HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppeal CUP 04-13 Sacred Heart Elementary School (Roman Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino) (Thomas W. McCutchen)CITY OF PALM DESERT
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal regarding Planning Commission
approval of CUP 04-13 to allow an expansion of the Sacred Heart
Elementary School and construction of new parking lots with 158
spaces at 43-775 Deep Canyon Road.
SUBMITTED BY: Francisco J. Urbina, Associate Planner
APPELLANT: Thomas W. McCutchen
24 Via Cielo Azul
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NO: CUP 04-13
CASE APPLICANT: Roman Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino
Office of Construction & Real Estate
Attn: Rosi Mills
1201 E. Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92404
ARCHITECT:
DATE:
ATTACHMENTS:
Recommendation:
Holt Architects
41-555 Cook Street, Suite 1-100
Palm Desert, CA. 92211
April 28, 2005
A. Appeal Application
That the City Council continue the public hearing to a date uncertain to allow time for a
supplemental traffic analysis to be completed and reviewed by staff.
Update since March 24, 2005 City Council meeting:
This case was continued from the March 24, 2005 City Council meeting to allow time for
staff to review and approve a supplemental traffic analysis. As of April 19, 2005, the
supplemental analysis was still being prepared. When we are satisfied with the
supplemental analysis, we will re -notice the public hearing. We have requested that the
Staff Report
Sacred Heart Master Plan
CUP 04-13
Page 2
April 28, 2005
applicant hold an evening meeting at Sacred Heart Church to present the results of the
traffic study to surrounding property owners prior to a future City Council hearing date.
Submitted by: Department Head:
i
rancisco J. Urbiaa Philip Dre
Associate Planner Director of Community Development
Approv
Omer C
Assistan /CO(Wanager for Development Services
Carlos L. Ortegal/
City Manager
1
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFgR1Wl CLERK'S EOFFICE
PALM DESERT, CA
APPLICATION TO APFaf 28 PIS 2: 38
DECISION OF THE
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. C' -V 04 -13
P j A ylni n� GbtRVyu s s, a r)
Date of Decision: U G;
Name of Appellant /%�v4s �j I'!e(- `'t`7`����' moone (1410) 773-.3 -2
�
Address „1 C."tiC,40 AT.-ec
Description of
Application or Matter Considered: QAP -(Ew 5cAc re-dt. H-ewr-t" G wV,,c-K ccs Scko
ry1aSte- f lays 4xce +(o-fj heiG hf vc�xiartc.� 1
Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary):
5e -.-c-o—.e j
z. Ae��
(Signature of Appellant)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY o�
Date Appeal Filed:-' 2'8—O S Fee Received: --
Treasurer's Receipt No. S Received by:
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: c i1 A
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
COPYTO ---
DATE 2
H vKlassemWPoatatWPDOCStFORMS\aWI to appeal woo Rev 6129102
�hvMAS GV /KG C ce, IiG he -
Basis for appeal of Planning Commission Case Number CUP 04-013
l . The proposed location of the conditional use is not in accord with the objectives
of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located for a number
of reasons, including, but not limited to, the height variance required for the
parish hall, which variance may be included in a CUP but which does not meet
the criteria in Section 25.78 and which never was noticed.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity, specifically because but not limited to the following:
• The traffic study prepared is inadequate and fails to take into account
the actual traffic counts;
• The conditions proposed do not deal appropriately with points of
ingress and egress, which should not be off of Deep Canyon, a Class C
roadway; that turn around cannot occur on private property; that the
amount of traffic generated by the church now - without any
improvements - creates a nuisance and traffic hazard as proven by
pictures and traffic reports; that the present situation and the
improvements violate UFC requirements;
• That the Planning Commission has given no consideration to
conditions which insure compatibility of use with surrounding
developments;
• That the Planning Commission has discriminated in favor of Catholics
(and against Jews and others) in approving this CUP and specifically
the alleged height variance;
• That the Planning Commission has failed to address traffic circulation;
• That the Planning Commission/staff failed to respond to comments on
the mitigated negative declaration because the comment period closed
approximately one or two hours before the hearing on this matter;
• That the mitigated negative declaration is insufficient given the
magnitude of this project, the demolition involved, and the severe
traffic impacts which have not been mitigated; coupled with
substantial public controversy, the project therefore requires an EIR.
• Parking on grass violates City Code without a specific variance and
PM-10 ordinances.
3. The proposed conditional use is not in compliance with all of the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code, because the current operation of the church is
not in compliance with the Code as to parking and the proposed use would require
a substantial parking variance that has not been addressed.
4. The proposed conditional use is not in compliance with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the city's general plan, zoning or other planning guidelines for the
area.
r
s. is
From Norman Eastwood
74474 Myrsine Ave
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
760-674-0308
March 27, 2005
To: Mayor: Buford Crites
City Manager: Carlos. Ortega
RECEIVED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
PAli1 DESERT, CA
?.005 MAR 30 AM 10: 07
Subject: CUP 04-13 Sacred Heart Church and School Expansion Issues
I am writing to you because there are issues that you may not be aware of.
1) I believe that there is an apparent Conflict of Interest when a City of Palm Desert
associate planner on this project is associated with the Sacred Heart church by
being Catholic and attending this church. City Planning is doing the analysis of
the expansion request for this project and providing results to City Management
and City Council. When the input data results are corrupted by Conflict of Interest
and bias, then fair and proper decisions cannot be made, thus making the planning
analysis null and void.
2) I suggest that from what I have observed, that City Planning has discriminated in
favor of the Catholic Church.
3) I have requested to City Planning that I be provided information on the planning
report to be presented to the City Council on 28 April in order to enable me to
prepare a response. I do not have an answer on this request.
4) Whenever I have visited City Planning to discuss issues on site planning, I believe
that I have been STONEWALLED (totally ignored). I have had discussions where
when I have pointed out a problem which is contrary to the City code, and ask if
this has been analyzed, the response is:" No". When I ask, will it be analyzed the
answer is 'No, It does not need to be as City planning can bypass any non-
compliance if they want to". In addition, this STONEWALLING perception is not
mine alone, but is also perceived by my neighbors.
5) I believe that Neighborhood Conformance has been ignored.
6) From discussions with the City planning interface, where I have been ignored
(Not even notes taken or written to my comments) I am led to believe that the
results to the expansion of Sacred Heart School and Church have already been
determined from the start by Planning, and any contrary issues are to be ignored.
The decisions by the City planner have already been made.
7) I believe that the City Council and City Management is fair and ethical and will
do the right thing, but I believe that data reported to you is biased, one sided and
flawed.
-t-e
Summary: I believe that the City planning results are inaccurate due to conflict of
interest and bias
Ask: I ask your advise on this.
Thank you for your consideration
Respectfully Submitted
Norman Eastwood
Reference info: I am a graduate Engineer with Post Masters training. I have been an
active engineer with approximately forty (40) years of engineering experience,
Copy: City Council, Palm Desert
T. McCutchen
MEETING DATE ?� J
[a"GONTINtIED TO
CITY OF PALM DES 10 PASSED TO 2ND READING
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D E-L-APA4&1T
STAFF REPORT
REQUEST: Consideration of an appeal regarding Planning Commission
approval of CUP 04-13 to allow an expansion of the Sacred Heart
Elementary School and construction of new parking lots with 158
spaces at 43-775 Deep Canyon Road.
SUBMITTED BY: Francisco J. Urbina, Associate Planner
APPELLANT: Thomas W. McCutchen
24 Via Cielo Azul
Palm Desert, CA 92260
CASE NO: CUP 04-13
CASE APPLICANT: Roman Catholic Bishop of San Bernardino
Office of Construction & Real Estate
Attn: Rosi Mills
1201 E. Highland Avenue
San Bernardino, CA 92404
ARCHITECT:
DATE:
ATTACHMENTS:
Recommendation:
Holt Architects
41-555 Cook Street, Suite 1-100
Palm Desert, CA. 92211
March 24, 2005
A. Legal notice
B. Appeal Application
C. Letter requesting continuance of City Council Public Hearing
That the City Council continue the public hearing on the appeal to April 14, 2005 to
allow time for a supplemental traffic analysis to be completed and reviewed by staff.
Background:
Planninq Commission Approval of CUP 04-13: On February 15, 2005, the Planning
Commission approved the request for a master plan for the Sacred Heart Church and
Elementary School which proposes (1) construction of eight new classrooms which will
allow an increase in the number of students from 450 to 540 (90 additional students), (2)
construction of a 17,590 square foot parish hall that will include a gymnasium; the
Planning Commission recommended to the City Council approval of a height exception to
Staff Report
Sacred Heart Master Plan
CUP 04-13
Page 2
March 24, 2005
allow the 35-foot high parish hall/gymnasium to exceed the Planned Residential zone's 24
foot height limit in order to accommodate a 22-foot minimum interior ceiling height for
recreational activities such as basketball and to allow the building to have a gable roof to
match the existing church sanctuary building, (3) construction of new parking lots to
provide 158 additional parking spaces, and (4) construction of new sports fields.
Appeal by Thomas W. McCutchen: On February 28, 2005, Mr. Thomas W. McCutchen,
a homeowner in the Palmira subdivision and President of the Palmira Homeowner's
Association, filed an appeal (copy attached).
Supplemental Traffic Analysis: A supplemental traffic analysis is being prepared by
George Dunn Engineering that will include conducting traffic counts at intersections in the
vicinity of the project site in March 2005. The traffic counts will be done a Sunday
morning and on two weekday mornings. The reason for the supplemental traffic analysis
is to obtain traffic counts during the winter season when there is an increase in the
number of people attending worship services at Sacred Heart Church. The project traffic
study that was completed in January 2005 relied on traffic counts taken in late September
2004. The traffic engineer added 25% to the traffic counts to account for an increase in
vehicle trips attributable to winter residents (snowbirds) that attend Sacred Heart Church.
Continuance of Appeal Public Hearing Requested: Father Howard Lincoln of Sacred
Heart Catholic Church has submitted a letter (copy attached) requesting that the City
Council continue the public hearing from March 24, 2005 to April 14, 2005 to allow time
for the supplemental traffic analysis to be completed. Another reason for the request is
that Father Lincoln has a prior commitment to conduct a 6:00 p.m. mass on March 24,
2005 that will not allow him to attend the City Council meeting past 5:45 p.m.
Submitted by: / De artment Head:
4rancisco J. U ina Philip Drell
Associate Planner Director of Community Development
Approval,
H` nYof Croy V X
Assistant City Gager for Development Services
Carlos L.r
City Mana
CITY 01 P 0 1 M 0 1 S I R T
73-510 FRED WARINC DRlvt
PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 9226o-2578
TEL: 760 346-o61 1
FAX:76o .341-7098
�n(o4palm-dtserr org
CITY OF PALM DESERT
LEGAL NOTICE &
NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
CASE NO. CUP 04-13
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert City Council to
consider an appeal by Thomas W. McCutchen of the Planning Commission's approval of CUP 04-13, a
request by THE ROMAN CATHOLIC BISHOP OF SAN BERNARDINO for approval of a Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact and a master plan for the Sacred Heart Church and Elementary
School which proposes (1) construction of eight new classrooms which will allow an increase in the
number of students from 450 to 540 (90 additional students), (2) construction of a 17,590 square foot
parish hall that will include a gymnasium; a height exception is being requested to allow the 35-foot
high parish hall/gymnasium to exceed the Planned Residential zone's 24 foot height limit in order to
accommodate a 22-foot minimum interior ceiling height for recreational activities such as basketball
and to allow the building to have a gable roof to match the existing church sanctuary building, (3)
construction of new parking lots to provide 158 additional parking spaces, and (4) construction of new
sports fields. The implementation of an off -site traffic mitigation measure will also be considered,
which includes creating an exit opening from the Palmira subdivision onto Moss Rose Drive. The
project site is located at 43-775 Deep Canyon Road.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City of Palm Desert has completed an Initial Study of the project in
accordance with the City's guidelines implementing the California Environmental Quality Act. On the
basis of such Initial Study, the City's Staff has concluded that the project will not have a significant effect
on the environment, and has therefore prepared a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration.
I I II I IIII I II I I41II II I I I I I I I II i4An,Aii/\�11'nis��
SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday March 24, 2005, at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber at
the Palm Desert Civic Center, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and
place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Written comments concerning all items
covered by this public hearing notice shall be accepted up to the date of the hearing. Information
concerning the proposed project and/or negative declaration is available for review in the Department of
Community Development at the above address between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. Monday
through Friday. If you challenge the proposed actions in court, you may be limited to raising only those
issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City Council at, or prior to, the public hearing.
PUBLISH: Desert Sun RACHELLE KLASSEN, Secretary
March 4, 2005 Palm Desert City Council
CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIfI$R1WA sEOFFICE
PA
LM DESERT, CA
APPLICATION TO AP�Wa PM 2:38
DECISION OF THE
(Name of Determining Body)
Case No. (-'A,V 04 - 13
9 l a nn i r,-� cz(nvn.t s 510 r)
Date of Decision: a-% 151 U �
Name of Appellant /OmAS kl, Ale- 01 e- Act Phone 773~ 3 7 73V
Address .-:24 l/,C� c_-udO Azc, ,vest'-�-1
Description of
Application or Matter Considered: C P -6aC.5 r� r,rrP �, N-Pwt Uu,vi,c K ecy& SCyvoc7j
(�lGcsfier 9lan 4xcQP+tool ltnGQ,cc� h� ht voeri2�nc 1
_ 5
Reason for Appeal (attach additional sheets if necessary):
5e e 4-a-a .c t e.
zu. AZ5��
(Signature of Appellant)
FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY
Date Appeal Filed: Fee Received:, 1 ��
t
Treasurer's Receipt No. �ol S Received by: ��
Date of Consideration by City Council or City Official: <--i {� A
Action Taken:
Date:
Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk
C0PYTO�'
H'Jkiassen\WPoata\WPDOCS'�FORMS',appi to appeal wpd DATE Rev 6129102
�ir�MAS to. /(c Cac. rc 4-
Basis for appeal of Planning Commission Case Number CUP 04-013
1. The proposed location of the conditional use is not in accord with the objectives
of this title and the purpose of the district in which the site is located for a number
of reasons, including, but not limited to, the height variance required for the
parish hall, which variance may be included in a CUP but which does not meet
the criteria in Section 25.78 and which never was noticed.
2. That the proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which
it would be operated or maintained will be detrimental to the public health, safety,
or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the
vicinity, specifically because but not limited to the following:
• The traffic study prepared is inadequate and fails to take into account
the actual traffic counts;
• The conditions proposed do not deal appropriately with points of
ingress and egress, which should not be off of Deep Canyon, a Class C
roadway; that turn around cannot occur on private property; that the
amount of traffic generated by the church now — without any
improvements — creates a nuisance and traffic hazard as proven by
pictures and traffic reports; that the present situation and the
improvements violate UFC requirements;
• That the Planning Commission has given no consideration to
conditions which insure compatibility of use with surrounding
developments;
• That the Planning Commission has discriminated in favor of Catholics
(and against Jews and others) in approving this CUP and specifically
the alleged height variance;
• That the Planning Commission has failed to address traffic circulation;
• That the Planning Commission/staff failed to respond to comments on
the mitigated negative declaration because the comment period closed
approximately one or two hours before the hearing on this matter;
• That the mitigated negative declaration is insufficient given the
magnitude of this project, the demolition involved, and the severe
traffic impacts which have not been mitigated; coupled with
substantial public controversy, the project therefore requires an EIR.
• Parking on grass violates City Code without a specific variance and
PM-10 ordinances.
3. The proposed conditional use is not in compliance with all of the applicable
provisions of the Municipal Code, because the current operation of the church is
not in compliance with the Code as to parking and the proposed use would require
a substantial parking variance that has not been addressed.
4. The proposed conditional use is not in compliance with the goals, objectives, and
policies of the city's general plan, zoning or other planning guidelines for the
area.
THOMAS W. McCUTCHEN
24 Via Cielo Azul
Palm Desert, CA 92260
(760) 773-3774
C
=-,
>�
February 28.2005co mac
v,�r
m
To: City Clerk :�ov
City of Palm Desert
O 2y n
Re: Request for Special Notice re:
Please provide me with special notice of any hearing or meeting of any kind regarding
the above referenced matter.
Please let me know immediately when such materials are available and I will pick them
up to save delay in mailing time. You can reach me at the phone number listed above.
Thank you for your consideration.
Thomas W. McCutchen
�► illll ��� illlli �� Sacred Heart Church
II !I
43-775 Deep Canyon Road - Palm Desert, California 92260 - (760) 346-6502 - Fax: (760) 773-4873
I
RECEIVED
March 9, 2005
City Council Members
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Honorable City Council Members:
MAR 1 ,1 2005
COMMUNITY DEVELOPME:J DEPARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
Sacred Heart Church is scheduled to appear before the City Council on
March 24, 2005 in response to an appeal of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission approval of CUP 04-13, filed by Mr. Thomas W. McCutchen.
I am respectfully requesting a continuance for our appearance to the
next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Thursday, April 14,
2005. I am requesting a continuance as March 24 is Holy Thursday and
I am scheduled to celebrate Mass at 6:00 and 7:30 p.m. and understand
that early placement on the council agenda can not be guaranteed. In
addition, as requested by city staff, we are preparing a supplemental
traffic analysis which upon completion needs to be reviewed by city staff
prior to presentation at the council meeting.
Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
Fr. ow d"A:`41co n
Pastor
HAL/ tt
n .. w corrnri�norr naimrt ocn rt rr�m
TO: PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION
FROM: Norman Eastwood
74474 Myrsine Avenue
Palm Desert, Ca. 92260
DATE: March 21, 2005
SUBJECT: PROTEST BUILDING EXPANSION AT 43-775 Deep Canyon Road
Re: Case #CUP 04-13
The request by Sacred Heart Church to expand their private school facilities with a 35
feet -Parish hall and school gymnasium is not reasonable zoning. The area surrounding
the proposed school is a single -story home community. The building code restricts
buildings higher than 24 feet. My family and I reside in this area and appreciate the
uniformity and beauty of laws that protect the value of our property and community.
I believe that the City Council and Planning Commission has an obligation to protect the
residents against aggressive building requests that exceed the building codes. These
codes were designed to ensure privacy, uniformity and establish comfortable living
standards that will protect property values and security.
The Elementary and Middle Schools in this same area are built according to the building
codes and reflect the community standards of single -story dwellings. These schools
mentioned have at least isolated themselves from resident's back yards and are located on
individual streets, surrounding the schools.
The proposed construction of an additional eight new classrooms for ninety more
students doesn't seem logical. Why so many for this number of students? This is eleven
students per room.
Please consider this proposal very carefully, especially when it interferes with the present
building codes and environmental uniformity and equanimity. I believe the requests for
this project should be reevaluated to conform to the laws and codes governing this city.
I absolutely believe this request for expansion (by removing residential buildings) as well
as expanding beyond the legal building codes limits should be DENIED.
In addition, the traffic problems are enormous. One possible mitigation to the traffic
issues created is to divert all private school and Church traffic to the current entrance and
exit on Fred Waring. o
Respectfully,
!V �
Norman Eastwood
�c
:70o - 47y_03 o8 R.
r1
M
q r*� C,
to=M
cn 7c ---
M (; -<
M
Sao
n T
r*t
i Ilj jl�
i ! Sacred Heart Church
I! 43-775 Deep Canyon Road • Palm Desert, California 92260 • (760) 346-6502 •
I
Fax: (760) 773-4873
III
CEIVED
N
C:
-V-=t
�
MAR 1 q 2m
3W.3
r-�
r-
�
��
rn x Crj
COMMUNITY DEV L'OPME. DEPARTMENT
-o
rrnn;K
CITY OF PALM DESERT
March 24, 2005
a
N
-aov
N
nT
O
> n
O
m
City Council Members
City of Palm Desert
73-510 Fred Waring Drive
Palm Desert, CA 92260
Honorable City Council Members:
Sacred Heart Church is scheduled to appear before the City Council on
March 24, 2005 in response to an appeal of the Palm Desert Planning
Commission approval of CUP 04-13, filed by Mr. Thomas W. McCutchen.
I am respectfully requesting a continuance for our appearance to the
next regularly scheduled City Council meeting on Thursday, April 28,
2005. I am requesting a continuance as March 24 is Holy Thursday and
I am scheduled to celebrate Mass at 6:00 and 7:30 p.m. and understand
that early placement on the council agenda can not be guaranteed. In
addition, as requested by city staff, we are preparing a supplemental
traffic analysis which upon completion needs to be reviewed by city staff
prior to presentation at the council meeting.
Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely yours in Christ,
l.'�l' L r. � L'L1 L4.�
Fr. Howard'ld4 coin
Pastor
HAL/ tt
,.vw e.sacredheartpahndesert.corn
r
PFCEIYED
CITY CLERK'S OFFICE
March 21, 2005 PALM DESERT, CA
To: Palm Desert City Council 2005 MAR 24 PM 12: 01
For: March 24, 2005 Public Hearing
Re: CUP 04-13, Sacred Heart Church expansion.
Hello, my name is Jim Lyall. I live at 31 Via Cielo Azul, Palm
Desert. I'm a retired Fire Chief from Los Angeles County Fire
Department. I've been a full time Palm Desert resident for the
past 5 '/Z years. My home is located in the Palmira Estates, East
of Sacred Heart Church and Elementary School. I have a
beautiful view of the Santa Rosa Mountains and Mount San
Jacinto. When the Church planned to expand the Elementary
School, I thought there would be more traffic and more
parking problems. But, hopefully those issues would be taken
care of during the planning process. I heard about a 24' high
parish hall/ gymnasium and saw where it was to be located,
directly west of my home. I started to get concerned that the
property was too small for this kind of expansion. I've raised
my family in the Catholic Religion. I'm for good parochial
education and after school activities. I've always tried to be an
understanding person, throughout my career. I know that
change is going to happen. But, I was hopeful that I would
have some view with a 24' high building across the street. At
the February 15 Planning Commission meeting, they decided
the parish hall/gymnasium could be 35' in height, instead of
the originally proposed 24' high building. This will eliminate
any view of the mountains for me. The only reason given to
add 11' in height to the building was so it would look like the
Church's roof and K to 8 grades could play sports inside.
There are many different types of roofs on the property now.
Why does this building have to have a roof like the Church? K
to 8 grades could play sports in a 24' building a few months
ago. Why does the height of the building have to change now?
This is not a High School or College gymnasium. This is a
building for K to 8 grade sports.
March 21, 2005
To: Palm Desert City Council
For: March 24, 2005 Public Hearing
Re: CUP 04-13, Sacred Heart Church expansion.
If the regulation is 24' high buildings in residential areas, why
allow 35' high buildings? Building and Fire Codes are designed
to be enforced on all buildings. Exceptions can certainly be
made and also, stricter requirements can be imposed. But, if
there is not good justification the Codes have lost their
intended use. Precedents will be set throughout the city. I don't
want a 3 story building across the street from my home, just so
it will match the Church's roof. Next, it will be a 45' high
building? I sincerely hope that you can take the concerns of a
Palm Desert resident under consideration. In the last 5 V2 years
the beautification of the city has been outstanding, due to
enforcement of the Codes. Palm Desert is a wonderful place to
live. Please, let's keep it that way.
Thank you for the opportunity to express my opinion.
James R. Lyall
av
24 March 2005
Norman Eastwood
77474 Myrsine Ave, Palm Desert, Ca 92260
760-674-0308
Occupation: Engineer
Neighborhood resident
Subject: Comments on proposed expansion of Sacred Heart School facility
Introduction
Purpose
Documents
Traffic study
Environmental study
Five Year Plan
History
Comparison
City Planning
Conditional User
Residential Neighborhood
Summary
PURPOSE:
My purpose in being here this evening is to further alert you to a deep-rooted major
problem that exists in this residential community of homes where I Iive. The problem
cannot be passed over lightly. Palm Desert is a beautiful desert city, but a major issue for
the local residents has surfaced regarding the Sacred Heart Church and School.
i will not attempt in three minutes to present a solution, but I do want to bring this
problem to the surface, so that you are aware of the depth of this issue. I am speaking of
the expansion of the private Sacred Heart School located at Fred Waring and Deep
Canyon and the problems it will cause.
I believe this is a complicated issue that cannot be resolved by temporary measures,
but needs further study and planning by an appointed committee of community owner -
residents and the City. Along with this study, a five-year plan is recommended for the
future.
When I began a preliminary study concerning Sacred Heart Church and School, I
thought the issue was simply a matter of disregard for established building codes. The
Proposed height of 35 feet does not meet the standard building code of 24 feet. This
addition in height would severly impact the mountain views that we have come to
appreciate and love as a given in our desert community. Also, since only single -level
homes dominate our area, a three-story structure would not be compatible and would
negate the beauty and uniformity of this community.
But, the problems involved do not stop at code compliance, there is much more.
Let me simply state some the issues:
The traffic study is completely flawed, as you are aware. Incidentally, last Sunday
morning, I made the mistake of driving down Deep Canyon to go to Albertson's.
A. Traffic was at a total standstill. Total GRIDLOCK.
B. Traffic was being directed by inexperienced personnel who were
hopelessly trying and failing to manage the traffic.
C. Electric carts were trying to drive up and down Deep Canyon to transport
church members.
2. 1 went to the City Planning Office to read the Environment Report, and in my
opinion, found it to be seriously flawed, and did not accurately represent the
environmental conditions. I recommend that this report be reinvestigated,
reviewed and revised to accurately represent the environment.
3. I recommend that a planning report be initiated to cover the next five years of
growth in our community. Having a five-year plan is extremely important, and
should be done, as you well know, for without this, we do not know what future
plans are for Sacred Heart private school.
I requested the proposed site plan from the Planning Office and the current site plan, so
that I could compare what was really being done.
The simplified summary of this is as follows:
1. The site was composed of a physical school and church structure and a resident
area composed of eighteen (18) residential units.
2. The school has obtained two residences on Primrose and one owner had refused to
sell and is surrounded by block walls.
A major issue had occurred with traffic on Primrose and was patched up by closing
entrance and exits on Primrose and directing traffic to Fred Waring and Deep Canyon.
This temporary patch lasted for a short time until it exploded on Deep Canyon.
The current proposed expansion of the school will demolish eighteen (18) residential
units. demolish does not mean sell, it means these residential units will be bulldozed
away and disappear forever. I do not believe that the destruction of residential properties
is in accordance with culture and nature of the neighborhood.
If you look at the expansion of this facility, you will observe that it involves
acquisition and demolition of residential homes.
I also reviewed the Building Codes for residential and conditional users. I believe that
there are further code violations in the expansion of the proposed facility, which have not
been disclosed.
SUMMARY:
1. A major problem exists with the expansion of this facility that cannot be fixed
with temporary measures. The problems are deep-rooted. 97% of the users at this
facility do not reside in this local community.
2. Building code violations should be treated seriously, disclosed and not grossed
over. The intended purpose of these codes is to preserve the condition of a
residential neighborhood.
3. The current request for the expansion of the facility needs extensive study and any
building construction efforts should not be permitted at this time.
SUGGESTION:
The City Council needs to consider implementing a residents commission to protect
the residents rights in this conditional use expansion and to review expansion documents
and requirements, as I believe that the effects on the local residents of this community
have not been adequately considered.
Thank You.
Respectfully submitted
Norman Eastwood
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
CITY OF PALM DESERT
I FOR
Exwnfig SACRED HEART
Gubha
CATHOLIC CHURCH
PALYILLA
Existing K-8 SchoolORCLE
gg z
EXISTING IXISTING l u`d IXISTING IXISTING I ] BUSTING IXOUSTING
G57ING
RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL I RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL I RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTW. RESIDENTIAL l - ! y -'•" - ' " I I' ;
-LOR�ME VEM
\`- -----__---- -___-- -�_= \-_ ------------�'--h------ -- -� / ~ r .--- .-. EXISTING SIDE _
1 l'1 I� ( _ - '• - MIAL - --_�_
_—T �4�1r
T_-J -
_ -- ----- ".`rvuile ---- - _ ------ ` - _------- --- ---L ----- -T-- - -
i
-- ..— — — L �- I
..w _ �'— _
' T - I I C I L la� I I III I p II I I U II II I� ff. SIREN I II
it I, �I I EXISTING' I i I I I L S1I 77N � ••
RESIDENTAL __-___}f�p`�
1 I r �.^ "•y xi 1
I� li ' �rI II II T 'I 1 E
- iL JP
-�TI�I J I , I r`,, I,:I�I1II. ; I''l;i�;I; �.I-I .I /' ,__I',:;� , 9 IUI _-I0 li�'�g�lil _��J�IIlIL'�.!�fp�lliILiI�I'�I1'iI 'G III ,fiil J6.I '1If I ,I +_II;II ICIli, `�I ��6J i U1 I LI% JiI,I� I_ Ip�ILi , .IrLiItliIII IIii VI _VI, wJiIlLi i' ti uui �I I. iif' �IIfII lIII'I ' - � .I,III 'SrI� _Ji!-;•�'ti�I�
:�!Is.Im• i0i I;Inng �arskI'LIi i4n�IEo; g,xsAurrs�-I"ea!'IIInI'L�B��.Tl� : ---- /�i* ' 1�IIII -,I � " ,_• .' '�� '
—+ -
----------
Lll r IIJ !I I
t IIp U I u : I I
: , \ Existing Condominlu
LJ,4111 G Oki
Existing Parking Area A:
Existing O
iv.i—� _11=---_---------_
EMOngPlayg,oundxist
•.-` ic; `,`�I
r -
'
t
i
rI
-
---�-- ---------- - -
"--rII-ILLi •.I I ,I ' g '\\ •'i I'i- `�;t• �' ���` . .. i I° , \ -
! LII�II i�IT IIL. �' l�I''I- Iri I min
I. ) L I III a .I .I I i�- •�.�•:iL•,� II"' \ r..�' , 1 >.�;
"i
FL
TI -- - - ---_ = -- — _-- ---- --- --- _----------—=--------- _ - — —-------- __ — -- ---'------- - _ —
ExisbngEnhy/Ext - --- I — -.- - —�
DEEP- - --CAAAW�. —i49-
-- ---- --- - _ -- - — _ _ — — -- - — --
EXISTING PLAN RECEIVE D
■ V Ia 0 w�O w so
DUU LY 1, 2bW
HOLT ARCHITECTS
ARCHITECTURE AND PLANNING
PS100
MAR 4'+ 2005
COMMUNITY DE.VELOI'MbT 11FNARTMENT
CITY OF PALM DESERT