cc : Concerned C _
Palm Desert Property Owners Associaticyn
Citizens. Advisory Go iittee:
ELMER C. RIGBY, M. D.
2200 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD,SUITE 109
THORACIC SURGERY SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90404
BRONCHOSCOPY-ESOPHAGOSCOPY
TELEPHONE 829-1300
CARDIAC SURGERY
December 27 , 1974
Members , Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
P. 0. Box 1648
Palm Desert , California 92260
Attention : William Seidler, Chairman
RE : Property eastside Portola Avenue and North
of Magnesia Falls Road (Zoned by the County
for 10 years as C-P)
Lear Mr. Seidler:
It is requested a change be made in the general plan to continue
the C-P zoning on the above property. It is believed a village
service satellite area is needed for the 2111500 people wbo will
be living within a block or two of this area.
It is my plan to have a medical office for myself, services
such as a barber shop , beauty parlor, laundromat, cleaning
shop and a general village market with an appropriate early
California theme. It should fit in well with every environ-
mental consideration and will primarily serve the two mobile
home parks across the street , the subdivision south of the
elementary school , and the Sun-King subdivision to the north .
Enclosed are pertinent documents . It will be noted that a
plot plan approval was in effect until last year for a sales
office which was planned to be the temporary beginning of
the development.
Attached are a map and a copy of the road dedication; note it
has been recorded. Also, included is a letter making reference
to the support given by Mr. McCandless to continue this zoning
when it was overlooked on the county master plan by the artist
who inadyertenxly showed it as elementary school property.
ELMER C. RIGBY, M. D.
2200 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD,SUITE 109
THORACIC SURGERY SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90404
BRONCHOSCOPY-ESOPHAGOSCOPY
TELEPHONE 829-1300
CARDIAC SURGERY
Page Two
The County and the City have always received my fullest
cooperation. I strongly supported the annexation of the
Sun-King Mobile Home subdivision to the city. I am
planning to give the Teen Center a building site at the
east end on a long-term lease at a token figure. Also ,
it is contemplated that a joint parking area can be
devised for the city park to the south.
It was because of the permanent C-P zoning that I agreed
to dedicate 44 ' for the Magnesia Falls Drive Right-Of-Way
separating this parcel from the elementary school . This
road was in effect the beginning of the development of
the commercial property.
Hopefully, the Planning Commission will see fit again to
apply the C-P zoning to this property realizing any
development always requires final City Council approval .
�^
S' rely yours ,
lmer C. Rigby, M.D. '
ECR:rs
enclosures
RECEIV ED
ELMER C. RIGBY, M. D. DEC 2 3 1974
2200 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD,SUITE 109
THORACIC SURGERY SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90404 �y1y{i1fj!'y /1&K�VIICES
GI
SRONCHOS COPY-ESOPHAGOSCOPY TELEPHONE 829-1300 `M'F PAW DES RT
CARDIAC SURGERY
December 20 , 1974
Mr. Paul A. Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
P . 0. Box 1648
Palm Desert , California 92260
Dear Paul :
It was surely helpful to have your thoughts on how best
the triangular property might be put to good use. For
later discussions with a developer it would seem to me
essential to have the ordinances of CP-S zoning. Hope-
fully, the Commission will agree in that any future plan
which may come under consideration will require the
approval of the City anyway. Lastly , it is most apparent
that any development on this property will have to be
highly acceptable to all of the community in order to
succeed.
Again, many thanks for the advice . It surely was a
pleasure to see how well the new city organization is
functioning. Since it is my future home I am most anxious
to see an orderly and beautiful development .
Hope to see you soon ; best wishes for the season .
S'inc`erely ,
Elmer C. Rigby , M. D.
ECR : rs
cc : Mr. L. Comeau
Mr. E . George Marzicola
7F, � ,
� .
�.- �
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
City of Palm Desert =p.
TO: Harvey L. Hurlburt
FROM: Paul A. Williams
SUBJECT: INFORMATION FOR THE MIAYOR DATE: 12/16/74
Recently I met with George Marzicola and George Ritter
regarding the Dr. Rigby property on Portola Avenue ad-
jacent to the Whitewater Wash. This was a meeting held
in response to a letter sent by George Marzicola to the
Mayor. The outcome of the meeting was an agreement by
the representatives of Dr. Rigby that the property in
question was not appropriate for commercial and that Mr .
Ritter would be evaluating the site as to its potential
for residential development . Upon completion of this
analysis , Mr. Ritter will get back to the City to re-
view his findings .
PAW/kcw
r-
MEMORANDUM
r.
r`
October 1 , 1974 ' r^
To: llHarvey L. Hurlburt , City i.Ianager
FroJ,', Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services
Re : THE TRIANGLE PIECE OF PROPERTY OWNED BY DR. RIGBY AT THE
SOUTIIEAST CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF PORTOLA AVENUE
AND THE ;BHITEIVATER 1011ASH
The Mayor has asked me to review a letter from Mr. George Marzicola
regarding the property located at the southeast corner of the inter-
section of Portola Avenue and the Whitewater Wash. The letter seemed
to indicate that Dr. Rigby would like to have CPS zoning on the prop-
erty for a potential market and service facility. He bases this
premise on the fact that he had such an approval under the County be-
fore incorporation. In my review of the actual approval given by
the County on this property, I find that the County records indicate
an approval was giver, for a trailer sales lot and office on this
property and not the use indicated by Dr. Rigby. In addition , the
Cove Communities General Plan shows the property as appropriate for
public facilities and notr='for commercial development . The prelimin-
ary land-use plan by Wilsey Sc Ham indicates the property as a poten-
tial park site, to be developed in conjunction with the proposed
utilization of the Whitewater Wash for recreational facilities. For
these reasons, therefore , I am of the opinion that the site is not
appropriate for the type of commercial development indicated by Dr.
Rigby.
This finding is further substantiated by the location of the site
at t':e present northerly-most extension of Portola which would in-
dicate that sufficient traffic would not exist in the area to make
the area condusi.ve to a market and service facility and such a use
is shown at other locations north of the Whitewater Wash by Wilsey
& Ham at more centrally located sites. Also, such a use would not
seem to be condusive to the community park which is under construc-
tion on the adjacent school site.
PAW/kcw
attach.
-mD
-3
\J,� 4,- -T -,V nA %J� a--
E.GEOR"M MARZICOLA COMPANY, REALTORS
73-743 Highway 111 (P.O. Box 47)
Palm Desert,California 92260
R E A LTO R® Telephone: 714 346-1173
November 7, 1974
Mr. Paul Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
P .O. Box 1648
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Paul :
Relative to the enclosed letter from Mayor Clark dated
September 24 , 1974 , will you please call for a mutually
convenient time. I would like to sit down with you
and discuss the matter so that we can implement the
necessary procedures to achieve Dr. Rigby' s objective.
Y urs Ity,
E. George Marzicola
E GMT c
enc
cc : Dr. Elmer C. Rigby
REALTOR*—is a registered mark which identifies a professional in
real estate who subscribes to a strict Code of Ethics as a member of
the NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF REALTORS.
45-275 Prickle Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph. 346-061.1
September 24 , 1974
Mr. George Marzicola
73-743 Highway 111
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear George:
I have your letter of September 19 enclosing a
copy of Dr. Rigby' s letter of September 10 and the
enclosure of the September 20, 1972 Planning Commission
letter of Plot Plan 1331.
As you and I discussed yesterday, I have turned
this over to Paul Williams, Director of Environmental
Services, and he will take this matter under study.
In addition, we are copying Wilsey & Ham so that they
can take advantage of this in-put regarding the tri-
angular piece of property at the southeast corner of
Portola and the Whitewater Channel.
Thank you for sending this to us .
r
Regards,
HENRY B. CLARK
Mayor
HBC:mp
DATE
TO:
❑j✓ MAYOR ❑CODE ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
❑ COUNCIL ❑ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
'MANAGER ❑ EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
❑ ADMIN.AID ❑ FIRE
❑ ATTORNEY ❑ MANAGEMENT SERVICES
BUILDING OFFICIAL ❑
r OR:❑ ACTION & DISPOSITION
❑ FILE
❑ INFORMATION
❑ REVIEW & COMMENT
RETURN
REMARKS:... ......................... . ..........
.._.......... ...... ...
r
- ..................!I . .........r
......
... ......... •----------•..........................._.....•----........•...........---...........--•-•-
................. .........................................................
A1-6/74-2M FROM: ............:------ ....................
.a ice' t,✓
Ft
jt!
F
ll
I
1
k
t�{
September 24 , 1974 [
Mr. George _,11arzicola
73-743 Highway 111
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear George:
I have your letter of September 19 enclosing a
copy of Dr. Rigby' s letter of September 10 and the
enclosure of the September 20, 10.72 Planning Conrnission
letter of Plot Plan 1331.
As you and I discussed yesterday, I have turned
this over to maul Wi11iams, Director of Environmental
Services, and he will take this matter under study.
In addition, sae are copyi:;g j-7ilsey & i:am so that they
can take advantage of this in-put regarding the tri-
angular piece of proporty at the southeast corner of
Portola and the 10hitewater Channel.
Thank you for sending this to us.
Regards,
HENRY E. CLARC
Mayor
HBC:Mp
s .
• 3
• 7
1
yy E.GEORGE MARZICOLA COMPANY, REALTORS
73-743 Highway 111 (P.O. Cox 47)
R E A LTO R Palm Desert,California 922E0
Telephone: 714 34Ci-1173
September 19, 1974
-
S EP 2 .k 1974
Mayor Henry Clark
Palm Desert City Hall
Palm -Desert, California 92260
Dear Hank:
The enclosed information is a follow up of recent
conversations with you regarding the triangular
parcel owned by Dr. Rigby.
In my opinion the failure to implement a C-P zone
approval by Riverside County was simply an omission
in the annexation process. Dr. Rigby became a victim
of the confusion in transition from the unincorporated
county to the incorporated city and I feel he was
treated unjustly under the circumstances.
Therefore, in the light of our conversation I trust
you will seriously consider correcting the situation
thereby demonstrating the good intent of the City
Council.
Yo rs t ' ly,
E. G. Marzico ,
Realtor
EGM:eb
Enclosure
cc: Elmer C. Rigby, M.D.
REALT00—is a registered mark which identifies a professional in
L
t
i
i
ELMER C. RIGBY, M. D. '
2200 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD,SUITE 109
THORACIC SURGERY SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90404
BRONCHOSCORY-E SOPHAGOS COPY TELEPHONE 829-1300
CARDIAC SURGERY
September 10 , 1974
Mayor Henry Clark
Palm Desert City Hall
Palm Desert , California 92260
Dear Mayor Clark :
It is requested the C-P zoning be continued on a small acreage
at the Southeast corner of Portola and the White Water Channel .
Riverside County has had this zoning applied for a number of
years because of the mobile home parks in the area. Enclosed
is a legal description of the property and also a permit for
a plot plan on the property which expired last Fall and was
inadvertently not renewed by the engineer before the termina-
tion date otherwise construction would have started this last
year. Because of the incorporation a new plot plan was de-
layed until the new city government had time to become organized .
It is believed this zoning should be continued for a number of
reasons . Light marketing and service facilities on this site
would serve almost entirely the residents of the three mobile
home parks which are nearly adjacent thereto . It would permit
these 2 , 500 people to omit the use of cars . This would be of
great convenience to the elderly citizens , but more important
would reduce considerably the amount of local traffic passing
by the elementary school which Portola borders on the south .
This satellite area would function as a separate small nucleus
and would not affect the cammercial areas of El Paseo and
Highway 111 except by reducing considerably the number of cars .
It is contemplated that a portion of it would also be usable
for civic activities such as the Teen Center because of its
proximity as the eastern end of the property to the new park .
It is requested that my associates and I have an opportunity
to review this proposed continuance of zoning with the appro-
priate city engineers for it is believed this property can be
used to great advantage for a more orderly development of our
new city .
i�rcerely yours ,
liner C. Rigby, M. D.
ECR :rs
enclosures
t'�'- LANNING COMIAISSION
L �
ELMER M. KATZ : EIN, Chairmon, Rwbidoux Ex•Officio
COUNTY
�^ nr KAY S. CENICE Hemet B. D. POWELL, County Surveyor and
JESS E. (_ILLIBr 1 Corona Road Commissioner
J KAY H. OLESEN, Pcim Desert FRANK C. SEELEY, County Assessor
T. MILFORD HARRISON, Riverside RAY T. SULLIVAN, JR., County Counsel
HORACE MILLER, Blythe _
FRANCIS J. BUECHE, Sunnymead HAZEL 1. EVENSEN, Secretary
WIM. R. LIVINGSTONE - PLANNING DIRECTOR
40SO LEMON STREET, ROOM 101, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92501
TELEPHONE (714) 787.6181
September 20, 1972 Indio Admi n isc ra t ive Center
116-209 Clasis 7Lrlet, Ronl-1 304
GVTD:159GD0 Indio, CaliforniG 92201
(714) 347-3511, E:ct. 278
Dr. Elmer C. Ri ngby
2200 Salta 1,1onica 'Boulevard
Santa i".onica, California
RE: 18.30(C-P) Plot Plan No. 1331
Dear Dr. Rigby:
This letter is to report approval of your recent application for con-
Gtruction of a trailer sales lot and office in the C—P Gone in "-h2 Palm,
Desert orca of unincorporated Riverside County subject to the ,folloc,?ing -
coediti.ci.�:
la) The develo-p e:jt of the pranises shall confor, substantially with
that as shoim on plot plcn r.ar::ed Exhib ";`ill on file with 18.30
(C-F) Pict Flan i:o. 1331 in the office of the Riverside County
Planning DLparc;.,2nt.
lb) The propertcy is locoLed on the Ecst side of Portola Avenue, North
of t:av sia .Palls Road!) End the i ,prove-tints to consist of a
trailer sales lot.
lc) The parsing aroa shall be installed as per Sect�ion 18.12 of Ord-
inance iio. 3i;3
2a) Prior to the issuanco of a building remit additional R/IV dedication
shall be o ered by the ov;nors for public streoL purposes as follows:
44' half R/11 dedication on Deep Canyon and Portola Avenue
2b) Prior to final inspection, occupancy and use of any portion of the
proposed dev`lopm2nt, street ir.:pLovem2nts shall be required as
follo :s
All improvements to be in substantial conformance to Exhibit "All
and constructed in accord rce with the approved plan on file
with the County Road Departr.;ent. Curb and gutter shall be in-
stalled along Portola Avenue to a point at which the private
road begins.
}
Dr. Elmer C. Rigby
18.30(C-P) Plot Plan No. 1331
September 20, 1972
Page 2.
Road Depart;:,ent may naive the requirements of installation prior
to final inspection cnd occupancy rnci allow the developer to post
a perlor;.:snce band in lieu thereof to a date certain, as determined
by the Road Ccr,;missioner.
2e) Street trees shall be installed and raintainod in accordance with
the Riverside County S't',`e_ `l,� 0 171ai?L7_i3� OLd 3.nance '10. rj_37.19
3) All plan-'cro shown on said E.chibit "A" shall be planted with plants,
rnain`ain:3c in a ��iO°11n? conditi0il ^d not allo ed to exceed 2E, inc: as
In e;c020L as OLI'e—Ii iC:1'ei d. A sufficiont nU.:?bOr of
watering- dices shall be installed within the planters prior to
find inspection.
4) Any cuts-Me lighting shall be hccded and directed so as not to
directly shine ution adjoining propez-ty or public rights of i,7ay.
5) Prior to the issuLr.:co of a building per,-.ii't the applicLnt shall first
obtain clearance and/c2 p_�rnjits fro.-a the following public agencies;
County Derartmont of Public Health
County l..JZd
Riv. County Dapt. of Lire Protection (Perris)
Written evidence of such clearance from the above shall be presented
to the Lana 'Use Division of Lice D:^.ax L,;;:nt of Dailding and Safety
at the tir_-, of the issuance of a building per;;iit.
6) The use permitted herceby shall ter„iinate on September 16, 1973.
7) This c.pproval shall be used within one year free this date of
approval; other::ise it s,-;all h2cc::e null and void and of no effect
whatso?ver. II]y use is fr:?; r?t Substantial construction Of facilities
eoni e;,plated by this parr,-,it.
Dr. Eli-,ier C.
18.30(C-I') Plot"Plan lie. 1331
Septer,;ber 20, 1972
Page 3.
8) In -the event the use pert:iitted hereby ceases operation for a period
of one year or more, this por,Tait shell become null and void.
Enclosed for you:, files is a Copy s
to the fo<�Y ' - � • l of said plot plan as approved. �n ar?,al_
oi. 1� CO_"._liLlon r:- py d' d- 1.i1 Writing to the Riverside COU:��'✓
Ease Arc--,a i'lcnning Co Ii"lcil il'?'L111i1 S0 6ays af-Ler date of 'this approval. J
Very truly yout'S,
RIVERSIDE CO%%1�.' PL?.T?i'T_T.iiG I�EE�P.T1T?s
11hil . T;.. Livingsion e - Plai,ning Director
► I
Gerald 11. Dupr•eo - f;ssoc:ia-,-e Planner
GIND:n1w
Encl.
Cc: Riverside office
DcipaL'Ll;ienL of i'ublic Health
CoUilty pond D`narrr;:2nt
Ri V. County .'_'L1..�ai L of L Zre Protection(Perris)
Derr. oil 1l_in c. Sar ty - Lrind Use Division
Carl Sever `�
Western Ti-L'-e Cc-,,i any
67711 T:ay.ol i 1;'.ive sid^, CalliOri3i a
Fmnk T,.-c_.:2rschl g
�
577 E. Sunny Dunes Road, Palm Springs, California
l
j
t
�T
VVV � j
,Vl,� w
h� rl A) ;
't
Nwi
E12-I&P C. RIGi Y
hereby GRAN,,(S) to
the following described real property in the unincorporated area
County of Riverside
State of California:
All that portion of the rorth-;ost quarter of Section 16, Tazmship Enst San Born:rdino B se ui:d 5 South, Range 6
' i`-=r�.di�n 1.� to Soul I:oxly of th_ SOUL'herly f that
curtain e4.s i:.-2zlt ccnve� �:d ' � " „ link o�
of tho ^cl'_-?a V :�2=Y County T?�ter District a public agent Stale of Call i.rarni.a by G�ant of y
�c,�:. I:=s _nt reco_ciod I?ovember 29 1968 as
In ,trui: ont :?o. 11�,�J. ,
E-";CEO iia;%; theref:c., that porti_cn de sea--- as follc,;s: B GU,?! ?G at the South,;ost
corner o-- �-':;� � o�
1 Scutr_ �.st. ciGrte,, of i'.� :o;- r.;asi cuartar of said Section 16; th2, co
i;orth 89° 4,3' 3411 �.
tt:CilCC' !?O tt2 �° (�,j S 3� l.'Cn t'L3 South l i-? pi .`',.^_i d So•t:;j72ns- OuEj:.-ter, tJ1 ft?�=•
,:ast ee3 B 97 �;
tl ^nCe South ° i 44 ° 5 1 to tt.3 j,2st 1_?i2 Of s<i_d o- i
outh 0 00 43 j?i�it� Oil tii3 Sn�.d j;�� n the pint I--1L L'�'
beginning. �L line, 70�.33 feel to the point of
I
t
PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 1244 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
TmuwHorm (714) 346-2804
A Non-Profit Corporation
December 18 , 1974
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City Hall
Palm Desert , California 92260
Re : Appeal from approval of the General Plan and Environmental
Impact Report by the Palm Desert Planning Commission on
December 9 , 1974 .
Gentlemen:
We respectfully request that the following changes be made
in the Wilsey and Ham report : The "Highway 111 Precise Plan"
may or may not be a part of the General Plan as approved by the
Palm Desert Planning Commission but the Staff advised "That the ;
ideas and concepts are incorporated within the final General Plan
as approved by the Planning Commission" . Some of the pages and
numbers listed below are from the "Precise Plan" .
1. Page 11, paragraph 1 states in part "the primary trade area
for Palm Desert which could be served bv 'Pal.m Desert are the
Cities of Palm Desert , Rancho Mirage , Indian Wells and
Cathedral City. Some demand will come from Palm Springs ,
Coachella and Indio. "
Page 11 , paragraph 6 : The location of department stores in
Palm Desert is based on - "Excellent access provided by
Highway 111"- "The Central location of Palm Desert in relation
to other Cities in the Coachella Valley and the Availability
of large parcels of land" .
These written statements along with oral statements by Wilsey
and Ham and the Land Use Classification on Map fig. 1-3 Land
Use Page 1B 4A prove that the intent is to make the present
Incorporated Area of Palm Desert the regional shopping area
of the Coachella Valley and this to be concentrated along
the Western Portion of Highway 111. •'
On Page 11 and .12 - Hotel Demand , the statements "In Palm
Springs , Hotel sites are more difficult to locate" : "Palm
Desert with commercial land available along Highway 111 ,
could capture a small segment of this new Hotel Demand" ;
"Demand exists for a total of 300 to 400 new hotel rooms in
the Highway 111 -El Paseo corridor" also proves the intent
of the General Plan is to make Palm Desert the Hotel Center
x
PA DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
I .O. BOX 1244 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
Taumitorra (714) 346.2804
A Non-Profit Corporation
December 18 , 1974
Honorable Mayor and
Members of the City Council
City Hall
Palm Desert , Ca 92260
Re : Appeal of the Councils decision on December 12 , 1974 to
pay Wilsey and Ham an additional $31 , 300 . 00 for Improvement
District #1.
Gentlemen:
This letter is a protest as well as an appeal and a request
that the proposed contract not be entered into with Wilsey and
Ham for payment of an additional #31 , 300 . 00 for Improvement
District #1, for the following reasons :
{
1. This plan does not have the approval of the Palm Desert
Property Owners Association Architectural Committee which
has jurisdiction over a major portion of this area, nor has
the Interim Core Area Traffic Committee appointed by the
City to study the plan completed their study or reached a
decision to approve or not to approve . 'Without this approval ,
and a public hearing; on same , we challenge the legality of
the Council's decision to approve a contract of this dollar
amount and especially when the Improvement District Plan
could have such severe and long lasting effects on all Palm
Desert.
2 . Several parts of the plan are very controversial and have
been challenged. by the very people it was created to serve .
3. Certainly a plan of this magnitude deserves separate and
full publicity , in laymans language , so the Citizens may
be properly advised and therefore able to intelligently
make their wishes known to the City.
4. The plan as proposed , could have serious adverse effects
on the value of some parcels of property while benefiting
others . This could invite costly lawsuits for the City.
5 . The "Clifford Henderson" proposal for traffic in the Core
area of Palm Desert , together with the possibility of major
financing by the State of California, has not been thoroughly
investigated by the City together with Mr. Henderson and
all other participants who could help to obtain approval
by the State. If State financing can be obtained it would
save the City thousands of dollars and provide a solution
P. 0. Box 523
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
December 189 1974
Planning Commission
Palm Desert, Calif. 92260
Gentlemen:
I am not in agreement with the General Plan for Palm Desert as
presented by Wilsey and Ham, as I understand that plan.
1. I greatly favor retaining the present residential character of the
community, rather than moving in the direction of making Palm Desert the
shopping and convention center of the Coachella Valley.
2. I believe the maximun density of future residential developments
should be about 5 to the acre, that residential building should be one story,
and commercial building should be a maximun of two stories.
Very truly yours,
Mrs. Paul Stanley �f
YOUNG, HENRIE & MCCARTHY
ATTORNEYS PLEASE REPLY TO
RIC HART) T. YOUNG 100 POMONA MALL WEST
HOMER H. HENRIE
POMONA,CALIFORNIA 91766
JOHN C. McCARTHY TELEPHONE (714) 629-2521
BERT W. HUMPHRIES, JR. ----
BARRY S. MASON 401 NORTH HARVARD AVENUE
SHELDON G.WELLINS CLAREMONT,CALIFORNIA 91711
TIMOTHY P. BURRELL TELEPHONE (714) 629-2521
BY APPOINTMENT
December 16 , 1974
Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert
P . 0 . Box 1511
Palm Desert, CA. 92260
Attention: Edward Peck, President
Dear Mr . Peck:
Our firm has reviewed the Palm Desert General Plan and
accompanying Environmental Impact Report on the request
of the Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert. Unfortunately,
the Environmental Impact Report does not comply with the
Environmental Quality Act and the plan has some important'
deficiencies . The most important regulations concerning
the contents and review of an environmental impact report
are found in the guidelines adopted by the Resources
Agency of the state of California in §§15140 through 15166 .
(California Administrative Code Title 14 Division 6 .) The
Environmental Impact Report violates each of those sections .
An excellent practice for evaluating environmental impact
reports on general plans is to include a table showing
where the information required by the Environmental Quality
Act appears in the general plan or environmental impact
report . ' After January 1, 1975 , such a table will be re-
quired in order for the environmental impact report to be
adequate . The preparation of a table of this nature would
assist the City and its consultants in spotting -any gaps
in the required information. The following discussion will
attempt to follow the organization of the environmental
impact report and the state guidelines for the preparation
of these reports .
Description of the Project
State Guidelines §15141 requires certain summary information
to be a part of an environmental impact report. The report
Concerned Citizens 2 December 16, 1974
should summarize the environmental characteristics and
engineering proposals that are a part of the General Plan.
The report must indicate the effect this plan will have on
public services . No where in the Environmental Impact Re-
port is there a thorough economic analysis of the effects
that should occur if this general plan is implemented.
Under this section, there should be some reference to the
precise location and boundaries of the general planning area .
To easily correct this oversight, the city could merely refer
to where that information is contained in the general plan
itself .
Description of the Environmental Setting
This section of the environmental impact report violates
§15142 of the State Guidelines . For example, the information
on air quality is in relation to the California standards ,
which are less stringent than the standards adopted by the
federal government pursuant to the Clean Air Act. The EIR
contains no data for the air pollution due to hydrocarbons .
Since the irritating ozone is a chemical reaction of hydro-
carbons and oxides of nitrogen in the presence of sunlight,
the amount of this one critical ingredient should be in-
dicated in the environmental impact report .
In order to describe the existing environment from a local
standpoint, the contribution to such problems as air
pollution currently made by the City of Palm Desert should
be described in this report .
Environmental Impacts
While an environmental impact report on a general plan can
be less specific as the effects of the plan are not predictable
with the same degree of accuracy as the effects of a particular
construction project, that is not an indication that such an
EIR can avoid all references to specific facts and figures .
For example, the Environmental Impact Report states that as
the population increases , and as the density of population
increases , the humidity within the City of Palm Desert will
increase . How much? While the consultants may not be able to
give an exact figure, .a range of humidity levels would give
Concerned Citizens 3 December 16 , 1974
the City Council the information it needs to determine
whether particular levels of population are in the best
interest of the City of Palm Desert .
The Environmental Impact Report should indicate the
amount of animals and plant life in various areas of the
City of Palm Desert and its sphere of influence . This in-
formation should then state the amount of various animals
and plant life that will be displaced or destroyed due to
the implementation of the General Plan.
The EIR should indicate the levels of various air pollutants
to be expected when this plan is implemented and their con-
centrations within the planning area . Merely indicating the
number of tons that will be dumped into the atmosphere does
not provide sufficient information to determine whether the
proposed General Plan is consistent with the requirements
of the Clean Air Act, or what the affects of the air pollu-
tants to be generated would be on human health. An item
that might be of interest to the City Council is the re-
lationship between certain levels of air pollution and
commercial or high density residential developments .
The information concerning population concentration and
distribution would lead one to assume that the General Plan
will have absolutely no affect on population. The report
incorporates population projections that were developed
without any regard to the General Plan for the City of Palm
Desert . If the Plan will have any affect on channeling
growth either into or away from the City of Palm Desert,
figures should be contained in the EIR to indicate this effect .
Will the General Plan have no affect on noise levels? The
EIR merely indicates the existing noise levels . What will
be the increases in noise after full implementation of a
general plan?
The most serious deficiency in the EIR is a lack of
economic data. Element three of the plan concerns itself
with population and economics . However, that element
merely indicates that there is a demand for certain
levels of various land uses . In order to develop a plan
that will provide for an economically stable community, the
city needs to know the cost of various land uses in pro-
portion to their economic benefit . What is the cost to the
Concerned Citizens 4 December 16, 1974
City of Palm Desert of an acre of industrial development
adjacent to the freeway, and how does that cost relate to
the taxes returned to the City of Palm Desert? Will a high
density residential development bring in less tax revenue
than the cost of providing governmental services? This in-
formation would enable the city to determine how much of
various land uses it can afford.
On page E-16 , the report implies that the development of a
large industrial area is necessary to provide sufficient
tax base to avoid a high level of property taxation through-
out the city. Since this industrial development is so
crucial to the success of the General Plan, detailed in-
formation on the economic aspects of industrial development
should be included in the report. Since these industrial
areas are at a great distance from the existing electrical,
sewer, and other service lines , the City of Palm Desert
will be required to make a tremendous expenditure to extend
these service lines so that industrial development may
occur. The indirect affect of this premature extension of
service lines into otherwise vacant areas is the encourage-
ment of premature development in the land in between. Since
most of the land separating the existing city from the
proposed industrial development is currently unused, such
an extension would hasten additional developments that
should be an economic drain on the city. Since those
developments are not adjacent to schools , parks , or other
facilities they would encourage premature expenditures of
funds by various governmental entities . With only partial
developments in these otherwise vacant areas , the tax
revenue could not possibly offset the governmental expenditures .
Therefore, the industrial development adjacent to Interstate
10 may be a financial drain rather than a financial blessing.
Since this industrial development is a critical foundation for
the success of the entire General Plan, its economic aspects
should be considered in detail. The EIR does not discuss the
economics of this industrial development.
Adverse Environmental Affects Which Cannot Be Avoided
r
Without factual information, the city will be unaware of the
level of the various adverse environmental impacts . All the
Concerned Citizens 5 December 16, 1974
report indicates is that certain impacts will be adverse .
It should make a difference to the City Council whether the
increase in certain adverse affects will be merely a 1%
change or a 500% change .
State law requires that the reasons for proceeding with the
project despite its adverse environmental affects be stated
in an environmental impact report. No reason appears why this
General Plan is proposed despite its affects of eliminating
the small town character of Palm Desert, overburdening the
supply of water for the area, increasing the humidity, and
providing a great traffic burden for the highways . Also,
the EIR should indicate the affects on human health to be
expected from air pollution, high humidity, increases in
noise and seismic dangers .
Mitigation Measures
This section describes no mitigation measures that would
lessen the adverse environmental affects . The city should
indicate various trade-offs that have been made that would
lessen the adverse consequences of implementing the
General Plan. For example, if the city determined that
certain level of commercial development would provide too
great a concentration of air pollution in a portion of the
city, a reduction in the amount of commercial buildable
area would be a mitigation measure .
The crucial portion of this section of the report for
purposes of a general plan is data that indicates the level
of environmental impacts are acceptable. The City must
have the information to show that a particular level of
humidity, air pollution, seismic risk or other environmental
affects are acceptable for the residents of the City of
Palm Desert.
Using noise as an example, the EIR must first provide the
noise levels that will occur if the plan is implemented in
various portions of the city . Then, the EIR must provide
information that indicates that a particular level of noise
will be acceptable to the citizens of Palm Desert and to
the proposed land use .
Alternatives
This subsection does not analyze in detail various alternatives
Concerned Citizens 6 December 16, 1974
to the General Plan. The primary function of this portion
of an EIR would be to point out different proposals that
could be more beneficial to the city than the proposed
General Plan. Alternatives that provide for less high
density development could provide a tax benefit to the
city . Alternatives that provide for more commercial
development .could provide benefit to the city. These
various alternatives should be evaluated so that the
citizens of Palm Desert can select the best one.
The Relationship Between Short-term Uses and Long-term
Productivity
The guidelines that generally describe what information
should be contained in this section are longer than the
section itself. The same is true for the two following
sections of the EIR. How can the city provide all the
information in that little space if it takes more words
just to describe the various topics of information that
will need to be discussed?
This section should indicate what short-term losses will
occur after the implementation of the General Plan. The
section should also provide facts and figures to justify
the conclusion that the General Plan will be a long-term
benefit to the City of Palm Desert.
Irreversible Environmental Changes
The irreversible environmental affects should be described
in detail so that the city is aware of how much of each
resource will be consumed in implementing the General Plan
and how much of each resource will be necessary to main-
tain the community envisioned by the General Plan. The
single paragraph contained in the EIR does neither of
these.
Growth Inducing Impact
By providing for improvements to public services , the
General Plan should encourage growth within the City of
Palm Desert. The affects this plan will have in enticing
additional development within the city should be, but is
not, described.
Concerned Citizens 7 December 16 , 1974
Organizations and Persons Consulted
The city must consult with any agency that will be respon-
sible for providing services within the area covered by the
General Plan. For example, why wasn' t the Edison Company
or the Gas Company contacted? Since the Office of Planning
and Research coordinates the planning of the City of Palm
Desert with the planning by other governmental entitites ,
why did the city fail to contact that agency?
Time for Review
The period for review of this draft Environmental Impact
Report appears to be from November 12, 1974 to December 11,
1974. The guidelines indicate that at least 90 days should
be allowed for review of a draft environmental impact report.
Another 30 days should be allowed for the review of a final
environmental impact report.
Comments and Public Participation
F
An environmental impact report must contain certain basic
information, the comments by governmental entities and members
of the public, and the city 's replies to those comments .
The present environmental impact report does not include any
comments by any interested agency or person. No replies to
environmental issues raised during the review process are
apparent in the EIR.
While the city held a public hearing on this plan, members
of the public were limited to three minutes a piece to
present .their testimony before the Planning Commission.
Unless the city provides an alternative method of receiving
input on the adequacy of the environmental impact report, a
three minute comment is not enough.
Summary of an Environmental Impact Report
The foregoing comments are not intended to describe in detail
each and every deficiency in the environmental impact report.
They are merely examples to indicate that the report violates
each of the critical sections contained in the State Guide-
lines concerning its contents and manner of preparation.
Since the environmental impact report is inadequate , the
general plan is open to attack by any land developer who is
not entirely pleased with what the General Plan does to his
A
Concerned Citizens 8 December 16, 1974
property . Therefore, the City should require the consultants
to revise the EIR so that the wishes of the citizenry cannot
be thrawarted by a disgruntled landowner .
Deficiencies in the General Plan
The general plan itself does not appear to provide all the
information required by Government Code §§65302 and 65302 . 1 .
For example, the noise element must provide existing and
projected noise levels . The plan provides only existing
noise levels . So, while the plan appears to have the nine
required elements , some of these elements are deficient.
The plan provides for a level of water consumption that is
beyond the ability of the Coachella County Valley Water
District to supply . Cumulative affect of this plan when
considered with plans for adjacent regions that will also
outstrip the ability of this district to supply water
should be considered in the environmental impact report .
Since this plan does not conform to the natural carrying ;
capacity of this land, it should be modified so that a
future critical water shortage could be avoided.
The plan seeks to avoid burdensome taxes . Since this is a
primary concern, the city should make its decision based on
specific information concerning the relative cost of a
particular land use in relation to its tax benefit to the
city. While the city considers demand projections , no
cost/benefit analysis has been made to enable the city to
choose the particular configuration of this General Plan
that will make the City of Palm Desert financially viable .
Since the General Plan is counting on industrial develop-
ment adjacent to Interstate 10 for its success , the
probability that such development will occur should be
addressed in detail . Why should an industrial developer
locate in a sand blown area with a minimum of municipal
services unless there is some offsetting factor?
The location of this industrial development is excellent
in terms of avoiding adverse affects on the residents .
However, will industrial development work in this location?
Will industrial development in this location violate other
principles of the general plan by encouraging premature
expansion of the city' s service lines and premature de-
velopment in areas where the city is not ready to provide
municipal services?
Concerned Citizens 9 December 16, 1974
For the foregoing reasons , we suggest that the City Council
of the City of Palm Desert refer the General Plan and
Environmental Impact Report back to the Planning Commission
for augmentation of the Environmental Impact Report and
correction of the deficiencies in the General Plan. While
this letter does not point out many deficiencies in the
General Plan; the City Council should refer to other input
from the Citizens ' Advisory Committee, Palm Desert Property
Owners Association, and Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert.
If the City Council gives specific directions to the Planning
Commission, a minimal amount of time would be necessary to
make the proposed revisions .
Thank you for the opportunity to review the General Plan of
the City of Palm Desert.
Very truly yours ,
TIMOTHY P. BURRELL
for the firm
TPB/cm
s
� f
CONCER D CITIZENS 01' PALM DESERT,.
t
P .O . Box 1511
Palm Desert, Calif. 92260
e
December 16, 1974
The Honorable Mayor Clark and g
Members of the Palm Desert City Council
City Hell
Palm Desert, Calif. 92260
Appeal from approval of the General Plan and Environmental Impact
Report by the Palm Desert Planning Commission on December 9 , 1974.
We respectfully request that the following changes be made in the
Wilscy and Ham report: The "Highway 111 Precise Plan" may or may
not be a part of the General Plan as approved by the Palm Desert ri
Planning Coir4nission but the Staff advised "That the ideas and comcepts
are incorporated within the final General Plan as approved by the
Planning Corrami_ssion" . Some of the pages and numbers listed below
are from the "Precise Plan" .
1. Page 11, paragraph 1 states in part "the primary trade area for
Palm Desert which could be served by Palm Desert are the Cities
of Palm Desert, Rancho Mirage, Indian Wells and Cathedral City. {
Some 6emand will come from Palm Springs , Coachella and Indio. '
i
Page 11, paragraph 6: The location of Department Stores in Palm
Desert is based. on - "Excellent access provided by Highway 111"
"The Central location of Palm Desert in relation to other Cities
in the Coachella Valley and the availability of large parcels of
land" .
These written statements along with oral statements by Wilsey &
Ham and the Land Use Classification on Map fig 1-3 Land Use Page
1B 4a prove that the intent is to make the present Incorporated
Area of Palm Desert the regional shopping area of the Coachella
Valley and this to be concentrated along the Western Portion of
Highway 111
4
On page 11 & 12 - Hotel Demand, the statements "In Palm Springs
Hotel sites are more difficult to find11 ; "Palm Desert with com-
mercial land available could capture some Hotel Demand" ; Demand
exists for a total of 300 to 400 new hotel rooms in the Highway
111 - El Paseo area" also proves the intent of the General Plan
is to make Palm Desert the Hotel Center of the Coachella Valley.
t
Similar statements in the General Plan are: $
Page 18, type C - fig 6 Map . "Represents the neucleus of Region-
ally Oriented facilities" .
Land Use Element - Page 1-B-4
"Regional Commercial"
1 - "Full Line Retail Outlets serving the entire Coachella Valley" .
4 - "Including a variety of Hotel facilities" , Page 1-B-1
Regional Context "The framework for the Palm Desert Land use
pattern is regional in Nature" .
We request that any statement inferring that the present Incor-
porated area of Palm Desert is to become the "Shopping Center" or
the "Hotel Center" of the Coachella Valley be removed from the
General Plan and statements to the contrary be inserted in the
General Plan. Also we request that any classification that would
so indicate be removed from any map or plan of the General Plan
in the present Incorporated area of Palm Desert.
We further .request that the Land Use Map (figure 1-3, page 1.B .4 .a)
be changed as follows :
A - South of Highway Ill from Palms to Pines to Western Boundary
of Palm Desert all be classified as C .P .S . and any residential
allowed in the area be "Low Density 3-5 to the acre:
B - West of Monterey to Ave . 1-11. North of Highway 111 from the
intersection of Monterey to Rancho Grande - West to Fairhaven
Drive and then North to 44th Ave . 'and back to Highway 111,
all should be in C .P .S . and any residential allowed in this
area should be "Low Density 3 to 5 to the acre" .
C - North of Ave. 44 to the Western Boundary of Palm Desert and
East of Highway 111 to the storm channel all be changed to
C .P .S . and any residential allowed in the area be "Low Density
3 to 5 to the acre" .
These changes will retain the image and character of Palm. Desert
and allow for sufficient additional commercial development to
serve all the needs of the residents of Palm Desert as repeatedly
stated by many residents and as promised by the Members of the
City Council in their election campaigns .
2 . We request that the General Plan be changed to provide that a
maximum density of 5 to the acre be allowed in all residential
developments in the present Incorporated area of Palm Desert from
Highway 111 to the North Boundary and from the East Boundary to
the West Boundary for the following reasons:
This will allow the maximum overall density possible and still pro-
vice a reasonable protection of all the Environmental factors that
are becoming increasingly critical. This change is also necessary
because a great deal of land has already been subdivided into
10,000 to 18,000 square foot lots which makes necessary a classifi-
cation of 3 to 5 to the acre . Many other acres are subdivided so
that a maximum of 5 to the acre would be compatible and consistent.
Hundreds of undeveloped acres are now zoned R1 x (9000 sq. ft. lot
-3-
NNO
size) requiring less than .5 to the acre and still other hundreds
of acres are zones RI xx (10000 sq. ft. lot size) on which a
maximum of 4 to the acre can barely be accommodated. To increase
the allowable density would also increase the value of the property
and start a cycle of increasing land prices which minimizes the
possibility of obtaining cheaper quality homes . The property
owners alone profits to the detriment of the rest of the Citizens .
To increase the density to more than 5 per acre would create ad-
verse and irreversible environmentsLeffects far greater than those
expressed in the Environmental Impact Report of the General Plan .
18 units to the acre with an average of 3 persons per family is
54 people per acre , 7 units per acre with 3 to the family is 21
to the acre . 5 units with 3 per family is 15 per acre . Certainly
15 persons per acre should be the maximum allowable on the Desert
where the Environmental is very fragile . If a desirable develop-
ment is presented - that requires •a change) the General Plan can be
amended to accommodate it and this is a much better approach than
indicating in the General Plan that a higher density is available
and thereby encouraging the bad developments to be presented.
t
i
3. In the area of the Palm Desert Property Owners Association, we
request that the "Lora Density classification" of 3 to 5 to the
acre be granted as approved by the Palm Desert Planning Commission.
For the reasons mentioned herein we respectfully request that the
General Plan, the Environmental Impact Report, and the Precise Plan
be revised. accordingly.
The above request for changes in the General Plan was approved by the
Board of Directors of Concern Citizens of Palm Desert at a meeting on
December 16, 1974.
4
s
Yours truly,
d
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PALM DESERT
Pres .
Sec' t.
i
NOW" VAW
December 11L, 1974
The City Council.
c/o City Hall
Prickly Pe?r Souare
Palm Desert , Calif. 92260
Gentl_ement:
It 'as i,;y i-nter?ti on to attend the December 19th meets_n r
concerni.nm the a�)rroval of the General Plan of Palm Desert ,
but at this latest moment , I am unable to do so.
The enclosed man sho,,kTs 40 acres of land which I presently
own (colored red) . It has been zoned "SD" (Sand Dunes) by
'Nisley and Ham , land consultants.
It is my intention in this letter to ask for a zone chance
from t'SD" to Medium Denci.ty Residential. Since my LO acres
lie next to Stir.: Ki_nm , ao e--i-sti_n;7 development on the south
and next to a future devel.orr-nt -nar.,ed J'he Chaparral Club
on the west , it seers only lol7ical to allow me the same
tyre of density.
If the council does not a,7ree to this, I would be further
willi_nr to level this LLO acres over the next 5 years and
plant a rerimeter of tree, around its borders, thereby
conforminfi- to r�edium density standnrds. Also , I would be.
willi.n.7 to be annexed to the i.ncor-nnrated city of Palm Desert.
HorinF� ,you will rule in favor of this chanme , I am
Sincerely .yours,
F. X. McDonald , Jr.
2215 W. Broadway, Ant. *F 307
Anaheim, Calif. 92804
Phone: (714) 772-3837
pipin� DESFR
z Cove y Clva
it
k3 vEi
�+ o
' _ [
__ —¢_---
�wv,4'.
it
cc
3
1
I
N '/l
1 � z
-
i W,
w41
va
�Y tsw 1s!�f
1 t - .+My sti+y1
�r .
� C 1 AN
a�
o
N
h M
® 3
�C o A
,4
,y o
M �
tc
C r .
1W"'I_)S A"D S, ADO
Fa.'Ilm Desert Calif.
o x 3 6
•
December 10 1974
To n'mbers, 00 T',h- C1_1-,'v �"ourcl 1
P�'Lm D-f7-
Re AT OPOITC11 CIF Al Pl.;A" OF DEVFL,OP7,,ET1"P
T'r,ls !_�,ttcr a -ereral express; on of the oninions , w; ,7b,,s and
lln- ire_.- o-, thp 0,c',rs of 1S.a,,,),_7,, 7n I�`'.•....'?.4"..' 1, loco.ted on 1'11
# 74 ripar ; ts with Prive . Tt rerrn-
serts tll�e ; -)-s of 50 and t,)c ov.,nrr.s1,d-p of 2? Occu-n.l. .
resider;ces.
This P, .ro!)p dot— not wish to ne(-Pp -arilv i-nede well rro-
Erp- f,7;r Palm Dr!7,'rt but rrimlarily 1nte_rPT7tf?- d in i,re�lle-v! -' the
r atur.-1' 0r, -r4 -nvjrorm,!---n- 'h wf, `::•v(- lived to
do wish for Pf?_lm :De,7-ert to p t1")p o"ntfnr Or nod cne'll"I
tourist tr7ide, corvention -,athe-it--s , or shoj-7, _Ln.!, center.
It is our sincere ho-ne that future plarn-in- would
1. Keen o,-,,.r r¢^,_denti_al �._rea comnlpteli,r free from further
encroc-.cllriert '-v -otels .
2. Limit al! motels to
resir.lenti.al huildins 'L I
one story vii-t-h P. hei7ht of not more than- 15 feet
3. Limit all -omrrciai buildi--s to two stories , and
not eyceedin'7 24 feet An height
Preserve the low de-_ort rrofile of our citl,'r which ha.-
in the T7,<-_,t mmle it blend into the rat-,)ral beaut,-v of
our desert.
of develr)7-r-_'-nt which will.
We ur-e you to arin-nt onl ,,.r "ure plan
incj-u,',e these limitations and mpH-p posslbl,r the above objective .
Very truly yours
Sands And Shadows _'F! 1
Board of Governors
Whitsed c .,Ian-
a- in
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane F.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph. 346-0611
December 9, 1974
Mr. Harvey Hur.lburt, City Manager
City of. Palm Desert
Palm Des.ert, California 92250
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
This is to inform the City Council and the Planning Commission that
Mr. Lyman Martin presented the attached resolution for adoption by
CAC on December 5, 1974. The vote was as follows:
FOR: Gorman, L. Martin, Solis, Peck.
AGAINST: Smith, Richardson, K. Martin, Hirschi, Ricciardi,
Berkey, Mills.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE V. BERKEY,
Chairman
Fi�"n, T R` i Ph a �v i i1I1!IfRPfii'nK.r r _____ i VJf!t/rtnn
a.�_.
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph. 346.0611
December 9, 1974
Mr. Harvey Hurlburt, City Manager
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
The Citizens Advisory Committee has concluded its studies of the proposed
Palm Desert General Plan. Please inform the City Council and the Planning
Commission that by majority vote, CAC recommends adoption of the Public
Hearing Draft, November 12, 1974, with the following changes:
1. LAND USE
Map (page 1. B. 4, a. ): Change specialty commercial on north side of
Whitewater Channel at Washington Street to low density residential. Delete
reference to 118. 5 acres of industrial area on Page 1. B. 7.
i
2. URBAN DESIGN
On Page 2. P. 1, change last paragraph to read "utilize indigenous plants in
landscaping whenever appropriate". On next to last paragraph add "public
and private parking lots" after "pedstrian areas".
5. CIRCULATION
On Highway Network Map, figure 5, 1, make corrections to truly show
exidting portions of Monterey and Cook Streets.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL
On Page 6. 1. P. 1, delete last paragraph.
Very truly yours, }
GEORGE V. BERKEY
l..
Chairman
t
3
E
TO:
Citizens Advisory Committee
Palm Desert Planning Commission
Palm Desert City Council
The :Environmental Impact Report is one of the most fundamental and
' important parts of any General Plan. It becomes increasingly im-
portant when substantial changes in the density and/or the image
and character of a community is also a part of the General Plan.
The General Plan submitted by Wilsey & Ham for the gresent Incorpora-
ted Area of Palm Desert admittedly contains such, substantial an
• controversial changes TSee Page E10 & Ell, etc. of report) . Among
other things the image, character and environment is substantially
changed by including in the wording, maps and plans of the proposed
General Plan "Shopping Areas for the entire Valley"; "Convention
type Hotels to serve the entire Valley" and by increasing the Den-
sity by the inclusion of classifications of "High Density" (7 to 18
to the acre) and "Medium Density" (5 to 7 to the acre) . It is the
opinion of many people that unless these substantial changes are
removed from the General Plan, in the, present Incorporated area of
Palm Desert, that the Environmental Impact Report will not withstand
future attack by developers , land owners or other groups seeking
changes or relief. Future Environmental reports filed by developers
will undoubtedly be based on the General Plan and it is therefore of
utmost importance that the Environmental Impact report withstand any
attack.
The substantial changes referred to herein will have far greater
adverse effects on the environment than is contemplated in the Wilsey
and Ham report. The report is based on out of date data and con-
tingencies and suppositions based on this data on which many well
know authorities disagree .
1. Example - (Page E5a) - "Air Monitoring Data for 1970" . The rapid
development which has occurred since 1970 has made a tremendous
change in the base figures and therefore any future forecast now -
based on these old 1970 figures - is not factual. No less than
Dr. James Pitt, head of the air pollution for the State of Cali
fornia, has repeatedly stated that as the density of population
increases the rate of air pollution increases ,geometrically. The
adverse effect has been understated in the report.
2. The adverse effect caused by the suggested changes in the very
character and image of Palm Desert, as well as the increase in
density, will have far greater adverse effect on all types of
pollution than stated in the Environmental Impact Report.
A Water. Experts disagree with the future availability of the
quanity and quality.
B- (Page E10) Climate. The report admits increased humidity and
- detrimental effects on residents . Increased humidity multi-
plies rapidly with increased density and therefore density
should be kept to a minimum.
- 2 -
C- The report states (on E10 - B1) "The Social changes will
doubtlessly be viewed as detrimental" and "The Primary goal
is to create an organized environment of different family
types" . Zy make organized changes in an environment that has
made Palm'Desert Famous? This is not in accord with input
from residents .
D. The report states (Page E10 & 11 under 2) "Marked changes
will occur in property values" . It is true that increased
density classifications in the land use will start a cycle of
increased property values which feeds on itself requiring
higher and higher density to support the ever increasing price
of property. Finally the bubble breaks and everyone but the
promoter loses . On the other hand low density controls prop-
erty prices so that each piece of property may be developed
so that it is compatible with the adjacent property and to the
advantage of all Palm Desert.
E. Other adverse environmental effects will occur on every en-
vironmental factor including solid waste, noise, light pol-
lution, etc. etc
When adapted the General Plan and its Environmental Impact Report
will give the present and future City Councils the authority as well
as the mandate to enforce the General Plan in the future development
of Palm Desert. It is important therefore that the proposed General
Plan be changed to eliminate any substantial changes in the image
and character of Palm Desert and reduce the density to a maximum of
S to the acre. Without these changes the Environmental Impact Report
is not factual and is based on suppositions and opinions which can
not be supported.
Y
P.O. Box 896,
Boc pie irtj.9%2if. 92260
Planning Commission,
City of Palm Desert,
Palm Desert, Calif. 92260.
Gentlemens
The " Resolution" adopted by the :halm Desert
Property Owners Association, Concerned Citizens of Pala Desert,
and others (as per the attached Copy), together with the
changes requested in the Environmental Impact Report (copy also
attached) was approved and adapted by the Board of xovernors of
Sand & Shadows 41.
Sand & Shadows �41 represent 27 Units and
50 people.
The Board of Directors also appointed John B.
Scurry to represent them at all meetings of the Palm Desert
Planning Commission and/or the Palm Desert City Council.
Sand Shadows oa.r governors
AZ
LChairman
Enc. -, �� Ad1�%2 .
A WORLDWIDE PUBLIC RELATIONS SERVICE
3325 Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, Calif. 90005 , 385-9021
Palm Desert , California
December 6, '19 4
City Council,
City of Balm Desert ,
Box 1684 ,
Palm Desert , Calif.
Gentlemen:
I bought property in Palm Desert and settled here for my
permanent home-- and persuaded three friends to do likewise ,
because i felt the community had the most charm of any place
in Southern California.
The developers , running wild for several years , have pretty
well destroyed. the charm, but nowthat we 'nave a Yunicipali.ty
and a planning coI m-Lsslon it is r..y hope that so..e of the
original character of Palm Desert may be: preserved.
T_ovdarrd that objective I' deeply hope your body will restrain_
all those ambitious citizens , and outsiders, who would make
Palm Desert a "thriving commercial center" , "hub of the
valley" and along with those chamber of commerce slogans
another convention center, God help us.
I do not know if you can contain the "forces of progress" that
will turn 'Calm Desert into another -F'alm prings, or worse--
worse because the pla ue of locusts has grown worse in recent
ID
years.
But 1: pray you will try, recognizing that a great many of us
worked for cityhood here because ire hoped for regulated growth
and a ser_ce of balance in developin the city.
I trust you will height limit residential buildings to one
story less than 20 feet high, and hold commercial buildings
to two stories , under 30 feet at least , or most.
Also I favor the general concept of restricting residences to
five to the acre , for =alm :Desert. 1,et ' s disco-L;sage the ghetto
builders no matter where they come from.
W 2 sP,
-r
B Holloway
• 73-465 Feather Trail
PalmDesert , 'a. 92260
(Residence)
DEPARTMENT OF FIRE PROTECTION
IN COOPERATION WITH THE
5-._ y, CALIFORNIA DIVISION OF FORESTRY
COUNTY
J. ELMER CHAMBERS
- P.O. BOX 248
RIVERSIDE Y a COUNTY FIRE WARDEN
� C STREET & SAN JACINTO AVE.
PERRIS, CALIFORNIA 92370
= TELEPHONE (714) 657-3183
December 6, 1974
City of Palm Desert
Department of Environmental Services
Planning Division
P.O. Box 1648
Palm Desert, California 92260
Attention: Samuel Freed
Gentlemen:
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the draft "Palm Desert General Plan".
Our comments are primarily directed toward the elements which historically
affect the fire service; specifically, the circulation element, 2. Public safety
element and 3. Conservation and open space element.
1. Circulation Element:
Traffic circulation is of utmost importance in the rapid movement
of large fire apparatus and rescue vehicles (including paramedic squads
and ambulances) from place to place during times of emergency.
The Highway Network Exhibit (including existing and proposed highways)
will establish a fine system of major traffic arteries when completed.
Local or internal circulation should include similar design criteria
providing at least twe. routes of ingress/egress to each geographical area.
The use of dead or cul-de-sac roads should be kept to a minimum to
avoid confusion and congestion during emergency situations.
2. Public Safety Element:
As Palm Desert continues to develop, more fire suppression and rescue
facilities will be required to provide a high degree of safety to life
and protection of property, from the ravages of uncontrolled fire.
During all stages of development, adequate supplies of water for
"fire flow11 should be required to insure sufficient supplies at the
time total or ultimate development is achieved.
In the areas of structural development fire stations should be located in
such a manner as to provide a maximum travel distance of 1-1/2 miles
for the first Engine Company and 2-1/2 miles for the second due Engine
Company. This would theoretically require installation of fire stations
approximately 3 miles apart. The maximum (traveldistance for the first
due engine) could be increased to two miles for residential districts con-
sisting of one and two family dwellings and up to four miles in areas of very
low density (1-3 du/ac.) where such dwellings have an average separation
of 100 feet or more
If buildings 3 or more stories in height are contemplated, aerial apparatus
(ladder trucks) will be required to protect them.
e
r
City of Palm Desert
Attn: Samuel Freed
December 6, 1974
Page -2-
As the City expands, the probability of simultaneous fires, the number of
responses, and the need for placing additional equipment in service or
relocating equipment during periods of high frequency of alarms should
be considered. Consideration should be given providing some protection for
all areas during multiple alarms or simultaneous fires which require the
response of all or a large portion of the apparatus regularly in service.
In addition to the existing and proposed fire stations shown, you may wish
to include proposed fire station sites in the areas of:
1. Monterey and Interstate 10
2. Approximately three miles southeast of Monterey along
Interstate 10
3. Country Club and Monterey
4. Highway III East of Cook Street
'" 5. Portola and Highway 74
3. Consideration and Open Space Element:
The study areas extends some considerable distance south of existing
city boundaries well into the Santa Rosa Mountain Range. Although
much of the area at lower elevations has only very sparse vegetation,
the higher elevations (extending to over 5,000 feet) includes areas
of extensive vegetation, in very rough terraine that is considered
a very significant wildland fire hazard. Prior to annexation of
these areas, a study should be made of the cost to the city to provide
mountain fire fighting forces.
We are available to provide any further assistance which may be required.
J. E R CHAMBERS
Coun ire arden
GE QE _) SCHULTEJAN
Fire Protection Planning
and Engineering Officer
GJS:jl
49 ,�, � +��
RESOLUTION
A large majority of the Residents of Palm. Pesert, personally ano/or
thru those elected to represent them at public hearings, .aeviseo
Wilsey & Ham, consultants for the City of Palm csert, that they
desired to Preserve the essential, residlcn.tial character of the
City'g with low density and controlled height both resicential and
commercial. It was their desire to retain the same atmosphere that
has made Palm Desert famous.
We therefore propose a resolution to adopt the General Plan as pre-
pared by Wilsey and Ham with the following changes.
1. Remove from the Consultants report and m,as all reference to
Palm Desert becoming the "Shopping Center ' for the entire V-,lley
in the present Incorporated area of calm Desert.
2. Remove all reference in maps and reports, in the present In-
corporated Area of Palm Desert, for P-ilm Desert to become the
central tourist area for the entire Valley with large conven-
tion type hotels. t
3. In the present Incorporated .area of Pilm Desert remove from
the report all "High Density (7 to 18 to the acre)" 0 "Medium }
Density (5 to 7 to the Acre an
" leaving. the m:aximijm density to
3 to 5 to the acre now c'escribed in the report alas "Low Density".
4. Set height limits on residential units to a maximum of 15 feet
and on commercial units to a maximum of 24 feet.
Change all classification an(' coning in the Consulta-nt,. Drips
and plans for the future of Palm Desert to conform to the above.
6. Withhold any expenditure of money for changes of Highwa.j ill.,
El Paseo and the North and South Frontage Roads for a minimum
of 90 days to allow for further stu6y of the 91Cliff Hc:n.eer sons'
proposal and the possible financing of it.
At a Meeting of the Board of Directors of Concerned Citizens of
Palm Desert, on Dec. 3, 1974, unanimously approved the above.
Yours very truly,
CONCERNED CITIZENS OF PALM DESERT
President
Secretary
Palm Desert, California
December "-,t 1974.
Palm Desert Plannim; Commission
c/o Palm Desert City ,"tall
Palm Desert, California.
Gentlemen:
Cone.�rning the hearing coming up in the near futuret regarding the
General Plan, may we say that rie would like to keep the image and
character of Palm Desert as it has been in the past; a quiet, un-
erowd-d residential area with a beautiful vier and Ole!-In air to
breathe.
We believe a large majority of the citizens and property ovmers
who came here to live, did so because Pnlm Desert was a quiet9
restful village, . .. a place to retreat from the human donsityt
noise and heavy traffic of the city. 'r le have bought a home here
but not because we wanted to re-riake it into a Convention City
or another Chicago or San Trancisco, vit% our neighbors piled
together in their "Chicken Coop" dw- mllingeg which c�rtlainly is
not the CIURY of the cles-rt.
41 7 o believe the maximum density should be not riorr; -`:'.pan five
homes to the acre in rqsidontial ari,-.ast one story with a max-
Lmm height of fifteen feet. Co=iercizll buildings not more than
two stories in height and not more than 24 feet hilght an Inas )O-n
7
suggested many tiros by nun~ S.,erous prop-rty ornirlrs. -n r,,-- r
San Clan.ente and O'UII �- --)0_1
C ontro'l-I-ed rir
o r:;-'Ur:-.*Lctlo o na 3 1
our futur.-) de-vrelopmont can be pro-perly controlled.
Sincerely and hogefullyt
Vim, E. Book
72574 Hedgehog street. Dorothy L. BAek
cc - P'lln Des rt "'ity �ouacil.
V1
PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 1244 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
' Tsi araorm (714) 346-2804
A Non-Profit Corporation
December 5 , 1974
Palm Desert City Hall
City Council
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert , California 92260
Gentlemen :
The Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Property Owners Associ-
ation at a special meeting held Wednesday , December 4 , 1974
adopted the following resolution.
RESOLUTION: A large majority of the residents of Palm Desert ,
personally and/or through those elected to represent them at
public hearings , advised Wilsey and Ham , consultants for the City
of Palm Desert , that they desired to "preserve the essential ,
residential character of the City" with low density and controlled
height both residential and commercial. It was their desire td
retain the same atmosphere that has made Palm Desert .famous .
We therefore propose a resolution to adopt the General Plan as
prepared by Wilsev and Ham with the following changes .
1. . Remove from the Consultants report and maps all reference to
Palm Desert becoming the "Shopping Center" for the entire
Valley in the present Incorporated area of Palm Desert .
2. Remove all reference in maps and reports , in the present in-
corporated area of Palm Desert , for Palm Desert to become
the central tourist area for the entire Valley with large
convention type hotels .
3 . In the present incorporated area of Palm Desert remove from
the report all "high Density ( 7 to 1_8 to the acre) " and
"Medium Density ( 5 to 7 to the acre) " leaving the maximum
density to 3 to 5 to the acre now described in the report as
"Low Density" .
4. Set height limits on residential units to a maximum of 15
feet and on commercial units to a maximum of 24 feet.
S . Change all classification and zoning in the Consultants maps
and plans for the future of Palm Desert to conform to the
above .
Very truly ,
Barbara Reynol`ls (Mrs . )
Administrative Secretary
PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS SOCIATION
P.O. BOX 1244 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
Tn"Horra (714) 3462804
A Non-Profit Corporation
December 5 , 1974
Palm Desert City Council
45-275 Prickly Pear
Palm Desert , Ca 92260
Gentlemen :
The Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Property Owners Associ-
ation at a special meeting held December 1+ , 1974 adopted the
following resolution.
The Environmental Impact Report is one of the most fundamental and
important parts of any General Plan . It becomes increasingly im-
portant when substantial changes in the density and/or the image
and character of a community is also a part of the General Plan .
The General Plan submitted by Wilsey and Ham for the present In-
corporated Area of Palm Desert admittedly contains such substantial
and controversial changes Mee Page E10 and Ell , etc. of report) .
Among other things the image , character and environment is sub-
stantially changed by including in the wording; and on maps and plans
of the proposed General Plan such phrases as "Shopping, Areas for
the entire Valley" ; "Convention type Hotels to serve the entire
Valley" and by increasing the Density by the inclusion of Classi-
fications of "High Density" ( 7 to 18 to the acre) and "Medium
Density" ( 5 to 7 to the acre) . It is the opinion of many people
that unless these substantial changes are removed from the General
Plan , in the present Incorporated area of Palm Desert , that the
Environmental Impact Report will not withstand future attack by
developers , land owners or other groups seeking changes or relief.
Future Environmental reports filed by developers will undoubtedly
be based on the General Plan and it ,is therefore of utmost impor-
tance that the Environmenta Impact report withstand any such attack.
The substantial changes referred to herein will have far greater
adverse effects on the environment than is contemplated in the
Wilsey 8 ` Ham report . The report is based on out of date data and
contingencies and suppositions based on this data on which many
well known authorities disagree .
1. Example - (Page E5a) - "Air Monitoring Data for 1970" . The
rapid development which has occurred since 1970 has made a
tremendous change in the base figures and therefor any future
forecast now based on these. old 1970 figures is not factual.
Dr. James Pitt , head of the air pollution for the State of
California, has repeatedly stated that as the density of
VP!Jm,Desert Property Owners Association Page 2
population increases the rate of air pollution increases geometri-
cally. The adverse effect has been understated in the report.
2 . The adverse effect caused by the suggested changes in the very
character and image of Palm Desert , as well as the increase in
density , will have far greater adverse effect on all types of
pollution than stated in the Environmental Impact Report .
A. Water. Experts disagree with the future availability of
the q uar�i.ty and quality.
B . (Page E10 ) Climate . The report admits increased humidity
and the consequent detrimental effects on residents . Increased
humidity multiplies rapidly with increased density and there-
fore density should be kept to a minimum.
C. The report states (On E10 -B1) "The Social changes will
doubtlessly be viewed as detrimental" and "The Primary goal
is to create an organized environment of different family types" .
Whv make organized changes to the ideal environment that has
made Palm Desert Famous? This is not in accord with input from
residents on which the Environmental Impact Report is purportedly
based.
D. The report states (page E10 & 11 under 2) "Marked changes
will occur in property values" . It is true that increased
density classifications in the land use will start a cycle of
increased property values which feedson itself requiring higher
and higher density to support the ever increasing price of
property. Finally the bubble breaks and everyone but the pro-
moter loses . On the other hand low density controls property
prices so that each piece of property may be developed so that
it is compatible with the adjacent property and to the advantage
of all Palm Desert.
E . Other adverse environmental effects will occur on every
environmental factor including solid waste , noise , light pol.lu-
tion , etc. , etc.
When adapted the General Plan and its Environmental Impact Report
will give the present and future City Councils the authority as well
as the mandate to enforce the General Plan in the future development
of Palm Desert. It is important therefore that the proposed General
Plan be changed to eliminate any substantial changes in the image
and character of Palm Desert and reduce the density to a maximum of
5 to the acre . Without these changes the Environmental Impact Report
is not factual and is based on suppositions and opinions which can
not be supported.
Very truly ,
j-�
•, ��"`" G2 �" �� "/cif��`�`���/'
Barbara Reynolds (Mrs . )
Administrative Secretary
� -
PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
P.O. BOX 1244 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
Taumnotm (714) 346-2804
A Non-Pro f is Corporation
December 5 , 1974
Palm Desert City Council
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert , California 92260
Gentlemen :
The Board of Directors of the Palm Desert Property Owners
Association at a special meeting December 4 , 1974 adopted
the following resolution.
RESOLUTION : Withhold any expenditure of money for changes
of Highway 111 , El Paseo and the NORTH AND SOUTH Frontage
Roads for a minimum of 90 days to allow for further study of
the "Cliff Henderson" proposal and the possible financing of
it. We recommend the City and Mr. Henderson work together
on this project as time is of the essence . Mr. Henderson ,
The City Council and Staff, should pool their findings be- -
cause without City backing , no individual plan would get off
the ground.
Very truly ,
PALM DESERT PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION
Barbara Reynolds (Mrs . )
Administrative Secretary
PACIFIC RIM
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD.
COMMUNITY PLANNERS-DEVELOPMENT ENGINEERS
73-893 HIGHWAY 111
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
(714) 346-6041
December 4, 1974
Mr. Paul Williams, Director of
Environmental Services
CITY OF PALM DESERT
45-275 Prickly Pear Square
Palm Desert, California 92260
Subject: Palm Desert General Plan
Our File No. 73-05101
Dear Mr. Williams:
Silver Spur Associates, developer of the Ironwood Country Club project ,
has requested this office to review the public hearing draft of the
Palm Desert General Plan dated November 12, 1974, and to discuss with
your staff areas of concern that Silver Spur Associates has with certain
sections of the General Plan document as they relate to the Ironwood
project in general and to their vested interests in the Conditional Use
Permit under which the project is being developed. It is noted that
many millions of dollars have been expended toward the development of this
project to date, estimated to be in excess of twenty percent of the ult-
imate project value.
The purpose of this letter is to outline the various concerns of the
developer that we have discussed on several occasions since the draft of the
General Plan was issued on November 12, 1974, and to make specific requests
for revisions or additions to the General Plan document. Specific concerns
and requests on specific pages of the document follow.
PAGE 1 .13.4.a. (Figure 1-3 Land Use)
The Low Density (3-5 DU/Ac) is in conflict with the approved and vested
Conditional Use Permit for the Ironwood project , and as we discussed,
should be revised in Neighborhood No. 7 to Medium Density (5-7 DU/Ac) ,
similar to the neighborhood north of Haystack Road.
The Very Low Density ( 1-3 DU/Ac) is also in drastic conflict with the
approved Conditional Use Permit and existing development and should be
revised to Medium Density designation.
The City and Valley-Wide Trails through the Ironwood project and the
Living Desert Reserve are in conflict with the existing improvements
and desires of the developers of both the Living Desert Reserve and the
Ironwood project. The Ironwood project has prior to this time con-
structed golf course-related facilities in the area designated as City
page 2
Wide Trails. Such improvements include a golf clubhouse and attendant
parking lots and appurtenances, 18-Hole Championship golf course, 9-Hole
3 Par golf course, 4 Holes in the resort length golf course, driving
range facilities, golf course maintenance building and facilities, irrig-
ation lakes and appurtenances, and the like. Future construction in this
area will include completion of the resort golf course west and southwest
of the existing golf clubhouse facility and along the Dead Indian Creek
storm channel , an additional 18-Hole Championship golf course west and
southwest of the existing clubhouse facility, and residential dwelling
units immediately west of and adjacent to all golf course and related
facilities. These existing and proposed improvements (specified by the
Conditional Use Permit) will completely develop this area in question,
and will not permit the installation of bicycle, equestrian, or hiking
trails which could create a gross conflict in uses. In addition to this,
we understand that the Living Desert Reserve does not desire to have either
equestrian or hiking facilities to or through their project separate from
the interior nature trails that presently exist. It is for these reasons
that Silver Spur Associates requests that the equestrian/hiking trails
be deleted east of the equestrian center near Highway 74, and that the
proposed bicycle/golf cart trail be realigned to follow the alignment of
Portola Avenue along its entire length westerly to Highway 74, if the city
desires to have bicycle trails in this section of the city. It is noted
that the natural slope of the land at the southern edge of the city is steep
(4%-5%) , and that bicycle trails must be hard surfaced with asphalt, concrete,
or other suitable materials, making flood control channels highly impract-
icable for bicycle uses.
It is noted that a convenience commercial facility is located at the south-
east corner of Highway 74 at Portola Avenue, and that the text on Page 1 .B.5
indicates a location at the northeast corner of Highway 74 at Haystack Road,
which is not shown on the Land Use Map. You indicated the location at Por-
tola Avenue is correct, and that the text on Page 1 .B.5 should be revised to
indicate this location.
You indicated in our discussions that a "private recreational use" designation
was to be added to the land use designations on the Land Use Map, and that
this designation should be applied to all of the area of the Ironwood project
containing or proposed to contain golf course separate from residential
areas. It is noted that these areas are presently designated "Wildlife
Preserve" and that this inappropriate designation should be revised to indicate
private recreational use.
PAGE 2.G. l .a (Figure 1 .2 Urban Design Abstract)
The hillside and wildlife preserve and the central loop of trail systems
are discussed in the preceeding paragraphs. The developer requests that
this figure be revised to indicate a relocated trail system along the align-
ment of Portola Avenue to Highway 74, and that the hillside and wildlife
preserve designation be revised to private recreational use designation in
the golf course areas of the Ironwood project.
PACIFIC RIM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD. 73-893 HIGHWAY 111 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
page 3
PAGE 3.B. 6
It is noted that a convenience commercial center is indicated on several
exhibits within the General Plan at the southeast corner of Highway 74 at
Portola Avenue. The devloper neither proposes nor opposes the commercial
site at this location. However, the discussion on this page does not spec-
ify the acreage of the convenience commercial center at this location, but
does specify a general rule-of-thumb requirement of 1 .4 acres per 1 ,000
population. A projected population of 4,200 may be deduced from the required
community and neighborhood park acreages shown on Page 7.P.2.a. for Neighbor-
hood No. 7, but it is quite possible the center will serve more than this
single neighborhood. As the Ironwood project is approximately two years old,
considerable "offsite" improvements have been constructed in addition to
residential dwelling units, and as the cost of all such existing and future
improvements must be based on an ultimate number of dwelling units, the
developer requests that a specific area be assigned to this convenience
commercial center so that the project may continue in an orderly fashion.
PAGE 4. B. I .b.
The developer notes that the statistics quoted for the Ironwood Country Club
are not accurate, and should be 146 dwelling units completed, 74 dwelling units
under construction, 2946 additional units planned, and 2716 total dwelling
units (per Conditional Use Permit) . The developer requests that these stat-
istice be revised to the numbers quoted above.
PAGE 4.13.3.a.
The developer notes that the projected residential development for Neighbor-
hood No. 7, of which Ironwood project is a part, indicate 1538 dwelling units
to be constructed, and 3837 population in that neighborhood. As the Ironwood
project has 2496 additional units planned as described above, and adjacent pro-
perties are planned for 327 units per a valid Conditional Use Permit issued
to Mercury Enterprises, a minimum projection of 3043 additional dwelling units
may be expected in this neighborhood plus dwelling units to be constructed
on other vacant land in Neighborhood No. 7. For these reasons, the developer
requests that the statistics for Neighborhood No. 7 be reviewed and revised
to more reasonably reflect projected developments in this neighborhood, inclu-
ding the two approved projects described above.
PAGE 5•P. l .a. (Figure 5. 1 Highway Network)
The developer notes that the alignment of Portola Avenue is not correct and
should be revised per the location shown on the Land Use Map and other exhib-
its within the General Plan.
PAGE 5.P. l .b (Figure 5.2)
It is noted that with the exception of the secondary highway, the specific
dimensions indicated on this page are either in conflict with the existing
county standards or are algebraically inconsistent within themselves. The
developer notes that approximately 4,000 lineal feet of Portola Avenue has
been constructed within a 100 right-of-way per County Standards, which in-
dicate a 12' parkway between the right-of-way and the curb line on each side
PACIFIC RIM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD. 73-893 HIGHWAY 111 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
page 4
of the street. The devloper requests that either this page or an item in the
text provide for the continuation of the existing improvement standards in
this case, as revision to the dimensions shown on this page would be highly
impractical , aesthetically detracting, potentially dangerous from a safety
point of view, etc. .
PAGE 5.P.1 .c (Figure 5-3)
As described above under Land Use Map, the developer requests that the city-
wide bicycle/golf cart trail shown on this map be relocated along Portola
Avenue, and that the city-wide hiking/equestrian trails shown on this map
be deleted from the equestrian center near the existing southerly city limit
line easterly through the Ironwood project and the Living Desert Reserve.
PAGE 6.4.B.4.a (Figure 6.4-3)
As described in preceeding discussion, the developer requests that the golf
course area of the Ironwood project be removed from the hillside and wildlife
preserve designation, and be place in a private recreational use designation .
It is noted that Figure 6.4-1 correctly excludes these golf course areas from
the hillside or mountain designation.
PAGE 7.P.2.et seq.
The developer is very concerned with the implementation policies of the rec-
reation element on this and succeeding pages, in that they do not appear to
provide for planned residential developments which include extensive recreation-
al facilities for their residents in general . Specifically in the case of the
Ironwood project, this project includes some 450 acres in golf course develop-
ment and approximately 20 tennis courts and related activity facilities for the
common benefit and use of all residents within the project, which ultimately
will contain as many as 2716 separate dwelling units. In addition to these
common facilities, there are numerous local recreational facilities for each
increment of up to 20 dwelling units. These facilities include such items as
regular sized swimming pools, therapy pools, outdoor barbeque faclities, out-
door ice machines, sinks, etc. , outdoor shade structures and furniture, irrig-
ation and lighting systems, and the like. These two levels of recreational
facilities are judged to more than adequately meet the general needs of the
project residents, creating very little or no demand for formal "neighborhood"
or "community" parks with the rather deatiled variety of facilities specified
in this section. It is worth note that a canvass of the existing resid6nts
within the Ironwood project indicates that there is an average of 0.13 school -
age children per dwelling unit among the existing residents, and that there are
no school-age children attending local schools within the project. The developer
therefore requests that some language be provided in this section of the General
Plan document to provide for adaptation of planned residential developments such
as and including the Ironwood project, which provide specific recrational fac-
ilities designed to meet the specific needs of the residents within the project.
The developer also requests that the city re-evaluate its projected need for
a significant community park containing 8.4 acres in the Neighborhood No. 7,
in the light of the age and recreation requirements of the existing and future
residents within this area. It is noted that existing developments within
Neighborhood No. 7 include two very large mobile home parks catering primarily
PACIFIC RIM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD. 73-893 HIGHWAY 111 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
Page 5
iftw
to childless or retired couples, at least 5 planned residential developments
including significant self-contained recrational facilities, and a large
number of relatively expensive single family homes selling in excess of
$ 40,000, which in many cases contain their own swimming pools and house
adults without school -age children. It is noted that a recreational facility
within the Silver Spur Ranch development was abandoned and removed in the past
due to lack of use and support by the residents within the development,
indicating less than an acute demand for common recreational facilities in
this neighborhood.
The developer would sincerely appreciate your reviewing his requests as described
aboce relative to the proposed General Plan document, and to incorporate changes
with which you agree in your staff report to be submitted to the Planning Commiss-
ion and City Council . Representatives of the developer and this office are avail -
able on short notice to further discuss the items described above with you and
your staff at your convenience.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely,
PACIFIC RIM
j
D.H. Shayler
DHS/rs
Approved for Submittal
SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES
By IRONWOOD CORPORATION, Managing Partner
By Am
Vice:'Prf ident
PACIFIC RIM ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS LTD. 73-893 HIGHWAY Ill PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
1%W 1400f
BRADLEY A. WALKER
Pqlm Desert - December 3, 1974
Chairman,
City Planning Commission,
ralmDesert , California
Dear sir:
I maintain a residence in the upper iJilver Spur ranch
district , which i occupy eight months out of the years. I
reside in Connecticut . Ny wife and I have been coming
to PalmDesert for nearly ten years , and we have enjoyed
the town immensely.
Like most of my friends I have deplored the unrestricted
"growth" of Palm desert , mushrooming as it has done the
last few years. I worked for incorpozation. because I
wanted to see the canbr of rampant commercialism control-
led, if indeed any form of cancer is subject to control.
Perhaps nothing and no one can stand in the path of '
today's bulldozers fueled as they are by the developers'
insatiable ambitions.
But surely some sense can be introduced into the local
scene, some restraint put on the business men who en-
courage "growth" in any form as long as it means more customers. 6urely the Planning Commission stands for
intelligent development of Palm Desert , and will find the
public support to enforee it.
e have had too much high density building, of course ,
under the aegis of a distant Board of Supervisors subject
to influences stronger than the votes of an uninformed
citizenry. 'pie voters are rather helpless in the face of
so Jhisticated lo'o'byists et al, anyhow.
Do please hold residential construction to siligle story,
maximum perhaps 16 feet, and commercial buildings to
two stories ; taller buildings in this area wouid be a
disaster. Also , five houses to the acre , or less , are
sufficient for profitable construction which in the long
C)
run will pay off in substantial taxes and per:iianent.
citizens with a continuing stake in the community.
6incerelly, Bradley A:.
73-477 FEATHER TRAIL - PALM DESERT. CALIFORNIA 92260 - PHONE (714) 346-6739
_ AIR POLLUTION CONTROL DISTRICT
OUNTY �a
OF-
RIVERSID MAY .1813
5888 MISSION BOULEVARD J. A. STUART
RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92509 Air Pollution Control Officer
787-2416
December 3, 1974 RECEIVED
DEC - 51974
DO WWAS
Y OF PALM
MY
Department of Environmental Services
Planning Division
P. 0. Box 1648
Palm Desert, California 92260
Attention: Mr. Samuel G. Freed
Gentlemen:
Your request for review and comments on the Palm Desert General
Plan has been received.
No quantitative study of the plans effect on ambient air quality
can be made at this time.
The primary source of emissions is, and will continue to be, the
automobile. Any plans which provide for growth in population or
tourist trade would result in increased auto travel unless other public
transit systems or limiting plans are implemented.
'lease contact this office if we can be of further help.
Very truly yours,
_ q
v� Martin
Chief gineer
MJK:RCS:fa
CIVIL L061�1 '11
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph. 346.0611
December 9, 1974
Mr. Harvey Hurlburt, City Manager
City of Palm Desert
Palen Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr, Hurlburt: °
4
This is to inform the City Council and the Planning Commission that
Mr. Lyman Martin presented the attached resolution for adoption by
CAC on December 5, 1974. The vote was as follows:
FOR: Gorman, L. Martin, Solis, Peck.
AGAINST: Smith, Richardson, K. Martin, Hirschi, Ricciardi,
Berkey, lulls.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE V. BERKEY,
Chairman
I;y � � 07 J
a(C
c,-`"1..._.__�..a-..yt'.iii.�`u.�.wL,u,.i'iT_.—_-.s''.^�^W�y�,•;•.m��.u.1^. :::7n.cmau�+x^.Q�:iyi�� ' •
45.275 Prickly Pear Lane P.O. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92200 Ph. 346-0611
December 9, 1974
Mr. Harvey Hurlburt, City Manager
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Hurlburt:
The Citizens Advisory Committee has concluded its studies of the proposed
Palm Desert General Plan, Please inform the City Council and the Planning
Commission that by majority vote, CAC recommends adoption of the Public
Hearinb Draft, November 12, 1974, with the following changes:
1. LAND USE
Map (page 1. B. 4. a. ): Change specialty commercial on north side of
Whitewater Channel at Washington Street to low density residential. Delete
reference to 118. 5 acres of industrial area on Page 1. B. 7.
2. URBAN DESIGN
On Page 2, P. 1, change last paragraph to read "utilize indigenous plants in
landscaping whenever appropriate". On next to last paragraph add "public
and private parking lots" after "pedstrian areas".
5. CIRCULATION
r
On Highway Network Map, figure 5. 1, make corrections to truly show
exidting portions of Monterey and Cook Streets.
6. ENVIRONI1"NTAL •
On Page 6. 1. P. 1. delete last paragraph.
t
Very truly yours,
t
GEORGE V. BERKEY ►
Chairman
CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE
MINUTES
December 5, 1974
The regular CAC meeting was called to order by the Chairman at
3:40 p.m. on Thursday, December 5, 1974 at the CVAG conference room. Members
present were: Ed Peck, Lyman Martin, Bob Solis, Kermit Martin, Don Richardson,
Bob Ricciardi , Nelson Mills, Jean Ann Hirschi and George Berkey.
The minutes of the meeting of November 21 , 1974 were approved
as mailed .
Chairman Berkey reported that Wilsey & Ham had requested CAC to
review the public hearing draft of the General Plan and recommend its adoption
with any changes CAC might wish. This review and recommendation is the only
item on the agenda for this meeting.
Mr. Ron Gorman made the following presentation: A large majority
of the residents of Palm Desert , personally and/or through those elected to
represent them at public hearings, advised Wilsey & Ham, consultants for the
City of Palm Desert, that they desired to "preserve the essential , residential
character of the City" with low density and controlled height both residential
and commercial . It was their desire to retain the same atmosphere that has
made Palm Desert famous.
We therefore propose a resolution to adopt the General Plan as
prepared by Wilsey and Ham with the following changes :
1 . Remove from the consultants report and maps all reference to
Palm Desert becoming the "Shopping Center" for the entire Valley in the present
incorporated area of Palm Desert.
2. Remove all reference in maps and reports, in the present
Incorporated area of Palm Desert, for Palm Desert to become the central tourist
area for the entire Valley with large convention type hotels.
3. In the present incorporated area of Palm Desert remove from
the report all "high density (7 to 18 to the acre)" and "medium density (5 to
7 to the acre)" leaving the maximum density to 3 to 5 to the acre now described
in the report as "low density".
4. Set height limits on residential units to a maximum of 15 feet
and on commercial units to a maximum of 24 feet.
5. Change all classification and zoning in the consultants maps
and plans for the future of Palm Desert to conform to the above.
6. Withhold any expenditure of money for changes of Highway 111 ,
El Paseo and the North and South Frontage Roads for a minimum of 90 days to
allow for further study of the. "Cliff Henderson" proposal and the possible
financing of it. It is recommended the City and Mr. Henderson work together on
this project as time is of the essence in this matter. This would mean Mr.
Henderson, the City Council and staff, would pool their findings because without
City backing, no individual plan would get off the ground.
CAC Minutes
12/5/74
The property Owners Association which represents approximately 850
individual and joint tenants of 1047 separate parcels of property within the,
city limits of Palm Desert feel that this property represents many millions of
dollars of assessed valuation and is protected by recorded deed restrictions
of the Association.
They sent out a questionnaire along with the ballot for election
of their officers for the 1975 Board of Directors to about 850 people in
Palm Desert Community. The questions were as follows :
1 . Density - The consultants to the City of Palm Desert have
proposed an increase in density which would allow approximately 90,000 people.
Are you in favor of this proposal ? Yes - 24% No - 76%
2. Do you wish to retain the present image of Palm Desert as
much as possible? Yes 91% No 9%
3. Do you wish to restrict the building heights to single story
for residential and no more than two story for commercial ? Yes 87% no 13%
The results of this survey have been forwarded to the Palm Desert
City Council and the Citizens Advisory Committee.
The first eight elements of the General Plan were reviewed and by
unanimous vote the Chairman was authorized to write a recommendation for
adoption with certain changes. A copy of the letter is attached and made a
part of these minutes.
While Wilsey and Ham had not requested a review of the Environmental
Impact Report, at Lyman Martin 's request it was discussed . Lyman Martin pre-
sented a resolution as follows :
"The environmental Impact Report is one of the most fundamental and important
parts of any General Plan. It becomes increasingly important when substantial
changes in the density and/or the image and character of a community is also a
part of the General Plan.
The General Plan submitted by Wilsey & Ham for the present Incorporated Area of
Palm Desert admittedly contains such substantial and controversial changes (See
Page E10 & Ell , etc. of report) . Among other things the image, character and
environment is substantially changed by including in the wording, maps and plans of
the proposed General Plan "Shopping Areas for the entire Valley"; "Convention
type Hotels to serve the entire Valley" and by increasing the Density by the
inclusion of classifications of "High Density" (7 to 18 to the acre) and "Medium
Density" (5 to 7 to the acre) . It is the opinion of many people that unless these
substantial changes are removed from the General Plan, in the present incorporated
area of Palm Desert, that the Environmental Impact Report will not withstand future
attack by developers, land owners or other groups seeking changes or relief.
Future Environmental Reports filed by developers will undoobtedly be based on the
General Plan and it is therefore of utmost importance that the Environmental Impact
report withstand any attack.
The substantial changes referred to herein will have far greater adverse effects
on the environment than is contemplated in the Wilsey and Ham report. The report
is based on out of date data and contingencies and suppositions based on this data
on which many well known authorities disagree.
-2-
It
CAC Minutes
12/5/74
1 . Example - (page E5a) - "Air Monitoring Data for 197n". The rapid
develop,r:ent which has occurred since 1970 has made a tremendous change in the
base figures and therefore any future forecast now based on these old 1970 figures is not factual . No less than Dr. James Pitt, head of the air pollution for the
State of California, has repeatedly stated that as the density of population
increases the rate of air pollution increases geometrically. The adverse effect
has been understated in the report.
2. The adverse effect caused by the suggested changes in the very character and
image of Palm Desert, as well as the increase in density, will have far greater
adverse effect on all types of pollution than stated in the Environmental Impact
Report.
A - Water. Experts disagree with the future availability of the quantity and
quality.
B - (Page E10) Climate. The report admits increased humidity and detrimental
effects on residents. Increased humidity multiplies rapidly with increased density
and therefore density should be kept to a minimum.
C - The report states (onE10 - B1 ) "The Social changes will doubtlessly be viewed
as detrimental " and "The Primary goal is to create an organized environment of
different family types". Why make organized changes in an environment that has
made Palm Desert famous? This is not in accord with input from residents.
D - The report states (Page ElO & 11 under 2 ) " Marked changes will occur in
property values". It is true that increased density classifications in the land
use will start a cycle of increased property values which feeds on itself requiring
higher and 'nigher density to support the ever increasing price of property. Finally
the bubble breaks and everyone but the promoter loses. On the other hand low density
controls property prices so that each piece of property may be developed so that
it is compatible with the adjacent property and to the advantage of all Palm Desert.
E - Other adverse environmental effects will occur on every invironmental factor
including solid waste, noise, light pollution, etc. etc.
When adapted the General Plan and its Environmental Impact report will give the
present and future City Councils the authority as well as the mandate to enforce
the General Plan in the future development of Palm Desert. it is important therefore
that the proposed General Plan be changed to eliminate any substantial changes in
the image and character of Palm Desert and reduce the density to a maximum of 5 to
the acre. Without these changes the Environmental Impact Report is not factual
and is based on suppositions and opinions which can not be supported.
After the reading of this resolution Lyman Martin requested that CAC
adopt this and there was considerable discussion. When the resolution was put
to a vote the following is the result : FOR: Ron Gorman, Lyman Martin, Bob
Solis & Ed Peck. AGAINST: Ted Smith, Don Richardson, Kermit Martin, Jean
Ann Hirschi and Bob Ricciardi , George Berkey, Nelson Mills.
The meeting was adjourned at 5:58 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
George Berkey, Chairman
41oy R. Kay, Secretary
-3-
,ouNtie NOW ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC ICY
01STRIGS
COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT
POST OFFICE BOX 1058 - COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 - TELEPHONE (714) 398-2651
DIRECTORS OFFICERS
LEON KENNEDY, PRESIDENT LOWELL O. WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER
RAYMOND R. RUMMONDS,VICE-PRESIDENT OLE J. NORDLAND, SECRETARY
GEORGE H. LEACH WALTER R. WRIGHT,AUDITOR
C. J. FROST REDWINE AND SHERRILL, ATTORNEYS
WILLIAM 8, GARDNER
3 December 1974
File: 1150.
Department of Environmental Services
Planning Division
City of Palm Desert
P. 0. Box 1648
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Palm Desert General Plan
Gentlemen:
Here are our recommendations and comments:
1. Acknowledgements Page - Change "Coachella Valley Water
District" to "Coachella Valley County Water District"
2. Page 1.B.4.a
a. The Palm Desert Wastewater Reclamation Plant includes
more land than is shown - see attached drawing.
b. The Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, west of Highway
74, is not plotted correctly at its most southerly
location - see attached drawing number 1681.
3. Page 7.B.1, Water
a. Water is also supplied by the Palm Desert Community
Services District
b. The information in the second paragraph is incorrect
and incomplete - see attached material marked Attachment
A.
4. Page 7.B.1, Sewage System - add this sentence: "Regional
wastewater collection lines have been installed to serve
the city."
5. Page 7.P.6, in last line, change "FINE" to "FIRE".
6. Page 7.P.7, the first paragraph states: "Require the
CVCWD to meet all code regulations regarding water
pressure requirements for domestic use and fire protection."
Department of Environmental Services 3 December 1974
Page 2 1150.
We do not understand the implication or meaning of this
statement.
7. Page 7.P.7, Drainage System, please refer to "Report on
Comprehensive Plan for Surface Water Drainage for the
Palm Desert Area", prepared by the CVCWD in 1966. A
discussion of this could be included on page 7.B.1.
8. Page E.12c, Figure 9-4, water and sewer data are not correct.
We offer this data:
People/
Residential DU (1) Water (2) Sewage (3)
Very low density 2.6 700 340
Low density 2.6 700 340
Medium density 2.6 700 340
High density 1.9 510 250
1) Figure 4-5, page 4.B.2.b
2) Based on 270 gpcd, Table IV-1 Riverside County Comprehensive
Water and Sewerage Plan, December 1972
3) Based on 130 gpcd, Table IV-2 Riverside County Comprehensive
Water and Sewerage Plan, December 1972
Proposed Industrial water and wastewater flows are too large for
the type of development that would be computable with Palm
Desert.
9. Page i.2, in two places dates are shown as 1974, should they
read 1973.
10. Page 1.B.2, paragraph 1. , line 6, an area of 102.2 acres is
shown, this should be of the magnitude of 1022 if the 18.1
percent of the total area is correct.
If you wish to discuss these items further please call one of these persons:
Stormwater & Drainage - D. L. Chaudoin
Water & Sewage - Tom Levy
Verytruly,,, urs,
f' J
William H. ngenecker, Jr.
Deputy Chi Engineer
WKL:mak
Enclosures/3
as.
r
L1..... _...d Ai _ Earl P.Wilsey(1892-1957)
1631 HUNTINGTON DRIVE • P.O. BOX 430 • SOUTH PASADENA,CALIF. 91030 •Telephone (213) 799-9181 • Cable "WHINT"
December 2, 1974
2-2189-0103
Mr. Paul Williams
Director of Planning
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickly Pear Lane
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Paul :
I have just met with Mr. Charles G. Taylor regarding his property which is
noted on the attached xerox map.
The General Plan as now recommended indicates this area as open space --
more specifically a park and wildlife preserve. The rationale for this was
twofold -- first preservation of the hillside areas which will be viewed by
residents of Palm Desert and secondly the CAC request for a park in this
vicinity -- as indicated on one of the drawings you brought to South Pasadena.
Mr. Taylor has pointed out to me his plans to use this property as income for
his retirement years. I have informed him of the hearings on December 9 and 19.
In reviewing the property I believe it could be shown as very low density --
1 to 3 per acre -- inasmuch as the range of slopes within Mr. Taylor's property
is similar to portions of the Cahiulla Hills areas which is also shown as
very low density -- 1 to 3 per acre. Perhaps, in this context, the development
of the site as a residential planned unit development subject to provisions
of the grading and zoning ordinances might be acceptable to the City. Also,
since the CAC map showed the park as somewhat. of a "blob," it might be
reasonable to consider limiting the park to south of the area noted as
"County Park" on the attached map.
If, after review of these factors, you believe the land use designation should
be changed, please make such a recommendation in the staff comments to be
submitted at the hearings and, if approved, we will change the land use map.
planning • engineering - architecture • landscape architecture • surveying • mapping • systems
4
Nome
Mr. Paul Williams -2- December 2, 1974
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
WILSEY & HAM
�r
Lar Morrison, AIA, AIP
Program Director
LBM:kp
Attachment
cc: Mr. Charles G. Taylor
Mr. Hunter T. Cook
I
rl
� J
\ AGNE ___ ___ i
S�A- ALLS--u* _--- - am[ --- -- - - --_ ZVI
212
0105
a O
DESERT OR R- '
O
RANCHO RO = �30n N
z, iR-2 n c
R-3- BARBARA DR oo7000
7000 MI � ..r.
a O
C-P-$ 0R 2 P \ - N O MMAOSA DP
z=, GiOLLQO O
w-2 AIM �zc'R-2 R_ 3- ¢,
_�� CACTUS 7000
3z AROOI.EDA
m BRUSHWOOV%R R- I o
ul
p2
-� T C-P-S C-P-S S cu N p GLOR►ANA
Of 0 3 R- ~
R-I M7�
2-
} 2j0
9 2GNTA--k
.r \ rn R-
��'0 $040" DR w ' cv 7000
1 g �+ R- 1 SAN w
•r i� R-2-
SIERRA..VISTA RD R,� 7000
INA
ram' N R-2-5000 R-2200 - -
7000
lSO A P TAMPICO OR. R_2 R-2 9c\l GUAOUILUF
L
'� OO 7ly RANCHO GRANDE O
R- 2-7000 Tj z
cV
k /sss R.2 R-1
+ 700fl
o
w c-p-s
r
v C-PR
A:9 C - P _S
f
1 W-2
R-2 6000 �►
O
ti o .
1 i IN—; a i J1) 0 4 .1
AZrA sr ,w
0
O � �q yFRT R v
O
All ST
0 9 R_ i o
sr
a5oo
iz:I, ,1 r.fKE I
NORTH
KEX IQ Iss go
_R_-2 OC) O
i
mow , CHARLES G. TAYLOR
INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES
cl ti SALES • LEASES INVESTMENTS
4
7
MAJESTIC REALTY CO., 6252 E.TELEGRAPH ROAD
— LOS ANGELES,CALIFORNIA 90040
(213) 685-5380
�wr1'
STATE OF CALIFORNIA—RESOURCES AGENCY RONALD REAGAN,Governor
DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION 327.0
District 6 Headquarters
1350 Front Street, Room 6054
San Diego, California 92101
December 2, 1974
Mr. Samuel G. Freed, Asst. Planner
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Pricklv Pear Lane
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Freed:
Thank you very much for the opportunity to review the Palm Desert General
Plan.
Apparently, the General Plan will not affect any unit of the State Park
System in a detrimental way and we appreciate, very much, your thoughtful-
ness in giving us the opportunity to review the plan.
Sincerely,
J. TEHEAD
Superintendent
e
District 6
Y
RECEIVED
:+ .�...«• 1`��=fin." )
0 FE - 21974
q
EHV:ti¢UOftE AL StcRVICES
CffV OF PAW DBMT
R.W. RIDDELL 3700 CENTRAL AVENUE RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Eastern Division
Distribution Planning Supervisor Mailing Address P. O. BOX 2200, RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92506
November 27, 1974
Mr. Samuel G. Freed
Assistant Planner
City of Palm Desert
P.O. Box 1648
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Freed:
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing the proposed Palm Desert
General Plan.
The Southern California Gas Company in the past has met its utility
obligation to provide service to all customers within its service
area in accordance with its rates, rules and regulations as filed
with and authorized by the California Public Utilities Commission
and in accordance with the decisions of that Commission. Through
its participation in gas supply acquisition programs, it will make
every reasonable effort to continue to meet anticipated peak day and
annual firm load requirements of both new and existing customers .
In addition, the Company will serve interruptible requirements to
the extent possible with the available gas supply, pursuant to its
filed tariffs and orders of the Commission.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please
let me know.
Sincerely,
RWR:j s
WQP�t�EVAT Of lyF,y� � IN REPLY REFER TO
�_
United States Department of the Interior 1791 (PL)
16
O
BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT
Riverside District
1414 University Ave. , Rm. 101
Riverside, CA 92507
1QV 2 ° i974
Department of Environmental Services
Planning Division
P. 0 . Box 1648
Palm Desert , CA 92260
Dear Sir:
We have looked over the Public Hearing Draft of the Palm Desert General
Plan .
We would like to compliment those responsible for a job well done.
The Goals and Objections are very good throughout and the Implementation
Policies are proper to bring about those goals .
We were especially interested in the Land Use Element since BLM has over
10,000 acres of land within the Palm Desert Influence Area .
We note that the map entitled "Local Context" on page i .l .b shows an area
designated "Area of University Leaseholds". This area contains over 8000
acres of BLM lands which is more properly labeled BLM-UCR Cooperative
Research Area - as shown in the Land Use Map on page 1 .B .4a .
The Land Use Map also has an inaccuracy in the legend where it indicates
the Deep Canyon Research Center as UCR (Fee Title) . Some of this area was
acquired from BLM and is less than Fee Title - i .e. it has been granted
to U.C.R. with a reversionary clause which says it will return to BLM
if it is not used for specific Recreation or Public Purposes identified in
the Patent.
The Desert Slender Salamander mentioned on page 6.4.B.2 is on both federal
and state endangered species lists . The habitat for this species, located
in Hidden Palm Canyon , has been purchased by California Department of Fish
and Game.
A—incerelly y rsZ,1
10
Delmar D. Vail
District Manager
BERNARD J. CLARK, SHERIFF
'Etff r
November 27 , 1974
Mr. Harvey Hurlbert
City Manager
Post Office Box 1648
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Harvey:
In response to your request to comment on the Palm Desert
General Plan submitted by Wilsey and Ham, Consultants, the follow-
ing is submitted. We've quoted the sections we see applicable,
and provided a broad response.
Section 6. 2 encompasses the safety element and contains the
following which relates to police protection.
6. 2.B.1 Police protection is provided by the Riverside
County Sheriff' s Department. The Sheriff ' s
Department provides response service to requests
for service and investigative services in criminal
cases.
Comment The initial agreement between the City and the
Sheriff' s Department for law enforcement services
was to start with the minimum level of service
that was provided to the area prior to incorporation
by the Sheriff ' s Department and the California
Highway Patrol. This is the present staffing
pattern.
6. 2.B.2 The City can plan for its own system of police
and fire protection in the future.
Comment The Sheriff will assist the City in planning for
the development of any level of law enforcement
services they determine desirable. The Sheriff ' s
Department has the capability of providing, through
contract, any level of law enforcement desired by
the City.
6. 2.P.1 Continue its efforts to upgrade police and fire
protection in the City and establish periodic
review processes and standards to insure that
the service remains at high levels.
Letter to Harvey i%wrlbert 1"W
November 27 , 1974
Page 2
Comment A contract for law enforcement services can be
written for any level desired by the City which
would provide for proper controls by both parties.
Constant review of the service is an administrative
function which is accomplished. The results of the
review is the subject of discussion with the
city and the basis for action of upgrading.
Establish local representation of the law enforcement
agency in the city as soon as possible.
Comment If the City feels that law enforcement office
space is required and should be staffed for a
specified number of hours per day due to the number
of walk-in complaints or requests for information,
the contract can reflect such an office. However,
the cost of manning and supporting such an office
should be a factor to consider.
General Comment
A. Our belief is that contract law enforcement is the most
reasonable method of providing a complete service for the
citizens of the City of Palm Desert.
Some of the specific on-going procedures taking place with
you and those of your neighbor city, which may be of interest:
1. (1) Lieutenant, (1) Sergeant, (2) Investigators, and
(14) Deputies are assigned full-time to the Cities
of Palm Desert and Rancho Mirage.
2. Emphasis is being placed on a positive working
relationship with the community through both formal
and informal. mechanisms.
3 . Deployment and scheduling are based on workload and
the needs of the community.
4 . Representatives of social service agencies are being
utilized to acquaint the deputies with the resources
in and for the community.
5. Goals and objectives have been set and planned programs
have been established to meet these objectives
(management by objectives) .
G . Two of the most important, although general, goals are
to provide a safe environment for citizens and to
improve interpersonal communications and understanding
Letter to Harvey :lbert
November 27 , 1974 ""'°
Page 3
between the deputies and citizens.
7 . The deputies will contact each and every resident
and commercial establishment and offer a security
inspection to suggest methods that can be used to
better protect themselves from theft or burglary.
8 . In addition to the men specifically assigned to the
cities, they have behind them many advantages of our
large department. We operate a complete records system
second to none, communication system, laboratory,
jail, civil, training and specialized investigational
details.
Please contact me if you desire any additional information.
Sincere72y,
l
BEN CLARK, SHERIFF
BC/r
mVAt3
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
• County of Riverside & Cities of:
•Coachella • Desert Hot Springs • Indian Wells
November 27 , 1974 . Indio • Palm Desert • Palm Springs • Rancho Mirage
Mr. Paul Williams, Director
Environmental Services Department
City of Palm Desert
45-275 Prickley Pear Lane
Palm Desert, California 92260
Dear Mr. Williams:
This letter is submitted as a response to your correspondence of
November 12, 1974, requesting comments regarding the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) , prepared pursuant to the California Environmen-
tal Quality Act (CEQA) , for the City of Palm Desert's General Plan.
Presently, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments has not
adopted regional goals and policies relative to growth and development.
As you know, C-VAG is a newly formed Council of Governments, less
than one year old. Without adopted policies concerning growth and
development patterns, the C-VAG Staff is unable to evaluate the con-
tents of the City of Palm Desert's General Plan or the draft EIR
attached therein. C-VAG's adoption of regional growth and develop-
ment policies would enable staff review of the EIR and General Plan.
Therefore, we respectfully suggest that comments from C-VAG would not
be appropriate at this time. We appreciated the opportunity to dis-
cuss this matter on November 27 , 1974, with you and the representa-
tives from Wilsey & Ham Consulting Firm, in terms of the basic ele-
ments required in an EIR and our technical interpretation of the State
guidelines. The discussion was helpful to us and we hope it was as
beneficial to you and the Consultants as well .
For your thoughtfulness in forwarding the General Plan and Draft EIR,
we are grateful . Additionally, we are hopeful that the technical
planning liaison established at the meeting will continue.
74-133 El Paseo, Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 • (714) 346-1127
COACHELLA VALLEY ASSOCIATION of GOVERNMENTS
In the future, information you may be able to provide C-VAG may be the
impetus for development of regional goals and policy statements that
can be submitted to the Executive Committee and General Assembly for
their respective consideration.
Very truly yours,
6 e%Ly
Gary Wiedle
Executive Director
GW/bdb
cc: Mr. Harvey Hurlburt
City Manager of Palm Desert
November 27 , 1974 Page 2
369 PINE STREET • SUITE 320
SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94104
November 22, 1974
Mr. Paul A. Williams, Director
Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Dear Mr. Williams:
It has been brought to our attention that there
is a proposal to rezone certain parts of the City of
Palm Desert,which are now a medium density zoning,
to a low density zoning, which, as I understand, al-
lows from three to five housing units per acre. At
the Council meeting of October loth, a tentative map
and conditional Use Permit for Tract #4442, with 6.22
units per acre, were approved.
We have every hope and desire of proceeding with
this development as soon as the mortgage money market
would make it practicable. At this time, it is dif-
ficult to project how soon that will be, but it ap-
pears that recent changes in the prime rate are en-
couraging. We have planned a development which we
think will be extremely attractive and desirable
and certainly compatible with both the environmental
and constructed surroundings.
This letter is to request that the pending re-
zoning be modified to leave intact the existing zoning
for the area of Tract #4442, namely, medium density.
We appreciate the cooperation which we have re-
ceived from the City offices in general since their
incorporation, and hope that you will similarly give
consideration to this request.
Sincerely,
ENVIRONMENTAL DEVELOPMENT
Cq,f,PANY
M. D. JAYRED, Vice President
MDJ/mpm
cc: Mr. W. Scott Biddle
'VOW 4_.•
wrr
Cu&& Vaft Rwwafi" aKd Pa%k %Wd
POST OFFICE DRAWER YYY
46-350 SOUTH JACKSON STREET INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
November 20, 1974 RECEIVED
NOV 2 11974
Mr. Samuel G. Freed UNMONMIM4 S&VICES
Assistant Planner CY OF PAUA DMW
City of Palm Desert
P.O. Box 1648
Palm Desert, California
Dear Mr. Freed
In reviewing Wilsey and Hams' General Plan of Palm Desert under
Section 7, Public Facilities Element, I noticed very little reference
to park and recreational facilities. They did however, mention local
school facilities, but did not go into depth. I feel that some of the
school facilities should be mentioned as well as other recreational
facilities in the area which were not included.
The College of the Desert has many recreational facilities. It
alone provides the City of Palm Desert with more than is recommended in
the comprehensive Public Facility Guidelines as shown on page 7.B.d.a.
Some of those facilities available include a swimming pool complex, lighted
stadium, gymnasium, theater and a baseball diamond.
The local elementary schools also have playgrounds, tot lots, ball
diamonds and multi-purpose rooms. Included on the Palm Desert Middle
School site is a lighted baseball diamond and recently planted Palm
Desert Community Park.
Through the Education Code, namely, the Civic Center Law, the Community
Recreation Enabling Law and the Community Service Tax Law, provides the
schools make their facilities available to the citizens to engage in
recreational activities.
The Christina Sinatra Teen Center, a public facility, is located on
Portola Avenue, provides many teen activities within the area.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
HAROLD COUSINS GENE ROBERTS JEARL JESSON
President Vice President Secretary
VICTOR HIGGINS DON MARIETTA CHARLES BREWER
Director Director Superintendent
Tel.347 3485
a
Mr. Samuel G. Freed -2- November 20, 1974
The Palm Desert Community Center, located at 45-825 Willow Street,
provides a public recreational facility for the area. Ajacent to the
Community Center is 35 acres, undeveloped, for future park development.
Both are owned and operated by the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park
District.
These are some recreational facilities I feel should be included
in the General Plan.
If you have any questions please don't hesitate to call.
Sincerely, r
axles Brewer
Superintendent
jd
SAINT
MANGJARETS
EPISCOPAL
CHURCH
P.O. BOX 201 /47-535 HIGHWAY 74/PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260/TELEPHONE (714) 346-2697
The Reverend John D.Harrison,Rector
November 19, 1974
The Planning Commission
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, California 92260
Gentlemen:
St. Margaret's Church, presently owning five acres of land at
47-535 Highway 74 in Palm Desert, respectfully requests a
change in land use designation for the five acres to R-3 zone.
The purpose for this request is the intention to construct a
home for retired persons on part of that land. Your acceding
to this request will be much appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
Cartwright Hunter
CH: tm Senior Warden
MITCHELL MANAGEMENT SERVICE
Donald H. Mitchell David H. Mitchell
Care and Supervision of Date Gardens and Citrus Groves
PHONE 398-4511
MAIL ADDRESS BOX 833 . INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201
November 19, 1974
City Clerk
Palm Desert, CA
Dear Sir:
It was most interesting to listen to the projections of future growth
for our city as presented by a representative of Wilsey and Ham at
the bearing at the Community Church on November 12.
Accompanied by Mr. L. Robison of Sacramento, my partner in a date garden
in the area between the Catholic Church and the site for the proposed
high school, we questioned the speaker hoping to learn how the proposed
Date Palm Preserve would affect us. He referred us to the Planning
Commission and suggested that we keep in touch, saying that final plans
would be some time in being developed.
We- .are in sympathy with what we presume is your objective, namely,
providing palms for Palm Desert. The desert partis provided by Nature;
the palms must be man' s responsibility.
I would like to point out two examples which your Planning Commission
no doubt has already studied. The first being the Sun Gold area,
Indio' s first real subdivision and unquestionably the most beautiful.
Homes were built in a former date garden with a few selected palms
retained on each lot for shade and esthetic effect. The second is the
border planting of palms on the College of the Desert that has been a
most valuable feature of an attractive and appropriate campus develop-
ment.
The speaker suggested the possibility that as long as we kept the date
garden in production, the objective of the Planners was being fulfilled
and later on when subdivision, the most logical final use was in effect,
that homes on the plan used in Sun Gold would be logical. The amount
of time left in which it will be profitable to operate the acreage is
problematical, possibly between ten and fifteen years. Since both
Mr. Robison and I are "Senior Citizens" we have thought about selling
the 22 acres we own. We are not under pressure to dispose of it, however,
as it is well handled by the ranch care program managed by my son. We
do not, obviously, want a Date Palm Reserve program to interfere with
a sale if and when we want to make a sale; nor do we want it to reduce
the value of the property.
i
City Clerk 2 November 19, 1974
The effectiveness of the border planting of date palms at College of
the Desert, some of which is being cropped, suggests that the idea
could be used somewhere in Palm Desert.
I have available about 100 jumbo date offshoots plus a few male palms
that should be planted next April or May. These have trunks from three
to ten feet high, most being about fi#ve. Our own crew could move the
smaller ones but it could be better to call in a professional to do the
whole job. I will quote a favorable price.
Should you want me to meet with your group to go into the matter in
more detail I'll be happy to do so. The future growth of Palm Desert
is of real concern.
The change from the day when there was only one house in the whole area
south of Highway 111, to the present state of vigorous growth, is
spectacular. Your plan to make the future growth harmonious is to be
commended.
Cordially yours,
D. H. Mitchell
cmc
�7, y ` (714) 345-2831
,- -i" row w ,;�•� r-' y
' 45-300 CLUB DRIVE INDIAN WELLS, CALIFORNIA 92260
Mti lTiA � !1 kr,� i1V PAP VG
October 18, 1974
Palm Desert City Council
P. O. Box 1648
Palm Desert, California 92260
Re: Preliminary Land Use Element of the Palm Desert General Plan
Gentlemen:
In the spirit of intergovernmental co-operation the Indian Wells City Council
has reviewed your Preliminary Concept for the Palm Desert General Plan
Land Use Element and offers the following recommendations:
1. The overall DENSITY shown is too great, particularly in
the `wind erosion areas" lying between the Whitey;rater
River Flood Channel and Interstate 10; and those 7-10
D. U. /Ac. categories which adjoin the City of Indian Wells.
2. Generally, very low densities of 1-4 dwelling units per
gross acre should be shown in a belt extending from
immediately north of the Whitewater to within one mile
of Interstate 10. A one mile wide belt-lying adjacent to
Interstate 10 may be appropriate for lovT density.
(3-5 dwelling units per gross acre).
3. There is too much industrial indicated. Generally, it should
be limited to those as shown by the (current) Cove Communities
General Plan.( e. g. Monterey Avenue and Washington Street
at.the freeway).
Since Washington Street and Highway Ill have both been
adopted as "Scenic Corridors", the DEI ETION of INDUSTRLAL
at Washington and 44th Avenue is strongly recommended.
Palm Desert City Council
October 18, 1974
Page 2.
4. With the exception of Monterey, by reducing densities, the
need for new freeway interchanges is deleted. Further, the
need for "diagonal" roads as shown on the map is also reduced.
Consideration should be given toward deleting as many "diagonal"
roads as possible since property ownerships occur along
North-South and East-West basis throughout the area. (As
a practical matter, development of property and acquisition
of R/W is difficult to accomplish when roads bisect at acute
angles).
5. In the City of Indian Wells new crossings of the Whitewater
are not necessary and would result ultimately in unnecessary
expenditures of funds for bridges. These should be deleted
from the plan.
6. The "Sand Dune Preserve" could result in a costly acquisition
and maintenance problem. It would appear that there is less
expensive land available elsewhere in the region which could
be used for such a purpose.
The aforementioned comments only address themselves to the major concerns
of the concept and are not reflective of minor issues. We appreciate the
opportunity to convey our concerns to you, particularly on items having
regional as well as local impact, such as those shown by the plan.
Very truly yours,
J EPH YO TG
Mayor
V#o
u r �' �► ' it s �l� � ! ' a d i �i ii��' s"rr i>� 'O i�'�
On the domestic water scene during for construction of two more 2.5 mil- A recently completed 1 million gal-
the last fiscal year the Coachella Valley lion gallon reservoirs, is completed, the lon reservoir was constructed south of
County Water District concentrated on additional storage capacity and alternate the west end of Magnesia Falls Road in
improving water availability in the Palm supply sources are expected to cope with Rancho Mirage. It, together with a 2.5
Desert-Rancho Mirage area. power and pump failures that sometimes million gallon reservoir to be con-
During the year more than 60,000 cause water shortages in the area. structed nearby in December, will supply
feet of eight to 18-inch pipe was laid, Early in the fiscal year a 2.5 million water eventually from Basie Street in
two new reservoirs with a total capacity gallon reservoir was completed at Alamo Rancho Mirage east to Washington
of 3.5 million gallons were constructed,
and Mesa View in Palm Desert. This, Street.
together with two existing reservoirs,
two booster pumps were added and three serves me— of the Palm Desert area Three new wells were drilled in the
others rebuilt and four new wells were south of Highway 111. Booster pumps Palm Desert area to increase water
drilled in the area. from this system will enable water to be supplies and one new well was drilled
When the total project, which calls transmitted to the Cahuilla Hills area. to increase water quality.
AA
f
r ^
7, � •"gear.�- �._ ..
�E
-eF
y I .sit!Y I
i
,
�,.•_r '� �. } >: .«a. �` spa �-"•y ..,,
* r
.i aI •�
s
I
i
I
rrrrsrww�r - - - -
---_---r—- - ----r -A�- -- - - - -
I
--MERLE -1 — DR �E� �► �r IOU
PLANT cl 61"T _
I
i
t i
" � R
{ -— C�4Al
!AVE UE
c.
Q ' �
I
ILI
t
T T
k t f 1 I
REQUEST REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN
That the Planning Commission APPROVE a recommendation that
the City Council adopt the proposed General Plan as the
official document for guiding the future direction and de-
velopment of the City of Palm Desert and its Sphere of In-
fluence.
BACKGROUND
In April, 1974, the Planning Consultant Firm of Wilsey &
Ham, Inc . , was officially commissioned to prepare a Gen-
eral Plan for the City of Palm Desert and its proposed
Sphere of Influence.
The consulting firm and its associates proceeded to survey
the study area and provide detailed analysis of land usage
and activities conducted therein. In addition, the City
Council created a Citizen' s Advisory Committee to assist
the General Plan consultant and a series of meetings were
conducted to obtain the input of the public .
The results obtained through these actions were compiled
into a preliminary report which was made available to all
members of the Staff, Planning Commission, Citizen' s Advi-
sory Committee, and the City Council. Members of the
Citizen' s Advisory Committee were given the opportunity
to review the preliminary report and make appropriate rec-
ommendations . These recommendations were forwarded to the
consulting firm for consideration and possible inclusion
into a revised final draft of the General Plan.
The consulting firm did thoroughly review all comments ,
recommendations , and suggested revisions and did incorpor-
ate into the Hearing Draft those items which they felt
would best add to the overall content of the General Plan.
Copies of the Public Hearing Draft were submitted to all
of the aforementioned groups , to all utility companies
serving the area, to other government entities involved,
and to any other interested party who requested one . In
addition to providing copies of the Hearing Draft , the
consulting firm made several presentations to both public
and private groups . Maximum exposure to the General Plan
has been accorded through the combination of written ma-
terial, news releases and public presentations . Further
exposure to the Plan will be gained through a series of
public hearings prior to any final adoption.
DISCUSSION ON GENERAL PLAN
The proposed General Plan for the City of Palm Desert is
intended to serve the following major functions :
1. Bring the City in compliance with State Law which re-
quires every City to have a General Plan.
2 . Serve as a Guide for directing the future development
of the City and the Sphere of Influence assigned to it.
It is important to recognize that a General Plan is basi-
cally an officially-approved document which serves as a
"guide" for development ; rather than to actually "govern"
development . The General Plan, in itself, is not a docu-
ment which dictates implementation. Subsequent documents ,
such as Zoning Ordinances , Zoning Maps , Development Stand-
ards , Circulation Plans , etc . , are the actual documents
-10-
which affect implementation. What this means is that the
adoption of a General Plan does not automatically commit
the City to a final irrevocable course of action. An im-
portant degree of flexibility exists which permits the
City to carry out more detailed planning of various areas
and elements within the City and also to reappraise the
appropriateness of development in conformance with the
General Plan or the appropriateness of the General Plan
in light of the more detailed planning. A gradual policy
of implementation can permit the City an important degree
of refinement, reassessment and flexibility in order to
ensure that the City does not commit itself to policies
which may require more in-depth analysis before they are
actually implemented.
The most important aspect of a General Plan is that it
generates concern for the City and begins to establish
direction for the Community.
The contents of the General Plan are a mixture of what is
required by law and what is desired by the citizenry.
While some elements of the Plan are general in nature and
may evoke questions as to the value of their inclusion,
there is a reason for their existence and, by and large,
they fulfill mandatory requirments .
As required by State Law, the following elements are re-
quired to be included in a General Plan:
1. Land Use Element
2 . Circulation Element
3 . Housing Element
4. Conservation Element
5 . Open Space Element
6 . Seismic Safety Element
7 . Noise Element
8. Scenic Highways Element
9 . Safety Element
The proposed General Plan for Palm Desert includes all of
these elements , along with many others , and therefore i
projected to fully conform with what is required by the
State.
In order to compile a General Plan which is specifically
adapted to the needs of Palm Desert , all of the various
elements have been arranged within the following organi-
zational framework and document sections :
Introduction
1. Land Use Element
2 . Urban Design Element
3. Population/Economics Element
4. Housing Element
5 . Circulation Element
6 . Environmental Elements
7 . Public Facilities Element
8. Implementation Element
9 . Environmental Impact Report
In order to highlight the contents of the proposed General
Plan, the following brief summaries of each of the follow-
ing elements is provided.
INTRODUCTION
In summary, this section describes the purpose of a Gen-
eral Plan and the process involved in developing it . In addi-
tion it describes the City in the context of its surround-
ing physical, social, and economic environment .
-11-
LAND USE
In summary, this element describes the existing and pro-
posed land uses of the City and its surrounding areas , and
generally shows how they relate to one another.
In conclusion, this element proposes future land use which
incorporates higher density development to ensure against
urban sprawl , and a consolidation of support facilities
(commercial, industrial , public , etc. ) into respective
areas to ensure that they provide convenient and comple-
mentary service where they are most needed and best suited.
URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT
In summary, this element describes the importance of es-
tablishing the identity and character of the City, which
in turn, will help to create a greater sense of appreciation
and pride in the community.
In conclusion, this element proposes that various features
such as landmarks , focal points , streetscapes , landscaping
and architecture should be utilized to establish an urban
design character for the City as a whole and for the re-
spective community neighborhoods therein.
POPULATION/ECONOMICS ELEMENT
In summary, this element provides basic data about the
community which describes its current demographic , busi-
ness , and economic base . This data, along with other in-
formation, helps to provide for a better understanding
of the community, along with a projection of future trends
which must be taken into consideration if effective plan-
ning is to result.
In conclusion, this element establishes facts and projec-
tions which confirm that the City has and will continue
to experience significant growth, and should plan accord-
ingly. All the various factors which affect growth should
be carefully monitored and those factors which most influ-
ence future development and expansion should be carefully
directed through proper planning and fiscal management .
HOUSING ELEMENT
In summary, this element describes some basic housing data,
indicates trends , and establishes present and projected
needs .
In conclusion, this element proposes that a broad range
of reasonably priced but quality-oriented housing types
be provided because it is both required and desired in
terms of meeting State and Federal Law and the best in-
terests of the community at large .
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
In summary, this element describes the need for an effec-
tive circulation system to serve the present/future City,
and describes the various modes of transportation which
must be taken into consideration in order to have a full
array of complementary services and means of access avail-
able.
In conclusion, this element proposes a roadway and pathway
system which provides for automobile and pedestrian-orien-
ted access and circulation throughout the City and surround-
ing areas . While only the main arteries of both are shown,
detailed planning on the local level is required to com-
plete the system in a manner which will make it effective .
-12-
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
In summary, this element contains various sub-categories
which deal with such factors as pollution, public safety,
flood control, erosion, geologic stability, open space ,
conservation and scenic preservation.
In conclusion, this element proposes that all of the var-
ious factors affecting the environmental quality of the
community be duly taken into consideration, and that stand-
ards and regulations be established to ensure that any ad-
verse effects created by urbanization be minimized.
PUBLIC FACILITIES ELEMENT
In summary, this element describes the various public fac-
ilities which are required and desirable for the City of
Palm Desert in proportion to the current and projected
population.
In conclusion, this element proposes that standards and
requirements be established to provide for public facili-
ties and that fiscal management be implemented in a manner
which ensures that appropriate funding provisions are es-
tablished.
IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT
In summary, this element describes the general "process"
involved in implementing the General Plan and makes recom-
mendations as to how the process is to be carried out and
what considerations should be taken into account .
In conclusion, this element proposes general "guidelines"
for implementing the General Plan but leaves the details
to the City to work out .
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(see separate Summary of Report)
The proposed General Plan, as revised and refined, will repres-
ent the general wishes of the community, based upon the compre-
hensive input from citizen groups , the City Staff and the pub-
lic ' s elected representatives . While more specific analysis
and planning of various areas and elements of the City may be
desirable before final implementation is carried out , the prep-
aration of upcoming specific implementation plans and support
documents (ordinances , maps , etc. ) should allow for ample de-
tailed review (and modification if necessary) especially if the
implementation of the General Plan and corresponding zoning
designations can be done in a gradual , piecemeal manner, rather
than using an immediate blanket approach.
Sequential phasing and development is essential in order to allow
for the more detailed planning which is necessary in order to
complete the general planning initiated through a General Plan
format. The direction established by the General Plan should
allow for further planning and implementation within a coherent
framework of intent. While not perfect, the General Plan will
nonetheless serve as a guide for the future development of this
area, and subsequent routine review and amendments will allow
for it to evolve in accordance with the needs and wishes of the
community.
-13-
RESPONSE TO REQUESTS FOR CHANGE
In addition to changes to the General Plan which have pre-
viously been recommended by the Staff and the Citizen' s
Advisory Committee, and incorporated into the Final Draft ,
subsequent written requests for change have been submitted
to the City by various interested parties .
The nature of these requests and the Staff' s response to
each is discussed as follows :
Request from Environmental Development Company:
A representative of the firm requests that the
General Plan be changed to reflect a higher den-
sity land use on the firm' s property since the
City Council (on October loth) had already ap-
proved Conditional Use Zoning for that use.
Since the proposed General Plan could not re-
voke that provision, the change has beenrecom-
mended.
Request from Saint Margaret' s Episcopal Church:
A representative of the Church requests that
a five-acre parcel of their land along High-
way 74 be designated for high density resi-
dential development to facilitate the proposed
development of a retirement complex. Since
the proposed land use designation is appro-
priate to that area, a corresponding change of
land use designation has been recommended.
Request from Mr. Charles G. Taylor :
Mr. Taylor requests that the land use designa-
tion of his hillside property adjacent and west
of the Palm Valley drainage ditch be changed to
"low density residential" rather than "open
space" as currently shown. Since special "de-
velopment standards" for hillside area will be
established and since low lying adjacent areas
may indeed be appropriate for residential de-
development, a change of land use designation
to that of "low density residential" may be
appropriate, subject to strict hillside con-
trol measures .
Request from Mitchell Management Service :
A representative of the firm and owner of a
date palm ranch located northeast of the in-
tersection of 44th Avenue and Deep Canyon re-
quests that this property not be designated
as a "reserve" , but , instead, be designated
in some manner which will permit future resi-
dential development . Since proposed develop-
ment is not foreseen in the near future , it
is appropriate that the General Plan continue
to show this area as a date reserve which
will still allow for further study in the fu-
ture and a possible change of land use desig-
nation at that time.
-14-
LETTERS RECEIVED ON GENERAL PLAN
-15-
V*O"
STAFF RECO1hIENDATION
That it be moved by Planning Commission Resolution No.
to do the following :
1. Recommend to the City Council the certification of the
Final E . I .R. on the General Plan to consist of :
a) The Draft E. I . P.. including the General Plan Elements
b) Comments and recommendations received on the Draft.
E. I .R. in writing or as a part of the public hear-
ings ,
c) The Staff Report prepared on the E. I . R.
Justification is based upon:
a) The Final E. I .R. is in compliance with the require-
ments of the City' s Environmental Guidelines (City
Council Resolution No . 74-14) and the State of Cali-
fornia Guidelines for Implementation of the Cali-
fornia Environmental Quality Act .
b) The Final E . I . R. does adequately address the environ-
mental effects of the General Plan
2. Recommend to the City Council the repeal of Ordinance
No . 13
3. Approve the Public Hearing Draft of the Palm Desert Gen-
eral Plan, dated November 12 , 1974, as amended and recom-
me- nc_—approval to the City Council
Justification is based upon:
a) The Palm Desert General Plan does comply to the re-
quirements of Sec . 65300-65307 of the State Govern-
ment Code
b) The document as amended adequately represents a com-
prehensive , long-term general plan for the physical
development of the City and its planning area.
-16-
ATTACH=S
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
REPORT _TO : Planning Commission
REPORT ON: FOUR (4) PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE GENERAL PLAN
REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR
FURTHER STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION.
BACKGROUND: At the City Council meeting and public hearing
on the General Plan on January 6 , 1975 , the City
Council referred four items back to the Planning
Commission for further study and recommendations ,
the latter of which are to be presented to the
City Council at its meeting of January 20, 1975 .
The four items referred back to the Planning
Commission are as follows :
A. A request by ST. MARGARET' S EPISCOPAL
CHURCH for changing land use designa-
tion on specific property to that of
"high density residential" .
B. A request by BEKINS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
CO. for changing land use designation or
specific property to that of "specialty
commercial" .
C. A request by F.T. KIELEY for allowing
the total acreage on specific property
(including mountain sides) to be used
in determining "densities" .
D. A request by DR. ELMER RIGBY for changing
land use designation on specific property
to that of "very low residential" .
In order to most fully explain these cases , spec-
ific reports for each item are attached as separ-
ate documents .
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
Report on: A REQUEST BY ST. MARGARET' S EPISCOPAL CHURCH
FOR CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION ON SPECIFIC
PROPERTY TO THAT OF "HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL"
Background: A representative of St. Margaret ' s Episcopal
Church submitted a letter requesting that the
5 acres under their ownership receive a land
use designation to permit "high density resi-
dential development" . The request was made
in order to permit the development of a 100
unit residential complex, with support facil-
ities , for elderly retired people.
The Planning Commission reviewed this request
and, at a public hearing on December 9 , 1974,
approved the request as a recommendation to
the City Council for its inclusion in the
General Plan.
Subsequent discussions have taken place , and
the issue has been raised that possibly a
more appropriate land use designation for this
property would be that of "institutional-general" .
Based upon the issue raised, the City Council,
on January 6 , 1975 referred this matter back to
the Planning Commission for further study and
recommendations prior to the final adoption of
a General Plan.
Description of Property:
1
Location: 47-535 Hwy 74 �� r
t
Size : 5 acres
Existing
Zoning : R-2
Adjacent ;
Zoning North R-2
South R-3
East R-3 1 "'
West W-1
a �
I
Y/
y �
,I
1 � ,
1 1
I.
i
i
I� r
Discussion of issue
Since the development of the proposed project is in fact
an institutional type facility which has requirements
different from conventional residential development , it
would indeed be more appropriate that it be classified as
such. Not only would the land use classification be more
consistent with the actual use , but a much greater degree
of flexibility would exist for the developer.
Staff Recommendation
Since the proposed development of this property would be
... compatible with surrounding development and since the land
use designation of the property would be most appropriate
as "institutional - general" , the Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approves this change and forwards
its recommendation to the City Council for further action.
..,fr_. .,,,..,-.•-e.� ,.r-,�...w..«-..arK•<.r..Avr,.**.�.-...�...,,y.,,..,,... ...•.-,.-_..,.-..�--mn+.•�.t...,.,....a,,.•.t.-A-.-,y -..-9«-.+�r..�,�..a,,.--,--,.....r+......w......w--«..-�...........�+,..,..-,.,.. .
P.O. BOX 201 i 47-535 HIGFiWAY 74/PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260/TELEPHONE (714) 346-2697
The Reverend John D.Harrison,Rector
November 19, 1974
The Planning Commis'sior,
City of Palm Desert
Palm Desert, California 92260
Gentlemen:
St. Margaret's Church, presently owning five acres of land at
117-535 dighway 74 in Palm Desert, respectfully requests a
change in land use designation for the five acres to R-3 zone.
The purpose for this request is the intention to construct a
home for retired persons on part of that land. Your acceding
to this request w-1.1_1 be much appreciated.
Sincerely yours,
---- I'/ �✓vim`_`. t/� � r/�, V✓��-=—•---..
r Cartwright Hunter
CH:tm Senior Warden
i
January 13 , 1975
Mr. Paul William
Palm Desert City Hall
Palm Desert, CA 92260
ATTENTION: Mr. Paul Williams
Bekins Property Management respectfully requests that their
previous request for rezoning from Medium Density Residential
to Specialty Commercial be withdrawn until further notice.
Cord ally yours ,
Tim Chapma
Presideni,r/
JC
y .,
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
Report on: A REQUEST BY BEKINS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. FOR
CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION ON SPECIFIC PROPERTY
TO THAT OF "SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL"
Background: A representative of Bekins Property Management Co .
submitted a letter (attached) requesting that the
parcel of land located at the southwest corner of
the intersection of Highway 74 and El Paseo Ave.
receive a land use designation to permit "specialty
commercial" development.
The City Council reviewed this request at a public
hearing on the General Plan on January 6 , 1975
and at that time referred the matter back to the
Planning Commission for further study and recommend-
ation. Subsequent recommendation area to be pre-
sented to the City Council for its consideration at a
public hearing on the General Plan on January 20 ,
1975 .
Description of Propey
Ull
\\ A C
7-1
�J` t /�
r
Location:
SW corner of inter- 1 �,
section of Hwy. 74
and E1 Paseo
J( r
r / j
-
Existing Zoning: {`
R- 00 -
I
Adjacent Zoning:
North: CPS -
South: R-2-60001
East: CPS .: T
West: R-2-6000
,- RSFRA ST
4
1
/ 1
� f
1 �
i
I
Discussion of request
As currently established, highway 74 serves as
a demarcation line between commerical oriented
development to the east and strickly residential
development to the west. The only exception
the commercial area adjacent to highway Ill as
bounded by E1 Paseo.
Since it is highly important that such demarca-
tions of land use exist , and since a spot reclass-
ification of land use as requested by the peti-
tioner would constitute a breach of this policy,
it would be ill advised to approve the request .
Further justification for not approving the
request exists by the fact that high quality
residential development adjoins the petitioners
property immediately to the south and west .
Staff Recommendation
In response to this request, the Staff recommends
that no change in land use on the Proposed General
Plan be made as it relates to this property.
`EKI NS PROPERTY MANAGEME' CO.
P.O.BOX 1103,PALM DE DER T,CALIFORNIA 92260
MANAGEMENT DIVISION - REAL ESTATE DIVISION
7].-911 HWY III (SUITE 201) 72243 EL PASEO
PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 922FO
Y PHONE(714) 346-I151 PHONE(7141 346-t IS4
..�.......,a.,..........v.............`.�.._r...w,,.....-........_....a..:_.....,......:......_>.b............�... - ..�..:..,.-........�...ss:..::,.�o..r:..:....:e...,,......---` ....,..e,yu:......y......:_,w...,n.....-,..:.....,.:....J..:.,.._.yw....dii
December 6, 1974
Mr. Paul Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert, Ca 92260
Dear Sir:
Bekins Property Management Company respectfully requests that
our property on the Southwest corner of El Paseo and Hwy 74 be
re-zoned in the new city general plan to a Specialty Commercial
land use element; to permit us to use the property for a
Condominium Sales and rental office in our operations.
When this zoning change is made we will re-submit our building
plan with revisions to make the present building structure a
permanent type with foundations, etc.
Attached is a copy of the land plot and an architectural drawing
which will later be revised to include the proposed changes for
a permanent structure.
Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Sincerel,�,
im Chapman /
President
Bekins Property Management Co.
JC/bp
-v
of/n: �` /S• �
a
h
V N 11
J o O �
L-0
NO
D V
C f.
ti
0
r,
of :�
\y 6- v ,.
90
76 w•
• s/B vs s i :1 V
G
v
page 6
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
Report on: A REQUEST BY F.T. KIELEY FOR CHANGING I,AND USE
DESIGNATION ON SPECIFIC PROPERTY TO THAT OF
"VERY LOW RESIDENTIAL" .
Background: F.T. KIELEY submitted a letter (attached) request-
ing that property owned by him and his family
receive a land use designation to permit "low
density residential" development on all of the
property in order that those portions which are
developable be "credited" with those units not
permitted on undevelopable land.
This request was partially based upon what was
perceived as similar treatment accorded to another
petitioner with a similar situation.
The City reviewed this request at a public hear-
ing on the General Plan on January 6 , 1975 and
at that time referred the matter back to the
Planning Commission for further study and recom-
mendation . Subsequent recommendations are to
be presented to the City Council for its consid-
eration at a public hearing on the General Plan
on January 20, 1975 .
Description of Property
'Al
Location: (as shown) s�
Size: 1 Section (640 acres) 1 oee
Land use as shown in General
�o
Plan:
Very low Residential (1/3 of AJ e��
area) ----- ----- --- ;.
Wildlife Preserve (2/3 of
area)
n wig ai5mas an a®siorcu* a x i aa�tew: mmmmmmmm
* ��lli' sY✓s®s�taid!l Hvtn;a-a •,��� .
�
r �
lu
r
r
Aiwe
Discussion of Request :
Since this property is similar to other property
along the mountains , the latter of which has
already been tentatively designated with the type
of land use classification which the petitioner
is requesting, it would seem appropriate that
continuity of policy be continued. Therefore ,
it would be appropriate to grant this request .
By classifying this entire area for "very low
residential" development , the number of units
which cannot be built in certain locales , due to
natural terrain features worthy of preserving, can
instead be built in those areas which are devel-
opable , along with the number of units normally
permitted therein. This is possible since the
entire area is under joint ownership .
Specific "Zoning" and "land use controls" will have
to be devised after the General Plan is adopted, and
adequate regulations controlling the development of
the property can be incorporated at that time .
Since serious drainage problems exist on the east
side of Highway 74 and are of the type which requires
engineering and protective measures for the entire
area, it is highly advisable that no development
be permitted east of Highway 74 until adequate pro-
vision are made . At this point in time this area
is , therefore , considered to be "undevelopable"
along with certain hillside areas .
Staff Recommendation:
In response to this request, the Staff recommends
that the following change in land use designation
be made on the proposed General Plan.
1. The 632 acre area of this property west
of Highway 74 be classified for "very low
residential development" (1-3 units per
acre) , with the understanding that street
hillside control provisions will be enacted
prior to any development being permitted.
NOV
January 1975
Honorable MaYor and City Cou:LCJJJ
City of Palm Do.soru
City
ty 13a1.1
Palm Dc_�crt., CA 92260
RE: ppopOS61) GM"E*1'1%'AL PLAN FOR PAL'M DESERT
Section I., To,,,,ns1-iip 6S 6117, SBB & BM
Gent1ci-.,,cn:
The above referenced section of land composed of .640 acres more or
less, corners on the southi-,,est corner of the city. it is totally
owned either in feeor in trust by members of our family who would
ask YOUr consideration of the
1. The map accompanying the General Plan does not
clearly delineate, the area on the west side of
llighi�Jay 7-1 %,.,hich might be suitable for development.
We C:'sub:-,tit r herci-.-ith copies of a topographical map on
which engineers have outlined those areas readily
:1
usable %,dthowb ,Oil,- into the hillsides, all Of
which are within a very riodest slope pattern.
2. The southeast corner of the property has .a tract
of approximately 18 acres, on the cast side of
Hicgh-,'ay 74 and t-on acres on the -.',rest sid..e which
are presently designated open area. A check of
the topo-rapPical map will- readily show that these
-
two parcels are suitable for development. En.,ineer-
in- studies jdiich ve have had done) .._jow that flood
protection would be at minimum expciiseo
3- 'We are advised that your Planning Cone-mission has
reconmiended for a parcel of similar nature (partly
flat an(: T)a-tly mountain side divided b.et'v:ccn very
r
101.,, and open space use) that the Council
a1101,; creciit for the total acreage in computing
the number of allowable units but that the development
be clustered within the residentially zoned area.
We'would specifically request that:
1. That all of tho property outlined in red on the
attached topograPhical map., be designated as
residential area.
f wrr
Honorable Dlayor and City Council.
J�.
January 2, 1.975
Page Two
2. That the General Plan be amended to include the
southeast corner of the property as developable
land.
3. That the entire 640 acres serve as a base for
compu.tin- the maxim�_tm number of units permitted
on the property as is recommended by your Planning
Commission for the parcel cited in 3 above."
The forercoin has been informally discussed with your Messers.
Paul. Williamson and. Freeman Rader, and it is at their suggestion
that we submit it for your consideration.
Respectfully submitted,
F. T. KIFLEY /
27?7 r. ��,ria"0
I
Palm Springs, CA 92262
E
}
:X
,
fir✓
CITY OF PALM DESERT
STAFF REPORT
Report on: A REQUEST BY E . 0. RIGBY, M.D. TO CHANGE THE
LAND-USE DESIGNATION ON A SPECIFIC PROPERTY
TO THAT OF "SPECIALTY COMMERCIAL"
Background: A letter (attached) dated December 27 , 1974 and
addressed to Chairman Seidler was received from
Dr. Rigby, the owner of a nine acre parcel located
west of Portola Avenue and south of the Whitewater
Storm Channel, requesting a change in the General
Plan to permit a neighborhood commercial develop-
ment at that site. Since the Commission had
already acted on the Plan, the letter was included
in a Supplementary Staff Report and sent to the
City Council along with the regular General Plan
material. The council decided that before they
would take final action on the proposal, Planning
Commission input on this matter should be obtained.
Description of Property
a.
Location: (as shown) Mai;
j
Size : Approximately 9 acres S a r U L
Existing Zoning - W-2
ILL
Adjacent Zoning - �r----- `/
North W-1 i71
South R-1-9000 '4 `✓, I
East W-1 J,
� �M` r� � � �, `., r r
West R-T -
L77
-
----- i
f I
i I
1) FIy -
t . , .
Discussion of Issue
Talks between City planners and representatives of
the property owner as to the most appropriate land
use for the site have occurred several times in the
last three months . Zoned C-P under County juris-
diction, a plot plan was approved in September 1972,
for the construction of a trailer sales lot and office
on the site. Dr. Rigby also indicated his intention
of offering a long-term lease building site to the
Teen Center for a nominal price. As one of the
conditions of approval , the property owner was
required to dedicate a 44-foot half right-of-way
on Deep Canyon and Portola Avenue . An additional
44 foot dedication was also made along Magnesia
Falls Road. The approval expired one year later
without any construction having been done on the
project.
The land-use map for the Cove Communities General
Plan shows the property as appropriate for public
facilities , although Dr. Ribgy claims that this is
an inadvertent error by the artist. The proposed
Palm Desert General Plan, prepared in conjunction
with Wilsey & Ham, indicates the property as a
potential park site, to be developed in a manner
compatible with the proposed utilization of the
Whitewater Storm Channel for recreational facilities .
The current proposal is to build a medical office
and several service shops such as a barber shop ,
beauty parlor, laundromat , cleaning shop , and
market . Staff is of the opinion that the adjacent
recreational facilities such as the Storm Channel ,
and the Community Park would be more appropriate
if located adjacent to a residential use . In
addition, the amount of currently existing commer-
cially-zoned property appears to be more than
adequate for the city' s needs . Future commercial
sites are planned for sites which are more centrally
located and which offer greater accessibility.
Recommendation: That the Planning Commission
recommend to the City Council
that the property be designated as
medium density residential.
ELMER C. RIGBY, M. D.
2200 SANTA MONICA.BOULEVARD.SUITE IOW
THORACIC SURGERY SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90404
ORONCHOSCOPY-ESOPHAGOSCOPY
TELEPHONE 629-1300
CARDIAC SURGERY
December 27 , 1974
Members , Planning Commission
City of Palm desert
P. 0. Box 1648
Palm Desert , California 92260
Attention : William Seidler, Chairman
RE : Property eastside Portola Avenue and North
of Magnesia Falls Road (Zoned by the .County
for 10 years as C-P)
Dear Mr. Seidler:
It is requested a chan,Ye be made in the general plan to continue
tae C-P :zoning on the above property. It is believed a village
service satellite area is needed for the 2 ,500 people w'Po will
be living within a block or two of this area.
It is my plan to have a medical office for myself, services
such as a barber shop , beauty parlor, laundromat, cleaning
shop and a general village market with an appropriate early
California theme. It should fit in well with every environ-
mental consideration and will primarily serve the two mobile
home parks across the street , the subdivision south or the
elementary school , and the Sun-king subdivision to the north.
Enclosed are pertinent documents . It will be noted that a
plot plan approval was in effect until last year for a sales
office which vas planned to be the temporary beginning of
the development.
Attached are a map and a copy of the road dedication; note it
has been recorded. Also , included is a letter making reference
to' the support given by Mr. ;McCandless to continue this zoning
when it was overlooked on the county master plan by the artist
who inadvertently showed it as elementary school property.
ELMER C. RiGBY, M. D.
• 2200 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD,SUITE 109
-KORACIC SURGER, SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90404
9R0%CN05C0PY-ES0RHAG0SC0PY
TELEPHONE 029-1300
CARDIAC SURGERY
Page Two
The County and the City have always received my fullest
cooperation. I strongly supported the annexation of the
Sun-King Mobile Home subdivision to the city. I am
planning to give the Teen Center a building site at the
east end on a long-term lease at a token figure. Also ,
it is contemplated that a joint parking area can be
devised for the city park to the south .
It was because of the permanent C-P zoning that I agreed
to dedicate 44 ' for the Magnesia Falls Drive Right-Of-Way
separating this parcel from the elementary school . This
road was in effect the beginning of the development of
the commercial property.
Hopefully, the Planning Commission will see fit again to
apply the C-P zoning to this property realizing any
development always requires final City Council approval .
Sjn�eely yours , �y
lmer C� zgby, M.D.
ECR:rs
enclosures
14
IV. REPORT ON PLANNING COMMISSION' S RECOM^1ENDATION ON ITEMS REFERRED
BACK BY THE CITY COUNCIL
A. BACKGROUND: At the City Council hearing on the General Plan
on January 6 , 1975 four requests for changes on the proposed
land use map of the General Plan were referred back to the
Planning Commission for study and recommendation. At the
regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of January 13 ,
1975 , the Planning Commission did review these items , and
the-following represents the recommendations of the Planning
Commission on these matters . See the attached reports which
more adequately describe each request .
B. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS
1 . Saint Margaret' s Episcopal Church request -
the Planning Commission unanimously recommends a land
use designation of Institutional-General on this
property.
2 . Bekins Property Management Company Request -
since the applicant withdrew the request, the
Planning Commission unanimously recommends that
the proposed land use designation of medium density
residential be established on the subject property,
rather than a specialty commercial designation.
3 . F.T. Kieley Request - By a 2-2 tie vote on a
motion to make no changes of the land use on the
subject property, the Planning Commission makes no
recommendation on this request .
4. E .C. Rigby, M.D. Request - The Planning Commission
unanimously recommends that a land use designation
of medium density residential be placed on the sub-
ject property in leiu of the requested commercial
land use designation.
IV. ORIGINAL STAFF REPORTS ON
ITEMS REFERRED BACK
TO PLANNING COMMISSION
15
VI . STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON GENERAL PLAN
That it be moved that the City Council APPROVE the General
Plan by City Council Resolution No. 75- includes
all the recommended changes by the Planning Commission,
and any additional changes the City Council may want to
add as a result of the public hearing, should be added to
Exhibit B of Resolution No. 75-2 . Justification is based
upon:
1. Compliance of the General Plan to the requirements of
the State Government Code.
2 . The General Plan as amended adequately represents a
comprehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical
development of the City and its planning area.
VII . STAFF RECOMENDATION ON THE F .T. KIELEY REQUEST
The Staff recommends that the following land use change be
made on the subject property:
1 . The 632 acre acrea of the property west of Highway 74
be classified as very low density residential with the
understanding that strong hillside control provisions
would govern any hillside development.
VIII . RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 75-2
*400
RESOLUTION NO. 75-2
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF PALM DESERT, APPROVING THE GENERAL PLAN
WHEREAS , the City Council did on January 6 and 20, 1975
hold duly noticed Public Hearings to consider the Public
Hearing Draft of the Palm Desert General Plan, dated November 12 ,
1974, which encompasses the total Palm Desert Planning Area as
approved by the City Council; and
WHEREAS , the City Planning Commission, after duly noticed
public hearing held on December 9, 1974, did bv_ Planning Com-
mission No. 23 recommend certification of the Environmental
Impact Report and approval of the General Plan as amended; and
WHEREAS , the General Plan has complied with the requirements
of the "City of Palm Desert Environmental Quality Procedure
Resolution No. 74-14" , in that a final Environmental Impact
Report was presented at duly noticed Public Hearings held on
January 6 and 20, 1975 , and the City Council at the close of
the Public Hearing did certify said report as the final
Environmental Impact Report on this project to include :
1. The Draft E. I.R. including the General Plan elements .
2. Comments and recommendations received on the Draft
E. I .R. in writing or as a part of the public hearings before
the Planning Commission on December 9 , 1974, and City Council
on January 6 and 20, 1975 .
3. The original and supplemental Staff reports prepared
oD the E. I.R. .
4. The comments received from Mr. Burrell dated December 16,
1974 and the Staff' s response to these comments .
5. Report entitled "Floristic List for Deep Canyon
Watershed Oct. 1973" adopted by reference.
6. Report entitled, "Bird List for Boyd Center and Deep
Canyon Transect Aug. 1974" adopted by reference.
7. Report entitled "Annual Report 1973-1974 - Philip
L. Boyd Deep Canyon Desert Research Center" included by reference,
for the following reasons : _
a) The Final E. I .R. is in compliance with the requirements
of the City' s Environmental Guidelines (City Council
Resolution No . 74-14) and the State of California
Guidelines for Implementation of the California Envir-
onmental Quality Act.
b) The Final E. I .R. does adequately address the environ-
mental effects of the General Plan.
WHEREAS , at said public hearing, upon hearing and con-
sidering the testimony are arguments of all persons desiring
to be heard, said Council did find the following facts and
reasons to exist to approve the General Plan:
1. The Palm Desert General Plan does comply to the
requirements of Sec. 65300-65307 of the State Government Code.
2 . The document as amended adequately represents a com-
prehensive, long-term General Plan for the physical development
of the City and its planning area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the
City of Palm Desert, as follows :
1. That the above recitations are true and correct and
constitute the findings of the Council in this case.
2. That it does repeal City Council Ordinance No . 13
3. That it does approve the Public Hearing Draft of the
Palm Desert General Plan, dated November 12 , 1974, as amended
by the Attachment labeled Exhibit A for the reasons set out in
this resolution.
4. That the following additional changes labeled Exhibit B,
have been referred back to the Planning Commission for study
and report prior to final approval by the Council.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a special meeting of the City
Council of Palm Desert , held on the day of by
the following vote, to wit :
AYES :
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: HENRY B. CLARK, mayor
City of Palm Desert,
California
ATTEST:
HARVEY L. HURLBURT, City Manager
liftw
EXHIBIT A
REVISIONS OF PALM DESERT GENERAL PLAN
r
a•
_3_
ACKNO14LEDGEMENTS
CHANGES
1. Indicate Roger Harlow as Assistant to the Superintendent
Desert Sands Unified School District .
2. Change Coachella Valley Water District to Coachella Valley
County Water District .
r
4•
-4-
t
�. „w:.+...,1`�� 'SC.._�iLt�1.::�+u1�-.-�-�J..<�.�^u'^'GPBi'J.CLy^'^.+.�ua. _., I1,2+t�¢nun.sn•.r"..1 �
45-275 Prickly Fear Lane P.U. Box 1648 Palm Desert, Ca. 92260 Ph. 346.0611
TO: ALL MEMBERS OF CAC
The new zoning ordinance is not ready for our review and
there are no other items on the agenda for our meeting of
December 19, 1974• Accordingly, that meeting is being
cancelled and the next regular meeting will be on Thursday,
January 2, 1975•
George .--Berkey, Chairman
GVB:jk
INTRODUCTION
Page No. Line Change
i. 2 Miscellaneous 1974 to 1973
i. l.b N.A. Area of University Leasehold
to BLM-UCR Cooperative Re-
search Area
K
Y
Y
-5-
LAND USE ELEMENT
Page No. Line Change
1.B. 2 7 102 . 2 acres to 1023 acres
1. B. 5 12 Northeast of Haystack Road to
Southeast of Portola Avenue
(southerly) extended
1. B. 5 14 Southeast of Cook Street to
Northwest of Cook Street
1.B. 5 17 Add grocery after neighborhood
1.B. 6 7 16 to 18
1.B. 6 Miscellaneous To effect changes on Land Use
Man
1.B. 7 8 & 9 Delete
1 .B. 7 24 Add - After Urban Design Element -
Public Facilities Element
-6-
lftw
CHANGES TO LAND USE MAP
1. Designate fire station at northeast corner of high density
area south of Frank Sinatra east of Bob Hope Drive.
2. Delete Cultural Center and designate as Industrial General .
3. Change land use designation south of Mesa View Drive
extended between Highway 74 and Portola Avenue to medium
density residential extending to the southerly existing
City limits .
4. Delete trail system designation easterly of equestrial cen-
ter through Living Desert Reserve .
5. Designate City Park at northwest corner Portola Avenue and
Haystack Roads .
6. Designate Whitewater Channel as regional trail system.
7 . Establish private recreation symbol and apply to all pri-
vate golf courses .
8. Designate a 5 acre Institutional General area on the St.
Margaret ' s Church property westerly of State Highway 74.
9. Designate boundary of Palm Valley Stormwater Channel, west
of Highway 74 correctly.
10. Designate the area westerly of Palm Valley Channel at
Pitahaya Street north to the uses abutting Highway 111
as very low denstiy residential .
11. Change Mountainback property designation to medium density
residential.
12. Delete words (Fee Title) after symbol designating UCR
property.
13 . Designate area from Highway 74 to Portola, Haystack to
Shadow Mountain Drive extended where it parallels
El Paseo as low density residential.
14. Southeast corner of Portola Ave. and Whitewater Channel
designate the 9 acre parcel as medium density residential .
-7-
URBAN DESIGN ELEMENT
Page No. Line Change
2.G. l . a N.A. Revise to reflect all revi-
sions of Land Use Maw
2.G. 2 . c N.A. Correct neighborhood #5
2 .G. 2 . c N.A. Correct neighborhood #10
2.G. 2 . c N.A. Correct neighborhood #17
2.P. 1 31 Add after areas - Public and
private parking lots
2 .P. 1 32 & 33 Whenever possible to reduce
water needs - to Whenever
appropriate
i
Y
POPULATION/ECONOMIC ELEMENTS
Page No. Line Change
-9-
HOUSING ELEMENT
Page No . Line Change
43. 1 15 Correct percentage
4. B. 3 . a N.A. Correct neighborhood #5
4.B. 3 .a N.A. Correct neighborhood #10
4. B. 3 . a N.A. Correct neighborhood #15
4.B. 3 . a N.A. Correct neighborhood #17
4. B. 3 . a N.A. Change chart to reflect
changes in Land Use
4. B. l.b 18 120 to 146 , 72 , to 74,
2508 to 2496 , 2700 to 2716
-10-
i
CIRCULATION ELEMENT
Page No. Line Change
S.P. l . a N.A. Correct spelling of Alessandro
Show bridge at Palm Valley Channel
Painters Path Crossing
Correct Monterey and Cook Street
to show correct extensions
S .P. l.b N.A. Show suggested street designs with
following right-of-way widths :
Arterial - 110 ' - 126 '
Major - 100 ' - 110 '
Secondary - 88 '
Collector - 60' - 68 '
S.P. l . c N.A. Revise to conform to changes on
Land Use Map
5.P. l. a N.A. Revise alignment of Portola Avenue
to conform to Land Use Map
-11-
ENVIRONMENTAL ELEMENTS
Page No. Line Change
6. 2 . B. 1 2-7 Relocate to Public Facilities
Element Page 7 . B. l . a and in-
corporate comments from Sher-
iff' s letter
6. 2.P. 1 13-17 Relocate to Public Facilities
Element Page 7 .P . 7
6. 4.B. 4.a N.A. Change to conform to changes
on Land Use Map
6. 4. B. 2 39 Add after an - Federal and
State
6. 1 .P . 1 32 & 33 Delete
-12-
IMPLEMENTATION ELEMENT
Page No. Line Change
-14-
EXHIBIT B
COUNCIL APPROVED REVISIONS REFERRED BACK TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR STUDY AND REPORT
CHANGES REFERRED BACK TO COMMISSION
IX. PREVIOUS STAFF REPORTS
f '
t
r
1
V i
IV,r f +
h
f �
14
J n 1
UDR - ip
h
7 s
4
v
• t)
y)
� a �
Y 1
I
Dr. Elmer C. Rigby
18.30(C-P) Plot Plan No. 1331
September 20, 1972
Page 2.
Road Department may waive the requirements of installation prior
to final inspection and occupancy and allow the developer to post
a Performance bond in lieu thereof to a date certain, as determined
by the Road Commissioner.
2c) Street trees shall be installed and maintained in accordance with
the Riverside County Street Tree Planting Ordinance No. 457.19
3) All planters shown on said Exhibit "A" shall be planted with plants,
maintained in a growing condition and not allowed to exceed 24 inches
in height, except as otherwise indicated. A sufficient number of
watering devices shall be installed within the planters prior to
final inspection.
4) Any outside lighting shall be hooded and directed so as not to
directly shine upon adjoining property or public rights of way.
5) Prior to the issuance of a building permit the applicant shall first
obtain clearance and/or permits from the following public agencies;
County Department of Public Health
County Road Department
Riv. County Dept. of Fire Protection (Perris)
Written evidence of such clearance from the above shall be presented
to the Land Use Division of the Department of Building and Safety
at the time of the issuance of a building permit.
6) The use permitted hereby shall terminate on September 16, 1973.
7) This approval shall be used within one year from this date of
approval; otherwise it shall become null and void and of no effect
whatsoever. By use is meant substantial construction of facilities
contemplated by this permit.
j
Dr, Elmer C. Rigby
18.30(C-P) Plot Plan No. 1331
September 20, 1972
Page 3.
8) In the event the use permitted hereby ceases operation fora eriod
of one year or more this permit shall become null and void, p
Enclosed for your files is a copy of said plot plan as ap
to the foregoing conditions may be made in writing to the RiversidenCountyl
East Area Planning Council within 30 days after date of this approval.
Very truly yours,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Wm. R Livingstone -. Planning Director
1
Gerald. W. Dupree - Asso sate Pla er
GWD:nlw
Encl.
cc: Riverside office
Department of Public Health
County Road Department
Riv. County Department of Fire Protection(Perris)
Dept, of Bldg. & Safety - Land Use Division
Carl Severline
Western Title Company
6774 Magnolia, Riverside, California
Frank Hammerschlag
577 E. Sunny Dunes Road, Palm Springs, California
"This twstnrment is for the benefit of the 'ty
' - f Riverside and en to be recorded 0 4
On (G�v.C61037.
cc 0
n o
l� ® W .o '`'
C a< aT
,
MAGNESIA FALLS DRIVE
J DECLARATION OF DEDICATION
March, 1973
a
s/+
hereby irrevocably dedicates in perpetuityfor
public utility and Public road purposes, including
f Y public service uses, the real property in the County of
Riverside, State of California, described as follows:
All that portion of the northwest one-quarter of Section 16,
T. 5 S. , R. 6 E. S.B.M., , in the County of Riverside, State of California,
described as follows:
Commencing at the southwest corner of the northwest one-quarter
,of Section 16, T. 5 S. , R,. 6 E. , S.B.M. ;
Thence S. 89059'48"' E. , along the southerly line of said northwest
one,-quarter 50.00 feet to the true point of beginning
Thence continuing along said southerly line S. 8905948" E. ,
2028.66 feet to the beginning of an 894.00 foot radius curve concave
southerly, the center of which 'bears S. 18003120" W. ;
Thence northwesterly along said curve a distance of 281 .67 feet
through a central angle of 18003'08
Thence N. 89059!48" W. parallel tvand 44.00 feet distant from
said previously mentioned southerly line of the northwest one-quarter
1744.40 feet;
Thence N. 28014'39" W., 14.79 feet;
Thence S. 00014'07" W. , parallel to and 50.00 feet distant from
the westerly line of said northwest one-quarter 57.03 feet to THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Dat
mer ig y /
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF
SS.
9
ELMER C. RIGBY, M. D.
-,I THORACIC SURGERY 2200 SANTA MONICA 8
,I BROI,CHOSCOPY-ESOPHAGOSCORY OU�EVARU
y CARDIAC SURGERY SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA
EXBROOK 3-8000
October 17, 1973
Mr. Al McCandless
Supervisor, Fourth District
Indio Administrative Center
46-209 Oasis Street, Room 304
Indio , California 92201
Dear Mr. McCandless :
Again , many thanks for expediting the approval of item 6
on change of zone #1619. 1
The planning commission has brought
this up many times in the past
Of the Property is in the Offingand at long last utilization
C I am sure we can also work
out something to help the Teen Center.
Sometime in the near future I hope
together. I shall be in touch withyou you, Ralph
soon . and I can get
Ever sincerely,
Elmer C. Rigby, M. D.
ECR: rs
N wry
SUPPLEMENTAL STAFF REPORT
To : City Council
Request : Environmental Impact Report & General Plan
Background : This report is intended to supplement the report pre-
pared for the Planning Commission review of the EIR
and General Plan which has already been forwarded to
Council . These two reports and the Public Hearing
Draft of the General Plan should be utilized at the
public hearing scheduled for January 6, 1975.
Response to Additional Letters Received for Changes in the General
Plan.
The master report that was sent out to the Council included a
number of letters that were presented to the Planning Commission
and reviewed by the Planning Commission and letters received after
the Planning Commission consideration. The following is the review
of these letters by the Staff and subsequent recommendations with
regards to said letters.
1 . Letter from the Honorable Mayor Young, City of Indian Wells -
This letter was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their
public hearing on the General Plan and the Commission did not
elect to make the recommended revisions as established in the
letter.
2 . Letter received from Bernard J. Clark , Sheriff , County of River-
side - This letter was reviewed by the Planning Commission and
the changes as requested and modifications were reviewed by the
Planning Commission and included in the resolution of approval
of the General Plan for revision of the General Plan .
3. Letter from Don Shayler , Pacific Rim, representing Ironwood
Country Club - This letter was reviewed by the Planning Com-
mission and after a lengthy discussion at the Planning Commission
meeting, the land use map was changed to better reflect the den-
sities approved on the Ironwood project . In addition , the other
changes requested in the letter were approved by the Planning
Commission except for the last recommendation with regards to
the standards specified for parks dedication. The result of
the discussion of this recommendation would result in some minor
revisions of the wording regarding this matter.
4. Resolution from the Palm Desert Property Owners Association
dated December 5 - This resolution was reviewed by the Planning
Commission as a part of their public hearing on the GeneralPlan.
As a result of the resolution, the property within the area
bounded on the north by Shadow Mountain Drive extended parallel
to El Paseo , Highway 74 and Portola, and Haystack was modified
to a land use designation of low density residential , 3-5 units
to the acre. The other comments in the letter regarding state-
ments made in the General Plan , could not be found in the plan
and as a result the commission did not act upon the recommenda-
tion. In addition , the comments with regards to maximum build-
ing height was not deemed to be approproate to be incorporated
in the General Plan since it is more a zoning matter.
5 . Resolution dated December 5 from the Concerned Citizens of Palm
Desert - This resolution was reviewed by the Planning Commission
during their public hearing and in essence is a reproduction of
the statements made by the Palm Desert Property Owners Association
and the revisions reflected on the comments above would be the
same for this resolution.
Supplemental Staff Report -2-
6 . Letter dated December 9 from George V. Berkey, Chairman of
the Citizens Advisory Committee - The Planning Commission did
review the letter from the Citizens Advisory Committee which
recommends approval of the General Plan subject to four changes.
The changes as recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee
were incorporated in the approval of the General Plan with the
exception of the request to show low density residential in the
N.E. corner of the intersection of Washington Street and the
Whitewater Channel . The Commission felt that this site was
appropriate for Specialty Commercial since it would meet the
needs of the immediate neighborhood and due to the isolation
of the parcel by major streets virtually surrounding the site .
7. Letter dated December 6 from Jim Chapman , Bekins Property Man-
agement Company - This letter was reviewed by the Planning Com-
mission at their public hearing and is a recommended change of
the land use map as approved by Planning Commission Resolution
No. 23. This request dealt with the designating of the S .W.
corner of Highway 74 and E1 Paseo as Specialty Commercial . The
request was made to utilize the existing building for condo-
miniums and rental use.
8. Letter dated December 5 from William E . and Dorothy L. Beck -
This letter was reviewed by the Planning Commission and es-
sentially supports the statements made by the Property Owners
Association with regards to maximum density of 5 units to the
acre and a maximum building height . Comments made above re-
garding the Property Owners Association resolution would rep-
resent the comments for this letter also.
9. Letter dated December 3 from Bradley A. Walker - This letter
was reviewed by the Planning Commission during their public
hearing and also represents the position of the Property Owners
Association and the Concerned Citizens and the comments made
above regarding those letters would be the same for this letter.
10. Letter dated December 8 from W. C. Laming , Chairman of the
Board of Governors of the Sands & Shadows Unit 1 - This letter
was reviewed by the Planning Commission at their public hear-
ing and represents the support of the resolution adopted by
the Property Owners Association and the Concerned Citizens and
comments made above regarding those matters should be con-
sidered the same for this letter.
11. Letter dated December 6 from Bert W. Holloway - This letter
was not reviewed by the Planning Commission , however, he is
in support of the position of the Property Owners Association
and the Concerned Citizens and the comments made regarding
those statements above should be considered for this letter.
12 . Letter dated December 16 from Ed Peck & Wallace Barnett rep-
resenting the Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert - Re-
questing the appeal of the approval of the Planning Commission
of the General Plan and EIR. The letter speaks to requested
changes of the ICAP and do not affect the decision on the Gen-
eral Plan with the following exceptions : The statement made on
Page 1-B-4 regarding regional commercial . The letter requests
that these statements and any statements regarding regional
commercial be deleted from the General Plan. These statements
in the context of the General Plan appear appropriate and we
would not recommend their deletion.
The letter requests that the area south of Highway 111 from
Palms to Pines to the western boundary of Palm Desert be clas-
sified as C-P-S and any residential allowed in the area be low
density, 3-5 units to the acre.
Supplemental Staff Report -3-
Comment : The General Plan does not have a classification of
C-P-S , rather the implied request of this letter
is that commercial be shown in this area. The feel-
ing of the Staff and the consultants is that the
majority of this area is appropriate for residential
and would recommend that position stand.
The letter requests that the area west of Monterey ,
north of Highway 111 from Monterey to Rancho Grande
west to Fairhaven and north to 44th and back to High-
way 111 , be C-P-S and any residential allowed in this
area should be low density - 2-5 to the acre. Staff
believes there is logic to develop this area as shown
on the land use map in terms of residential develop-
ment and commercial development . The logic of mix-
ing low density residnetial and commercial as pro-
posed by the Concerned Citizens does not appear appro-
priate , therefore , it is recommended that the land use
map as proposed for this area be unchanged.
The request by the Concerned Citizens of designating
the area north of 44th Avenue to the westerly boun-
dary of Palm Desert and east of Highway 111 to the
Storm Channel be changed to C-P-S and any residential
allowed in the area be low density, 3-5 units to the
acre. It appears compatible with what is shown on the
proposed land use map .
The request by the Concerned Citizens to show the
maximum density of 5 units to the acre in all resi-
dential areas in the present incorporated area of
Palm Desert , does not appear appropriate to Staff with
regards to the existing land use patterns and the
goals and objectives of the General Plan in terms of
providing a full range of housing units.
13. Letter dated December 18 from Palm Desert Property Owners Asso-
ciation - The statements made in this letter from the Palm
Desert Property Owners Association are in essence the same
statements made by the Concerned Citizens in the letter above.
The comments or the response made by Staff regarding said let-
ter would be the same for this letter.
14 . Letter dated December 14 from F. X. McDonald, Jr. - Mr . Mc
Donald requests that the 40 acres he owns as shown on the land
use map as Sand Dune Park, be re-designated to medium density
residential . The logic for designating this site as a park is
the unique quality of the sand dunes in this area and the be-
lief that such natural attributes should be preserved for fu-
ture residents of Palm Desert . Based upon this belief , there-
fore, Staff would recommend the existing land use designation
remain.
15. Letter dated December 18 from Mrs . Paul Stanley - This letter
in essence supports the stand of the original resolution from
the Property Owners Association and the response for said reso-
lution should be the same for this letter.
16. Letter dated December 6 from the Department of Fire Protection ,
County of Riverside - This letter represents some general com-
ments with regards to the General Plan and does not require
any modifications of the General Plan at this time.
17. Letter dated December 31 from Lloyd G. Wiggins & Ronald S .
Gorman - This letter feels that the General Plan does not main-
tain the village atmosphere that many of the citizens of Palm
Supplemental Staff Report -4-
Desert would prefer. It is the feeling of the Staff and the
consultants that the General Plan does represent the views of
the majority of the citizens of Palm Desert and will be the
guide for the development of the community in line with these
views.
18. Letter dated December 20 from Elmer C. Rigby, M.D. - This letter
requests consideration of a triangular-shaped parcel owned by
Dr. Rigby on the S.E . corner of the intersection of Whitewater
Channel and Portola. While the letter does not state clearly
Dr. Rigby' s concern , in Staff ' s discussions with Dr. Rigby the
applicant wishes to obtain commercial zoning on his property.
Apparently this land use designation was in existence under the
previous County jurisdiction. In Staff ' s review of this site ,
it would appear to be premature to designate this site as com-
mercial , due to the following reasons :
First of all , it does not have the amount of traffic needed to
allow for a successful commercial site . Secondly, it is im-
mediately adjacent to the Palm Desert Middle School which would
limit the amount of commercial uses that could develop on the
site. If commercial development were to occur on this site ,
careful analysis would have to occur with regards to the actual
development . Such analysis cannot occur at this time. There-
fore , upon the premature aspect of the commercial densities
and the need for careful analysis , Staff would recommend that
no commercial designation be placed on this property at this
time.
Summary : The number of letters and comments received on the General
Plan clearly indicate the high level of citizen participa-
tion that has occurred during the development of the Gen-
eral Plan. While a large number of the letters received
speak to a specific attempt to maintain an atmosphere that
many older residents of the community feel represents Palm
Desert , the limiting of density to 5 units to the acre for
the presently incorporated area of Palm Desert would only be
compatible with the overall density of a portion of the com-
munity south of Highway 111 to Haystack. However, such a
limitation would not hold true to other segments of the
community, therefore , the limit ation as requested does
not appear to be appropriate as requested. It ' s the Staff ' s
belief that as recommended in the General Plan, and as the
neighborhood studies are completed on the presently incor-
porated portion of the City, that such a density will re-
sult in a large segment of this area. It is felt the attach-
ment of this restriction at this time would be too limiting
on the future implementation tools as recommended in the
General Plan. In addition , the limitation to this density
does add to the urban sprawl syndrome that is typical of
portions of Los Angeles and does not allow for sufficient
flexibility in design and improvement in technology of
building.
Procedure for Making Revisions to the General Plan as Approved by
the Planning Commission.
Under the provisions of the State law, once the General Plan is ap-
proved by the Planning Commission , no revisions may be made to the
General Plan by the Council until they are referred back to the Plan-
ning Commission for study and report . The Planning Commission may
take up to 40 days to make this study and if they exceed the 40 days
it is automatically approved by the Council.
If the Council chooses , after hearing the public input on the Gen-
eral Plan , to act upon the General Plan , the Staff has prepared a
resolution No. 75-2 for the Council ' s use. Said resolution incor-
porates all the changes as recommended by the Planning Commission.
If the Council chooses to make additional changes on revisions to
the Plan, Staff would recommend that these matters be referred back
to the Planning Commission for review as required by State law.
lia
LETTERS NOT YET RECEIVED BY THE COUNCIL
�lrrr
ELMER C. RIGBY, M. D.
2200 SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD,SUITE 109
THORACIC SURGERY SANTA MONICA,CALIFORNIA 90404
BRONCHOSCOPY-ESOPHAGOSCOPY
TELEPHONE 829-1300
CARDIAC SURGERY
December 20 , 1974
Mayor Henry Clark
Palm Desert City Hall
Palm Desert , California 92260
Dear Mayor :
It is a far more comfortable feeling to have the path of
local citizens go to you rather than to the Riverside
County government. At least , I sense you have a complete
understanding of the property owner' s problems and view
points .
We all realize that a project put up by an owner and
builder has to be most appealing to succeed. In this
particular area in question an especially desirable
satellite village facility will have to be devised .
Paul Williams suggested a letter be directed to the
Planning Commission for their comments at the next meeting
on December 30th . This would then permit consideration at
the council meeting on January 6 .
Again , many thanks for your thoughts and the opportunity
to meet with you. I do hope our paths cross again in the
future for many reasons .
sin-terely ,
Elmer C. Rigby , M. D.
ECR : rs
E BEKINS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO.
P.O. BOX 1103,PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260
MANAGEMENT DIVISION REAL ESTATE DIVISION
72-811 HWY III (SUITE 201) 72245 EL PASEO
- PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260
. PHONE (714) 346-1151 PHONE(714) 346-1154
December 6, 1974
Mr. Paul Williams
Director of Environmental Services
City of Palm Desert, Ca 92260
Dear Sir:
Bekins Property Management Company respectfully requests that
our property on the Southwest corner of El Paseo and Hwy 74 be
re-zoned in the new city general plan to a Specialty Commercial
land use element; to permit us to use the property for a
Condominium Sales and rental office in our operations.
When this zoning change is made we will re-submit our building
plan with revisions to make the present building structure a
permanent type with foundations, etc.
Attached is a copy of the land plot and an architectural drawing
which will later be revised to include the proposed changes for
a permanent structure.
Your cooperation in this matter will be greatly appreciated.
Since re�l.�,,
�y
iChapman
President
Bekins Property Management Co.
JC/bp
u
°t
tj
T At _
.poib 6t-.-•
✓17 j ' �o�iV 0
Q a t � �,� yI� t: 4•
�I� • i i.l \ 1 �y �y �� ..7T.o
p
a4
o
sue, \ •a�
`•--
o AP 7
N)
o
< $ Cl
AP 7
� 0 0
n /4 O Of
o � n1 O
N v
'p W
A
No
1L7 a� Ul
U Q l`
i
CD
OL
.o �`.� �°.,fit � A►t a w
w
w
_ e
Sig�a J, a V
page 6
s
COMPLETE .
k0AM AfRAIR • -
DEPT.
PROPERl Y
MAN111111 ENY
COMPANY
�15 BEKINS
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY
IS PROUD TO ANNOUNCE A COMPLETE
HOME MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT TO
Mr. Bob Barckley SERVE OUR MANY DESERT CUSTOMERS.
Maintenance Supervisor
�I�e ane Q.aHce a�otrn NEfNderwe,oa
• Carpentry •Electrical
❑ HANG DOORS ❑ LIGHT SWITCHES
❑ ADJUST DOORS ❑ LAMPS, EXTERIOR OR INTERIOR
❑ MINOR REPAIRS ❑ CIRCUIT BREAKERS
❑ SMALL ADDITIONS ❑ TIME CLOCKS
•Windows •Appliances
❑ SMALL WINDOW REPLACEMENT ❑ REFRIGERATORS
❑ SHOWER ENCLOSURES ❑ WASHING MACHINES
❑ ADJUSTMENTS ❑ CLOTHES DRYERS
❑ SCREENS ❑ ICE MAKERS
•Plumbing •Air Conditioning
❑ HOT WATER HEATERS ❑ FAN MOTORS
❑ THERMOSTATS ❑ CAPACITORS
❑ HEATERS ❑ WIRING
❑ GARBAGE DISPOSALS ❑ RE-CHARGE
❑ COMPRESSORS
HOURLY RATE: $13.50 (PLUS PARTS)
Eke eor&-? W"aYe 4&
346-1151
e`
LEASE AGREEMENT
This Lease Agreement, made and entered into this
day of , 1973, at Indio, California, by
and between BEKINS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT CO. , hereinafter referred
to as the LESSORS, and the CITY OF PALM DESERT, hereinafter
referred to as the LESSEES.
W I T N E S S E T H:
The Lessor hereby leases to the Lessee and the
Lessee hereby leases from the Lessor, the hereinafter described
premises on the following terms and conditions :
Property. The property subject of this lease is that
certain real property in the County of Riverside, State of
California, more particularly described as follows:
Structure, together with necessary parking and
land area surroundings, located at El Paseo and Highway 74, known
as 73-021 El Paseo, Palm Desert, California.
Terms. The term of this lease shall be from November 26,
1973, to June 30, 1974.
Rent. The rent shall be $1. 00 for the full term hereof.
Utilities. The Lessor shall pay before delinquency, all
charges for water, power, gas and other utilities used on the
premises.
Page 1.
Taxes. Lessors agree and promise to pay all taxes and
assessments levied on said property and improvements during the
term of this lease, which sum shall be paid no less than 10 days
before the delinquent date of said levy.
Alterations, repairs and maintenance. It is understood
and agreed that the Lessor shall furnish said premises, together
with the buildings, improvements and personal property located
thereon, in its present condition and the Lessors shall not be
called upon to make any further alterations, improvements or
repairs to said premises and that the Lessee shall, at their own
expense, keep said premises in first class condition, normal wear
and tear excepted. The Lessee shall not commit or suffer to be
committed any waste, injury or damage.
Access to the premises. The Lessors, or their authorized
agent, shall have the right to enter upon said premises at all
reasonable times during this lease, to view the same and to see
the terms and conditions of this lease are being observed by the
Lessee.
Removal of furniture and fixtures. At the termination of
this lease the Lessee shall have the right to remove the furniture
and fixtures belonging to them and used in connection with or
attached to said premises, provided said Lessees are not then in
default of any of the terms hereof.
Page 2 .
Surrender of the premises. The Lessee agrees at the end
of the term of this lease or at any earlier termination thereof to
quit and surrender peaceable possession of the premises to the
Lessors of their agents, surrendering the premises and the improve-
ments located thereon in as good order and condition as ordinary
use and occupancy will permit, damage by the elements excepted.
Temporary Use. The parties acknowledge that the use of
Lessee of the premises is a temporary one for governmental purposes
and establishes no precident for any particular type of use for
subject structure.
Heirs and assigns. This agreement shall inure to the
benefit cf and be binding upon the parties hereto, their heirs,
legatees, legal representatives, assigns and successors in interest.
Executed as of the date first above written.
BEKIN"ROPERTY MANAG ,ENT CO.
` Executive Vice Pre ident &
General Manaser
CITY OF PALM DESERT
By
Page 3.