Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1206 MINUTES SPECIAL PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - DECEMBER 6, 1977 7:00 PM - CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I . CALL TO ORDER The special meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission was called to order by Chairman Berkey at 7 :05 p.m. in the Council Chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall . II . PLEDGE - Commissioner Kryder III. ROLL CALL Present : Commissioner KRYDER Commissioner READING Commissioner SNYDER Chairman BERKEY Absent : Commissioner KELLY (excused) Others Present : Paul A. Williams - Director of Environmental Services Ralph Cipriani - Associate Planner Kathy Shorey - Planning Secretary IV. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Mr. Williams noted that all written communications received would be covered under the public hearings. V. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Case No. GPA 02-77 (EIR) - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of the Final Environmental Impact Report for the College of the Desert Area Specific Plan . Chairman Berkey noted that this meeting would be continued to Wednesday, December 14, 1977 and the comments forwarded to the City Council along with the Commissions recommendations. Mr. Williams reviewed the staff report and noted the supplemental report that had been handed out prior to the meeting with various late responses received from various agencies and persons regarding the Report . Chairman Berkey opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak with regard to the EIR. MARY ADAMS, 73-370 San Gorgonio , stated that she lived just outside the area and that she felt the City ' s main concern should be the water problem. The inadequate fire flow pressure is the real problem of the north side. err Commissioner Reading asked staff if the water issue was part of the EIR. Mr . Williams noted that it was and that the Palm Desert Com- munity Services District had been sent a report and no comments had been received at this time . He also stated that the water districts have both proposed improvements in the wells and the water lines and are trying to obtain grants to upgrade the lines and also to put in curb and gutter and sewer lines. Mr. Williams then stated he would have a response from the water companies for the December 14th meeting. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission December 6, 1977 Page Two V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) A. Case No. GPA 02-77 (EIR) (Cont . ) PETER LUTSIT, stated that he felt the report was not complete with the water condition as it is. JIM SHAVERS, 73-051 Guadalupe , wanted to know how the report could be complete without public comment . Chairman Berkey stated that was the reason for the public hearings to get the public input . TOM MARBORCO, stated he did not want the report finalized. PHIL WITTE, 44850 San Antonio Circle, stated he was not notified and asked if the people were a part of the environment . He also stated that the parks would increase crime in the City. P. E. KIRKPATRICK, 71441 Avenue 44, stated that the city should pay more attention to the public . ROSE ROBERTS, 73-095 Catalina, felt that the park should be on the outskirts of town , not right in the center. MR. MOORE , 73077 Avenue 44, stated that if Avenue 44 was widened he would lose his house and that he was having trouble finding just where his property line was. He also wanted to know where the money would come from for the proposed projects. JOHN IOSA, 74-050 Guadalupe , asked that the meetings be held in the evening so that the public can attend. PHIL WITTE, asked again if the citizens were going to be considered a part of the environment . He also asked how much it would cost the City for the parks . Mr . Williams indicated that the funds would come from sales tax, building excise tax, and grants. Mr. Witte wanted a guarantee that the citizens would not be charged a tax. He also stated that the year to year maintenance of the parks is the expensive part . The question arose as to whether the next meeting could be held in a larger facility. Mr. Williams stated that the Middle School would be contacted and a notice would be put in the three papers if it was possible for the December 14th meeting to be held there . Chairman Berkey declared the public hearing closed and asked for the pleasure of the Commission . Commissioner Reading moved that the case be continued to December 14 , 1977, seconded by Commissioner Snyder; carried unanimously (4-0) . On a motion by Commissioner Read- ing, seconded by Commissioner Kryder, it was moved that the meeting of December 14 , 1977 would be held at 7:00 p .m. ; carried unanimously (4-0) . B. Case No. GPA 02-77 - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant . Consideration of an amendment to the Palm Desert General Plan to inlcude the provisions of the College of the Desert Area Specific Plan. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission December 6, 1977 Page Three V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) B. Case No. GPA 02-77 (Cont . ) Mr. Williams reviewed the maps and noted the proposed parks for the different areas and neighborhoods. He stated that the tot lots were very much objected to, and that a petition with 167 signatures had been received opposing the 10 acre park . Chairman Berkey opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak at this time. KEN SHAWS , 72-444 Sierra Vista, stated he had attended the neighborhood meeting for area 1 and the people had favored R-1 single dwellings. ENDORA SEE, 72-860 Arboleta, requested medium-density on Monterey due to large developments surrounding the area. ED BALUT, 44-695 San Benito, presented a petition signed by 167 residents and gave several of the issues concern- ing the north side residents. Namely, the COD Area Specific Plan divisions exclude some areas of the north side which should be considered, parking in the area near the proposed park, and first needs of the area are drainage. (Petition is attached as Exhibit A-1 through A-20) . JOYCE MCALLISTER, 44-454 San Anselmo, presented a summary of the fundamental objections to the proposed 10 acre park. (Attached as Exhibit B) . KIGER BARTON, 44519 San Anselmo , questioned why when most of the population is on the south side that there is no park. He stated there is a duplication of services by different agencies. Also that parks should be put in areas that can not be used for housing. He _then stated that parks will cause surrounding areas to suffer devalua- tion. JIM SHAVERS , 73-051 Guadalupe , asked if the storm channel could be used as an alternative site. CHARLES FITTI , stated that the recreational facilities in the area not sufficient for the youth in the area. He stated that he has seen parks surrounded by housing and that they are beautiful . DALE WILCOX, 72-797 Sierra Vista, asked if all homes in the areas have large yards , why are there so many children playing in the streets. He then stated that neighborhood parks are to serve the neighborhood. KEN SAVAGE, Sierra Vista, stated that people think of parks in accordance to their own needs not the needs of the com- munity. He indicated that soccer teams are forming and it is important that we provide areas for them to play. He then concluded that space does not create crime, people do . TOM POWERS , 44-670 San Antonio, spoke stating that his property borders the 10 acre park proposed and that a park in the proposed area would put a dark cloud over the City. JOHN IOSA, Guadalupe asked why the park couldn ' t be placed in an are where no housing exists, for example near 44th and Monterey. RICHARD DOE , Guadalupe, stated that his house borders the proposed park and he is in favor of the park and has no problems with vandalism. Minutes Palm Desert Planning Commission December 6, 1977 Page Four V. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Cont . ) B. Case No. GPA 02-77 (Cont . ) PHIL WITTE, 44-850 San Antonio Circle, stated the area of the proposed park could not handle the parking that the park would create . KIGER BARTON, noted the crime in parks as reported in the newspapers. MARY ADAMS, stated she is for more parks, and she also asked why the golf courses don 't use reclaimed water. She commended the City for an in depth study. CHARLES CHITT, commented on the fact that the proposed golf course and date preserve are taking over quarter of a million dollars to complete . He stated that the golf course is not needed. Chairman Berkey again told the audience that the meeting would 5 e continued to December 14 , 1977 and declared the public hearing closed. Commissioner Snyder stated that it is nice to know that the people are concerned, and that he hoped to plan together for the best interests of the City as a whole . VI . OLD BUSINESS - None ; VII . NEW BUSINESS - None VIII . DISCUSSION ITEMS - None IX. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - None X. COMMENTS A. City Staff - None B. City Attorney - Not present C. Planning Commissioners - None XI . ADJOURNMENT On a motion by Commissioner Kryder, seconded by Commissioner Snyder, the meeting was adjourned at 9 :50 p .m. ; carried unanimously (4-0) . PAUL A. WILLIAMS, Secretary ATTEST: GEORG E KEY, Chairma /ks EXHIBIT A-1 'DcTj'rIDNt III -L1Pt0SITICN TO THE : -OR OWMC PA-.- 12F 0 : A!'y 11,%t0l of 10 ",CRE F,4-LC[-A- 71 EwT OF VAJEW AIME All KA F KUYAL H%L. the undursiyned ru,rj.dent.n EinC/or property owners of flf-,Im CLIlifOXIIia, hereby OXp.rUSS, our dil:-Ct Cpf.)orition to the City L'i" Para Do—ertls prupwud rezoning anc/ur subsuouent construction t.)P a jjub-ljc pi3:1K un ox cny pL,.7,,t of t,'rie apux•ox--'Indtu 10 acru of, Avcnuo !nd k!t,,_s-t of Ruyal Polo Dusext, 01ifunnin. Leoal ducc=Apticns as follows: parcel e627-C6!-0C1-1 8.31 acre: in POR NWj of Suc. 20 T5S parcel 1','i�27-061-C3b-2 1.72 acre. WL in FUR NWj of Sec. 20 TUS 77: parcel 0 7-llCi 0 D�2 PON NWY of juc. 20 T55 WE pawel 14.2 7- 6 0—1-i! PuP Nil of Suc. 20 T55 RM: P�rcul CV, :IP- in POP NA of Sec. 20 TY W ,�e further sta6v that t,?. in favor of the t,x i s t i r.C x V,S-'.d, n t i a zoning of the above Ascribud remaining intact. N W-*.E A92HESS � L) A$V7 .-7 KOS .Z2:72 41 LV �I, J1 j V1 Ways, 2V -21 Qc 04, 4 -z- EXHIBIT A-2 P E T 1 T I ON! -1 C, POSITICN TO TN_ PQC'POS-D Pc TING FOR PUPLIC iU ALKE "Xi-']E l U1 F- i,J-'-F L AV'-- U E r 1,'-Y A L h'A L I j ij,'i 1 V E T A. -j p=opexty owners of PFl 1, !3,2t Cc!!-'fcrniL,, hereby express our dirt,,ct opposition to the City Of P a im De s f r t IS L)ropr-";'('d re,,,cpiing and/or su-L)st'quent com)txuction �3? a pulilic pirk On all ci any of the app.coximjte 10 acro 1ucj�-L,tjl e.. of Avt'-,nL-,2 Of Royal Palms Di.'ve. p,li,j Desert, C-lifoLcn 3 Li coal de cr .ptions as follows: parcel 6 27- C 02.-1 8-3-1 Eicros in POR NA-of Sec. 20 T55 r,6`- parcel 35-2 1.72 acres in PCR N Vll- of Sec. 20 T's pare el 6 2 7 1 00 2 PMR W."t- a f' 20 TSS 11,6E ccl '6E 7- o" Sec. 20 T55 R .04 t-1/1- in POR 1ic.J'4`7 of Sec. 20 T55 f�jj:t!jer ste�,e that we orc -in fcavoz -of the nx-'s4 rt!S4 de-ntial zoning of the: above deccrbcd properties A!)D TIATE 5-1; rA 6 ky --2 -7 S- 1 -7 PZ es EXHIBIT A-3 PETITIO" I!, u51Ti0 J Tu T!iE P lUI'DsED ; EZC-Iii4G FUR FUtHAC PARK C F A L L D. A-Y ilisHT OF Tni Al-,-�UXI,,­Tr_ 10 AC�,E -AfiCEL 1) E.-.z,T CF jl.V& UE iA,A) iL�- T OF 1-1,uYAL r-AL-6 Lri_IVE, tlr-LM DE71jiT, 1 A. ,de tnu unuLr�i_:ned ru,_id�nts .;nG/or property c)wr,t--.rs of Palm Desert, L 1-4f,:rnici, nar_o express our Q,,jjosition to the -City of Palm D2s,_-rt's propu3co r6zoning anc/or suosequent cL.5netruction of a pudic park in all or 3ny part of the ipproxim-Ae 10 acre parcel luc�t_-a e__st of 1,iorit�.rL3y Avenue Eino bast of Ruyal Palms Drive, F,Li D13sert, _L_iif.:Lnia. Legal descriptions as follows: parcel y627-061-Oli-I 8.31 acres in FOR Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel -f627-'S61-035-2 1.72 acres MYL in PGR NIA- of Sec. 20 T5S R6E 4 parcel .'r`27-L!�1-002-2 FOR f,IJI- of Sec. 20 T55 R6E 0 parcel #627--i61-OD4-4- PUR u.v of Sec. 20 T55 R6E rarcel 7r, .04 acres N/L in POR of Sec. 20 T55 R6E .4e further state that t.e are in favor of tha existing residential zoning cf the above descriDed properties remaining intoct. ADEFESS DATE 4-r 4Y I C1- 7 -7 -2 �4 /FA 4CIZ2,7-- V L //Av EXHIBIT A-4 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZOMINO FOR PUBLIC PARK LSE CF ALL Y AnY fi%,iT OF THE ANI'RDXIf1ATE 10 ACRE PARCEL LOC.AFED E,,RT CF [IiLi,JTLkEY AVEiuUE AIJU ';JEST OF ROYAL PALMS DRIVE, PF,Ul DEStRT, L ;i_1I .I A. - Ue the undersigned ruuidents and/or property owners of Palm Desert, C�:Jifernia, haxoby express our direct opposition to the City of Palm Des::rt's proposed rezoning and/or subsequent construction of a public park on all or any part of -the approximate 10 acre parcel located e_st of Honterey Avenue and west of Royal Palms Drive, Palm Desert, C�iifornia. Legal descriptions 4s follows: parcel #627-061-001-1 8.31 acres in POR NVAW of Sec. 20 TSS R6E parcel f627-061-035-2 1.72 acres MIL in FOR N'aJ-'4 of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel r 62(-ll.1-002-2 POR N'J'c of Sec. 20 T5S R6E pE;rcel ,;-627-061-U64-4 PUR of Sec. 20 T5S R6E i;c.rcel ,r .04 acres M/L in FOR N�Ac of See. 20 T55 R6E We further sta&e that we are in favor of the existing residential zoning of the above described properties remaining intact. 1JAP1E D DRESS DATE `7 2-_$ Q � `.j .�� ,i>1 ��� „✓ T Al'/ l"/I �4c�/•c�inyi � / �'��1�`=l'L //-27-777 o `7 tv7 ozZ 1 -I'�� ram•' -�: 1 /. _ < 1 l 1�.� 11-z7 -77 ------ --b'�"'7-- EXHIBIT A-5 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZOMING POR PUBLIC PARK LSE OF ALL 01 Ai,Y P;{RT OF THE APPROXi;,LATE 10 ACRE PARCEL LOC,,TED I.—iT OF t-'i.u:jTL EY AVENUE AWII 'e;EST OF ROYAL i-AL;iS DriiVE, PALM DEOERT, CHt_1 Ftit;�.l A. - Ue the undersigned residents and/or property owners of Palm Desert, C�:lifcrnia, hareby express our direct opposition to the City- of Palm Desurt's proposed rezoning and/or subsequent construction of a public park on all or any part of the approximate 10 acre parcel located eLst of Monterey Avenue and vest of Royal Palms Drive, Palm Desert, 0,lifurnia. Legal descriptions a, follows: parcel ,-627-061-001-1 8.31 acres in POR NWj4- of Sec. 20 T5S R6E parcel J627-061-035-2 1.72 acres MY1. in FOR Nr11 of Sec. 20 T5S R6E parcel `627-P i-Cj02-2 POR N.Ja- of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel ;=027-061-004-4 NOR N'J-,1,- of Sec. 20 T55 R6E IJ..rcel it .04 acres M/L in PLR NW-'a- of Sec. 20 T5S R6E We further state that we are in favor of the existing residential zoning of tho above described properties remaining intact. NAMES _-ADDRESS DATE 3 / `/L 217 11 - 16 - 77 JA I,=, 77— AV;-,,Z 14 1L /1- 72 -7 r #AIM EXHIBIT A-6 PcT7TION -IN O'PrISITTON T(, THE PPOPO'= PEZ07ING FOR PUPLIC 1j,o',.T UF T!iL ----------r U Y A }'AL.�j Ij,?iVi-", 17 r thu unc�.Ul t3 gnr-d r", -�it!urlt!3 property owndrs of P,,1-in forniu, h,:�ruby ex,prass our direct opposition to tF,e City rezominc.? en s�-31ubL:(2qucnt comet'�uc-,�i on pu�.!;c ljjxk on all or ony ci.i .1 1'3roxiiqote 10 acre 017,.-4, 2. o Royal as follows: oarcrl '627-0161-OCI-1 8.31 aczen ;in PeR N1,11-of Sec. 20 T"31; I X parr-el 627-261-C35-2 1.72 a=es 4n pc,r, r��-,J- of Sec. 2,'-', 4 u' 20 T�S E Ru o c. 20 755 R6E .a c,-i -- zi in of S c. thpt %-je, i 1 y., -FIvox .0, e St- r,x i ,n o r i-n of the above d1oscr--'.bed P c r 4.r-3 remain 4n-., intact. An'j r C z 77 '42, zz a —74 7- 71 EXHIBIT A-7 Qr—TTC% i f,pcT !-Ne l TO H � PMPO's,�r:1 REZOMING FOR pUnLIC pAjC I;"E ALL Oi, A.—Y ij,iril AP-'AJX 1 -10 ACTE- !'A �C CL 'F HtIYAL FAL,,ij D,'.IIVE -,'!T T A. �!d the unclurt;-J,,med iuuid ntq property perty ownurs of PalmDeL�t�rt, C—lifurnia, her by expruss Our direct opposition to the C4ty of t'ail!l DCS�rtlS pl:OPQsOd rt,- on4ng amj,/ur subsequent construction of or Z:j-jy part of I1-h-- approxiln.L2to 10 ac�.-E' -ILIC,ItId U-S" Of t-j1)[jtL-rf_'y and t2ec;t of Royal Palms Di:4'vE,. bext as follo,,is: parcel 11'1'6 27-C 61-00!-1. 3.31 acr,,a in POR Sec. 20 T55 ^6E* parcel 1.72 pc::7c-,s in FOR of Sec. 20 Tr5s, r,6E Parcel 1)C.", N'.:'- a 5�; 20 T 5 5 P C)E I r L-L2 7- 1-0 of 20 T55 JR6E -04 in POR NU-1- of Sec. 20 T55 R,6,!: further state that we 6!re, in favorbf t , r -s'-4 a- residential Z 0 TI rl(.1 of the Ci b 0 V E' described p 4 r C', r3 roes remal"n"ng intc.ict. N Anerd I)A T iZ 11 0 7 �7 Y�6 (3 7 G7 — 77 Z/ 77 73 77 2 - 77 ILI- 7 EXHIBIT A-8 f-'PPC)51TTCN TO THE PROPOSED REZOMING FOR PU2L-1-C PA''',( 0':' ALL 01% Ai:Y Ulc T,iE )-0 ACRE lAHUL I-Utlol:.n t-F 1,, vT: i,'-I A V �',,J--- A Y A L- F A L.i j 11,' 'L�t-R T 1 A '4!u the undlurzsigmed ruL;iduntq and/or property owners of Pjjlri DeL;ftrt, C-14forll:.a, her by express Our direct opposition to the City of "aim Dvs�;rtls P—Posod rezoning anc�./or subsequent construction of FIY Part of apdroxifnz-,te 110 acre p,� a public 1j,3zk on all Cm L rct!j 1LJCdtLj(J C-S'l Of VQrjt�rf�y Avenue a n(2, trust of Royal Palms Drive,,Palm flesaxt, Z:,A-iforn4a. Leal deL-r-riptions as foilowsz parcel `'627-061-001-1. 8.31 aczea in POR of Sec. 20 T55 16E parcel ;,627-061-C35-2 1.72 acres f-I"!L in POR" NW-14- of Sec. 20 T55 R6C Parcel JiU27-P,�1,1-GC12-2 PO D, N of 20 T55 116E OzIrL-01 :!C 7--D�I-u 0,1-,! PU;; of 5ec. 20 T513 R6E p-rcUl acres in POP NU-41- of Sec. 20 T55 10,6E ,�,e further stake that Lq L- are in favor bf- the existing residential zoning of the a.L)uve described properties remaining., intact. N1 Al"r- 7)A 7 7 -7 7 sa, 77. Ad- /7/ L ty" J / - 77 7 7 Z,, EXHIBIT A-9 a PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZOSING FOR PUBLIC PARK USE OF ALL 0c, AidY PART OF THE APPROXI'°ATE 10 ACRE PARCEL LOC,JED Et.aT OF tlu;;TE ;EY AVE!JUE Aid) eiEST OF RUYAL PAL i5 DRiVE, PALH DESERT, CAI .FOh;�.1 A. We the undersigned residents and/or property owners of Palm DeL.ert, C-lifcrnia, hereby express our direct opposition to the City of Palm Desert's proposed rezoning and/or subsequent construction of a public park on all or any part of the approximate 10 acre parcel lucated east of (Monterey Avenue and west of Royal Palms Drive, Palm Desert, California. Legal descriptions as follows: parcel #627-061-001-1 8.31 acres in POR NUj4- of Sec. 20 T5S R6E parcel T627-061-035-2 1.72 acres VL in FOR NU! of Sec. 20 T5S R6E parcel ,•;1627-061-a02-2 FOR W.114 of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel ',=627-061-004-4 POR of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel 1;' .04 acres M/L in POR NA of Sec. 20 T55 R6E We further state that we are in favor of the existing residential zoning of the above described properties remaining intact. IV Al,!E ADDRESS DATE L EXHIBIT A-10 a + ,I IT - ---------- EXHIBIT A-11 i't.I I I Lli: I i k, I I I U 11: 1 HL i'�6L,1'LJAD iLZ(II I,j Fu k P U H I I C P A N K i�iYH�,,X 1 .r,F.- IU kCr�E -,Ailc E L LD�-'.,F,-D LF ALL Ll� A.,Y I'A,iT J T,,[- E-.uT t:F kVE!.,LiE m,A) ,,E::T LF i--',t:YAL -AL.I3 Di4,iVL, Hr.L;1 HbtRT, CALIF �iA. '.;e the uncur--i�.lned re-L:idants ;-;nd/cDr property owners of Palm Desert, C-14fcinia, nar�ay exijruss our u.irt:ct cj�,,josition to the City of Pain Desurt's proposed rezoning -and/or suosequent construction of a public park on all or any part of the approximate 10 acre parcel icatEo e-st of I-Iorit�rL3y Avenue and i,c:Lit of Royal Palms Drive, Palm Desert, C-lifjxnia. Legal descriptions as follows: parcel jJ627-061-001-1 8.31 acres in FOR N 01 -of Sec. 20 T55 R6E Parcel #027-061-015-2 1.72 acres MYL in FOR N'4�4- of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel it627-061-002-2 FOR N.441 of Scc. 20 T55 R6E Parcel j627-061-004-4 POIR of Sec. 20 T55 R6E -,-,arcel Ir' .04 acres M/L in POR W.4- of Sec. 20 T5S R6E oa further state that i,,e are in favor of the existing residential zoning of the above described properties remaining int-ct. ,I 1,2 ADDI,,E55 P,? M1 T E ;L Z-7- � IL -7-) *NOW EXHIBIT A-12 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE MIC PO-ED REZ 07ING FOR PUPLIC PARK OF AU- on to-d! I'ArU U� Tji�' A�''--'T-' VOICE 1777D f i. inf�q u1F �UilEkL AVtl�',JL T-�jJ -,LI� 1'-F '?,UYAL i�AL�,�; IVE, 1"!2-i J T, Lle the undurL;igned xobiduntq and/or proprrty owners of FIElin Deuurt, C:jlifcrnia, hazoby express our direct opposition to the- City of fall:] DetIL-It's re.zon.4nC and/or subsequent construction of a !jublic pork on all or ony prs of the approxiinate 10 P-C-'f- p'!rCt!1 lucutcd e-st of Wntaruy Avenue and Ajost or Royal Pans Drive, Palm Do"it, Mifuxnia. Legal d,.;scf-ptions as followsz parcel MnMnOn-1 8.31 acx,-o in POR NWQ Vf Sec. 20 T5S M parcel §627 06M3M 1.72 acra-s in FOR NWj of Sac. 20 T5S ME: name! "S2nP6n0DM POR NUV of Unc. 20 T55 W )�i.rCel POR NQj of Sec. 20 T59 ME cu (= APORj 5S parl M n NW W k-,fe further state that we ora in favor if the oxiKing insidential ZwUnlOf the above described properties re!naininq intact. WV ADDRESS DATE V 111'7,7 V'6 2 EXHIBIT A-13 PETITION IN UPPOSITION TO THE PROPOSED REZOMING FOR PUBLIC PARK vim. LSE OF ALL 0, A,dY PAriT OF THE Atli'ROXI1°!ATE 10 ACRE FARCEL 1_01:,,rLD E:.�)T OF !`-iij,'TEitE1 AVcivUE AiJU `,EST OF ROYAL h-AL,;5 DriIVE, V ,- -1 DEatRT, CAI_i Fu;;,,I A. lie tha undersigned residents and/or property owners of Palm Desert, C,:lifornia, haruby express our direct opposition to the City of Palm DesGrt's proposed rezoning and/or subsequent construction of a -F3ublic park on all or any part of the approximate 10 acre parcel 10Cated e:.s-t of Monteruy Avenue and westof Royal Palms Drive, Palm Desert, California. Legal descriptions as follows: parcel #627-061-001-1 8.31 acres in POR Nld4- of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel #627-061--035-2 1.72 acres MIL in FOR N'J-'a of Sec. 20 T55 HE parcel ;;627-n-41-002-2 POR WJ-4 of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel ;;'627-061-064-4 PUR N'J'1 of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel ;r .04 acres M/L in POR NW4- of Sec. 20 T55 R6E We further state that we are in favor of the existing residential zoning of the above described properties remaining intact. NAME ADDRESS DATE j y t -mil c EXHIBIT A-14 PS'l TION 'IN CIPPOSITICN TO 7117- PPCPC= PEZ011iNG FOR PUTL ic PACt< 1- "IV i-A'-1 Lr,1VE llhL uncuj:p-i-nt!d am/or property owners of Palm 14 fci:nia, hL-ru I Dy exDrL;Sr our da'-,ect opposition to the City of In llas�xt' propo--wd _Ile n ,�lr,� -1 - - 1; 4-XUCj.4orj S.jb:3L.qUF, Conf] of a public 1),)rk on a!). or. _+ro/ o of the apprcxiInE!t �u acne P rc ,! L:-- ted c of Nlo,I I t L-1,'-y n a Fl L,. "2tst of, FNLjyi2-1 P a s U,:7:.v a [)wort, C�14 fonnia. L o cl d j s�---4 p- -4 c n s as c 1.lows: parcul 7-.`6 12 7-'�l 0 Ol I-1 8.31 VCra- 'I in POR of Sec. 20 T5S 76E parcel j627-'J'o-i-O 25-2 12 a c r s P.�I- in POi? of Sec. 2C ":11 parcell 1!6 2 7-P -L- _71-2 FO'� N'J,� 1� 20 T55 13--�E 62 7 i-1-1 04-,1 Pu't (v'.'? o+ Sec. 20 T55 R 6 E' C' c c�c 3 in P 0 of Sec. 20 7-1 S sn further sta6 that we arn in -favor -of the existing re-s--dent.4al zuninfi of the above describud, 1--) nperties remaining intact. A T', S DATE EXHIBIT A-15 FIE"TTLI,%, IN 0PPC)S!Tlr).%' TO THr 01`�M-OSEn ?=!7!NG FoR pu:-mr L OF T,i E A T-(T A U-�-R,E. PA t E E L ' AL"' Dl'tiV . Pi,.LH and/or property owners of Pal[,, Dr,,t;j!rtj C.Aifornia, hsrvby cxpre ss our. direct opposition to the City f "lics!-xt's proposal rozofI4'na, Dnd/or Sub2pcluont coni;txuct;-on Of pub lic un 3111 or any P,-,:,-t of approximutu 10 acre- f)14-(- -. ltIC--ltL:(J OF Avt!nU„ cjnd Of Royal Pa-',?Tis Eri.v,!, as parcel 1�'627-061-001-1 e-2'1 rJoreO in PO Scc. 20 TSS, pa-rcul IIZ627-C61-03b-2 1.72 oic:�f�s 4 'H - ( ' -. 2C TY7 "n c t?1 1,4612 7-f I-C.,Cl 2-2 flr-? Ili c)f 20 TSS !;6E El rC,U.1 "027-CL-1.! 20 T55 !?GE reel 0 1 n P 0 Sue. 29 ISS "6,7 further stage that we are in -."avox -o�' the exiisting rp-sid.cntL�l zonlruj of the above e,eSC.-4 t2 d ;area il-'rtic3 rcuiain4ng intact. 7-5 A T F -:bLAz-, 0 I EXHIBIT A-16 :x'_ ..-o Our Gi rS CI,. G„ J".,10n to Zi... L!Ly GT ,:ublic rk ai. ail or ny c3rt of 1b c r l P c ace 0. ..;. Ui - �3r, LL cs �8-CU1 -,'72r--'1-0.11-'_ 8.31 ;.crUa i n P0,7.. Nu. Of '.c72C. 20 TSJ �6Z perceJ. ,r627- ol- -2 1.72 ac '' -n P- :1 - - o Sec. 20 �i 5S R6c _c:1 -`u2/-il -L02-2 '01p ''c "-o't' S c. 20 TSJ _ u1 ;uG t- 1 0,14-4 f�UR VT Sec. 23 1 5S 'GE pc_cal - .04 acres F-/L in ?OR id`.rs of Scc. 20 T55 R6Z fu tn=.r otate that we arc in favor cf the existinc r sidential in: CiGov;.. Laacr_,Cd pro G_��� ra�,aininc; ir,tr.ct. A 3i55 D;,.T E EXHIBIT A-17 PETITION IN OPPOSITION TO THE PRDPO::ED REZOMING FOR PUBLIC PARK. USE OF ALL O:" AvY PiitiT OF THE AP'RUXI •SATE 10 ACRE PARCEL !_OC,iTED EnST CF -IU:JF-kEI AVENUE AIJU `aEST OF ROYAL PAL;!S Dri!VE, Pt•LM DESERT, CAL3d iJ jIA. We the undersigned residents and/or property owners of Palm Desert, C.:lifcrnia, hurt-by express our direct opposition to the City of Palm Desert's proposed rezoning and/or subsequent construction of a -iublic park on all or any part of the approximate 10 acre parcel locatuo ecst of Monterey Avenue and west of Royal Palms Drive, Palm Desert, Cilifurnia. Legal descriptions as follows: _parcel #627-061-001-1 8.31 acres in POR NUJ4- of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel #627-061-03b-2 1.72 acres MYL in FOR N'r14' of Sec. 20 T5S R6E parcel `627-01 I-Fj�2-2 FOR [P.Jlf of Sec. 20 TSS R6E pgrcl ;'e27-061-004-4 POR IJIJ�u or Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel it .04 acres M/L in POR NU-'; of Sec. 20 T55 R6E We further state that we are in favor of the existing residential zoning of the above described properties remaining intz,ct. NA�-!E ADDRESS DATE � '4i��s•r C�-7r�„ n r7'3��0 �4h�ic;;: ll,V/77 71 r, r/ !I/icL rl- �r _ ^�1 -vim �� Jt� �i�;- /•� 7 L�T L''Ctn —GC.I Ci-j /.. U�j' '7 r Fes. %i EXHIBIT A-18 rETITIt3-^, T�iE P'I{CH03ED REZEMIij-. FJR PUBLIC PARK F A L L A..Y P i,H T uF To E 'Wi` -j � .10 -,L.,TL,tE� AJE!.,LjE A�Ij ,�L:;T OF HLIYAL rAL,Lt L,i!VE, Fr.U-1 [-E%Z'--'1-'T, he tnu uncuru-LTnt-d rut::id nts ,nd/az property owr-,L,.rs of Palm DL--'eit, C-lifornia, her Dj expruss our direct 0,:position to the City of Pai!:! Destrt's pzopc3uc rezoning and/or subsequent uent construction of a public park art all or any part of the approximLte 10 acre parcel IwE:atud C, St of Avenue and w st of Royal Palms Drive, P=i,n Desert, L:-iif-rn.-* a. Legal descriptions as follows: parcel It'627-061-Ji1-I 8.31 acres in POR iul,jl of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel f627-161-035-2 1.72 acres MYL in FOR NW-a of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel '627-0 1-002-2 FOR NLJ-41- of Sec. 20 TSS RnE parcel '-�627-D611-004-4 POR i>&11 of Sec. 20 T55 R6E arc a 1 W, .04 acres I-A in POR WJ-41- of Sec. 20 T55 R6E .Je further state that we are in favor of the existing residential zoning of the above described ;-,iopprtics rumaining int,,ct. k.E ADDRESS DATE/ 73-1,60, 2- EXHIBIT A-19 PETITION, IN uDiIuSITICWJ TO THE PROPOSED REZOMING FUR PUBLIC PARK usE OF ALL-1.32- AI Y lliiitT OF T,­;E _!C _,C_RE ItA.tt_CEL E,,�.,_T t1F P.V_L:i:UE,-A. .M 11�E_J OF lL�YAL r AL i� D ii I Vt, 21L-1 P'_,,-_RT C077j�,i4 I A. l,ld the ujicjur..;ignud ruuid�nts „nd/or propt-rty owners Of Palo Du;,urt, C,.l_4fcrnic,,t har:_Dy expruss our oircct Opposition to tl,e City of pai!rj L)esf-It's propo3c-t:4 rEzoning anc!/or subsuquent construction of a public park on all or any Part of thu approxiinLte 10 acre parcel lcacatL2t'1 C­t3t of i,ioritc;ruy Avenue c,,rid u,3st of Royal Palms Drive, p.1j,j Dt_,,ert, L_iifLicnia. Legal descriptions as folluws% pal:cul /627-061-001-1 8.31 acres in POR WWI of Sec. 20 T55 R6E >crc,_i ,/627-06i-035-2 1.72 acres M/L in FOR N',!!,- of Sec. 20 T55 R6E parcel o �3cc. 20 parcel -`1�627-L',_,i-�jD2-2' ['1JR Pl'-14 - --rcui PO!', iJ,-!41- of tj e,-c. 20 T55 t;H ...04 acres M/L in �10R of Sec. 20 T55 R6E I We further state that we are in favor of the existing residential zoninu of the above described properties remaining intrct. ADMIESS DATE 47 -;7/ /12 �7 /4 WAMW A. J _Yj EXHIBIT A-20 77 EXHIBIT B SUMMARY OF FUNDAMENTAL OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED 10 ACRE PARK fast of Monterey Avenue and West of Royal Palms Drive, Palm Desert. I. EXPENSE TO TAXPAYERS A. Initial purchase costs; development ; permanent maintenance and supervision. B. Loss of revenue due to removal from tax rolls of proposed site as well as potential revenue from future housing development there. II. SUPERFLUITY OF PARK A. Existing park facilities sufficient : Portola Ave. park and COD facilities (which city proposes to expand) . 1. No need for parks closer than one mile apart. 2. Down-zoning of all of immediate area from R2 and R3 to single family dwellings already insures private yards., for children. B. Future necessity for park facilities due to proposed high-density apartments in the COD area should be the obligation of those developers, not a burden on Palm Desert taxpayers. III. DEFICIENT QUALITY OF PROPOSED PARK A. Poor choice of location. 1. Restricted access to property due to its long, narrow shape, with only 300 feet fronting on a road, with 2 sides faced with residences; police patrol problems. .® 2. Parking and traffic congestion. �e jr, Proposed commercial development west of Monterey Avenue makes this site unacceptable for a family park: use by residents would become misuse by transients, resulting in disturbances to residents and further expense of added police protection. IV. ALTERNATIVES A. Priority of funds should go toward providing adequate flood control and drainage systems in order to prevent further damage to property owners, andrfurnishing adequate water pressure for fire protection. To allow existing conditions to continuevould be negligent. B. Installation of a traffic signal at the corner of IClonterey Ave. and Avenue 44 would serve a double purpose , by providing safety for vehicles at a, hazardees intersection as well as giving children a safe access to existing and proposed COD recreational facilities, the expansion ofvwbich would result in far less expense to taxpayers than the proposed development of the new site. C. As stated above (II,B) , the city should require developers to create recreational facilities as needed. This would give future residents in new developments the option of location in relationship to recreational areas. Under the present circumstances, the residents in the immediate area of the proposed park have no choice; they have alraady suffered financial loss from down-zoning; and many whose property borders the site were not mailed notification by the city of the proposed COD Area Specific Plan.