Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPP-CUP-EA-CZ 16-280 - Correspondence 03-22-2018DPALM DL RKI S�OFFIC DE5fR T F nio MAR 14 PN 1: 57 Date: March 14, 2018 To: City of Palm Desert Mayor: Sabby Jonathan City of Palm Desert City Council: Susan Marie Webber, Jan Harnik, Kathleen Kelly, Gina Nestande City of Palm Community Development Department: From: Jack and Marilyn Forney Subject: PD Golf Operations, LLC plans To construct 69 Condominiums on 30 acres of the Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Executive Course, requiring associated infrastructure construction in the same development and zone change request. We are writing to register the strongest possible objection to the proposed development plans of PD Golf Operations LLC . Opening Statement: The Palm Desert Country Club and family style atmosphere should prevail for one important reason; Located as it is in a first rate residential district that can serve as an inducement to home owning thereabouts because of the existing open space. The heart of our community would be torn out, by the proposed development resulting in environmental degradation, intensifying segregation, the expansion of community without concern for its consequences and undermining the vitality of our existing PDCC Community. LIST OF CONSTRUCTION OBJECTIONS AND IMPORTANT CONCERNS We recognize that every business is entitled to be successful, and it is the business owner's responsibility for success not surrounding property owners. In lieu of total closure, total blight, loss of adjacent property values and development there are other viable solutions such as neighborhood parks, preserve open space to provide an important community resource for social and recreational activities, etc. The PDCC proposed development is a planned development without regard to it's surrounding area. In practice, zoning is used to prevent new development from interfering with existing uses and/or to preserve the "character ofa community". Most importantly, zoning gives the community some control over its land uses, appearance, and quality of life in the future. The city's primary concern should be with protecting the interests of the existing residents who are directly impacted. In any case fairness is of prime importance, these facts are significant enough by themselves for the city to deny PDCC ownership a zone change and development on the Executive Course. We were told by one City Official that the 188 affected residents needed to learn to accept change and the possible rehabilitation of the Former Executive Course, well that is nice in theory, but what if it were you and your home were forced to live next to a blight condition , your property was devalued because of the blight, the elimination ofa golf course you paid a premium price to live next to and being pressured into accepting a proposed development you know is not right ,wouldn't the meaning ofa just society depend, then, on the PD City Council acting on your behalf. The proposed development is located in a predominantly residential area where occupiers could expect a level of amenity concurrent with the property. The use of the property that has the design ofa beat -up old train car that has been converted into a modern sorts ofa Condominium site introduces a diverse element that by reasons of the use is likely to result in noise, disturbance, nuisance and vehicular emission pollution to the detriment of neighbor's residential amenity, health and well-being. The internal circulation is isolated, with only one entrance, or otherwise connected with the rest of the community in few ways resulting in the site not meshing well with the greater community causing Residential Segregation. The site access proposals are not in accordance with acceptable standards and would lead to potential safety hazards. The proposals for internal circulation within the site are unacceptable and will create conflicts between pedestrians, cyclists, disabled people, adjacent properties and vehicular movements thereby creating a safety hazard. The proposed circulation is within 13-16 ft. of adjacent property lines. Our homes(Lusk Development) were built with the back yards in the front and the front yards in the back, reason being that we purchased a home abutting a golf course and to have the golf course view and mountain views. The proposed development's internal access is one way and is crammed up against one side of the development within 13-16 ft of our rear property lines. Our bedrooms, living rooms and dining rooms are on this side and night and day will be exposed to sounds of traffic and pollution. The proposed 2 retaining walls asummed to protect adjacent properties from off the road vehicular traffic, in itself says the internal flow is of the development is DANGEROUS. Repeated requests to move the road access at least 34ft away from existing property lines has fallen on deaf ears. Use original proposed Internal Circulation!!! See Attachment One point which is controversial is the relevance in planning terms of the loss of a view. It is often said that "there is no right to a view". While that maybe correct in strictly legal terms, it does not mean that the loss ofa view is necessarily irrelevant to planning. This proposed development's obstruction of our scenic views would be like the selling of an upstairs and moving into the basement, living in a perpetual blind shadow. The enjoyment ofa view is an important part of the residential. amenity to a neighboring property, and its loss will therefore have an adverse impact on the residential amenity of that property. Loss of a view from a public standpoint will also have a wider financial impact on a neighborhood, and such matters should to be taken into account where they are raised. The City of Palm Desert's Precise Plan Application States, "Site planning shall occur in a manner that minimizes (smallest degree) obstruction of scenic views from adjacent properties". This development does not meet the minimize definition. Walls and Fencing: Many adjacent properties have permanent fencing on their property lines. Proposed Chain Link Fence/Block Wall Perimeter Wall, 2 Retaining Walls will create a 4 wall situation in Section B of the proposed development. Additionally there are Headlight Walls, Screening Walls.Why would a development need to be enclosed by so many different sections of walls? Architectural Error? Example: Section B of the proposed development: 1. Permanent block wall on adjacent properties. 2. Proposed perimeter wall. 3. First retaining wall below proposed perimeter wall 4 feet plus high 660 ft long running from lot 203-191. 4. Second retaining wall adjacent to first retaining wall 630 feet long running from lot 203-191 (See Attachment). We are asking for relief from any perimeter wall or retaining walls on section B of the proposed development. See Attachment. The proposed Retention basins pose risks of safety, and welfare. There is no proposed fencing around the Retention Basins. Failure to address the safety risks caused by these basins could and, more than likely will lead to more water -related child personal injuries or death. The public is effectively invited to spend time near basin facilities because they are located in parks, along bike trails, walking paths, next to playgrounds, etc., yet the applicant fails to recognize that frequent use will occur, and public safety has clearly not been a specific design objective. Do Retention Basins affect the value of your home and the ability to sell your home? First question would be to ask why are they there in the first place? Why Grading is a Concern: The Precise Plan Application states "Site planning shall be compatible with existing terrain" This development does not meet the site planning standard. The Executive Course is characterized by gentle mounds , slopes, dips and hunkers which will be destroyed by the grading for the proposed development Newly exposed soil can erode easily, If soil placed under a building is not dense enough or if the density varies too much, the building may settle and suffer damage. Excessive grading causes loss of natural vegetation and damages other natural resources for years to come. Even minor grading can change the way water drains across ones property, which can cause erosion problems for adjacent property owners. PDCC Executive Course has already suffered extensive grading by past ownership's. Previous ownership's whose grading of the Executive Course created a ground disturbance which initiated the disturbance of Fire Ants to surface. It has taken almost 10 years to get the disturbance of Fire Ants under control. Unlike other insects that sting only once, one fire ant can sting multiple times, which makes this pest particularly dangerous to small children and pets. Termites have become a prominent issue with past grading. With the current design concept, of a 24 wide access roadway, roundabout, 6ft perimeter walls, chain link fence , retaining walls, retention basins filled with decomposed granite, 8ft. wide cart path, Oft. walking path, driveways, parking spaces, commercial stepping stones/pavers, structures of lath and plaster, screening walls, headlight walls, patios, swimming pools, pickle ball court and etc. this project has become a design of unbreathable type concrete products crammed into a cluster design in area to small for it s design as well as any substance that people introduce into the atmosphere that has a damaging effects on living things and the environment is considered air pollution...The Precise Plan Application states, "Site planning shall occur in a manner in which asphalt or concrete is minimized",this proposed development does not meet the standard. Where is the 49% open space?9999 The proposed development does not meet the City of Palm Desert General Plan under Allowed Land Use, Section 3.20 which states " Neighborhood preservation. Preserve and enhance the character of existing residential neighborhoods". Multi family unites are allowed on a limited basis, primarily along corridors. The proposed development is crammed between two single family residential streets. The rezoning of open space is anathema to us. To rehabilitate 30 acres of the PDCC Executive Course to a Development of 69 condos will erase the past of the PDCC Community and without the past there is no future. Open Space is a precious commodity, once it is built on it is gone forever. Palm Desert County Club ownership has set us on a path towards Tess less open space and more sprawl." Jack and Marilyn Forney 76831 Kentucky Ave. Palm Desert, California Section B Lot 199 cc: Eric Ceja Principal Planner Attachment: Section B Lot 199 PROPOSED PERIMETER WALL & RETAINING WALLS. ORIGINAL PROPOSED INTERNAL CIRCULATIION •• b • • • Po id aPq4'11 t moo r� f U I a r 0 -.j (40Z1,69 AA xa ■ . a '-+--11- •- -•--* s-- • . • y-•-1-y--s i • 7▪ .3 n 0 — — ea ae 0 1+ m z C a 1 7 2 i• • .. • 1 • = • a x. CO Le • • t 1 ,I1 I, �# ram• ': • J1� 1 -1 * I-,_ I +r 1— r EED CITY CLERKS OFFICE PALM DESERT. Ct, nil MAR 14 pH 7: 57 RESUBMITTED TO CITY OF PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL MARCH 22, 2018 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 14, 2017 FROM MARILYN FORNEY 76831 KENTUCKY AVE. PALM DESERT, CA. TOPIC PDCC PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT "SCENIC VIEW" "STRUCTURE OBSTRUCTIONS" t GOOD AFTERNOON, MY NAME IS MARILYN FORNEY, MY ADDRESS 76831 KENTUCKY AVE, PALM DESERT. MY HOME ABUTTS THE CLOSED EXECUTIVE COURSE , MY HOME ADJOINS SECTION B OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. MY NEIGHBOR GERRY SCHLITZ AT 76845 KENTUCKY AVE., WILL BE HELPING ME. I PRESENTED A COPY OF MY PRESENTATION TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY FOR THE COMISSION PANEL AND STAFF MEMBERS. I WILL BE BE SPEAKING WITH REGARD TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES OBSTRUCTING OUR SECENIC VIEWS OF THE SANTA ROSA MOUTAINS TO THE SOUTH OF OUR HOMES , THEY ARE THE MOST PROMINENT AND WILL BE THE MOST VISUALLY IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. OUR SCENIC VIEWS ARE JUST AS BEAUTIFUL AND COMPELLING AS THE MOUNTAIN RANGE IN THE MURAL ON THE WALL BEHIND YOU. THESE MOUNTAINS ARE 3.4 MILES FROM OUR HOMES AND THE BASE OF THE MOUNTAINS CAN BE REACHED IN 7 MINUTES, 5O THEY ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY. WE CONTACTED THE PALM DESERT PLANNING DEPT. AND ASKED FOR THE DISTANCE FROM OUR REAR PROPERTY LINE TO THE CLOSEST STRUCTURE TO BE BUILT AND WERE TOLD 60 FEET. I CONSTRUCTED A POLE 18 FEET 4 INCHES HIGH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED UNITS AND ATTACHED MARKERS AT THE 18 FEET 4 INCH, 15 FEET 6 INCH AND 12 FOOT LEVELS WHICH ARE PROPOSED HEIGHT LEVELS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURES. WE PLACED THE POLE 60 FEET FROM OUR REAR PROPERTY LINES TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED GRADING AND RECORDED THE OBSTRUCTION OF OUR VIEWS WITH PICTURES DISPLAYED HERE. A GRAPHIC EXAMPLE CAN BE DISPLAYED BY PLACING THIS RENDERING OF A COMPLETED UNIT AT THE VARIOUS LEVELS ON THE PHOTOS UNDER OBSTRUCTED VIEWS AND THE RESULTS REFLECT A VIVID OBSTRUCTION OF OUR SCENIC VIEWS. OUR VIEW AT THE 12 FOOT LEVEL WAS OBSTRUCTED 65.2 %, AT THE 15 FOOT 6 INCH LEVEL OUR VIEW WAS OBSTRUCTED 84.4% AND AT THE 18 FOOT 4 INCH LEVEL OUR VIEW WAS OBSTRUCTED 100%. THE GRAPHIC CAN BE PLACED ON ANY ONE OF OBSTRUTED PHOTOS AND THE OUTCOME WOULD BE THE SAME. THIS SAME SCENARIO COULD BE APPLICABLE TO SECTIONS A AND C OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. GENERALLY HOMEOWNERS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO A VIEW UNLESS IT HAS BEEN GRANTED IN WRITING BY A LOCAL ORDINANCE, DEED RESTRICTION OR SUBDIVISION RULE. UNFORTUNATELY WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OF THESE. WHAT WE DO HAVE IS A PROTECTION OF OUR SCENIC VIEW UNDER THE PRECISE APPLICATION PLAN WHICH EACH NEW PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MUST COMPLETE, SUBMIT TO THE CITY AND IS REVIEWED BY THIS COMMISSION FOR IT'S CONFORMANCE TO THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. PRECISE APPLICATION PLAN ARTICLE 5 THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: SECTION B: SITE PLANNING STANDARDS NUMBER ONE STATES: SITE PLANNING SHALL OCCUR IN A MANNER THAT MINIMIZES OBSTRUCTION OF SCENIC VIEWS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES. DEFINITION OF MINIMIZE IS TO REDUCE TO THE SMALLEST AMOUNT OR DEGREE. THIS PROPOSED PROJECT MAXIMIZES OBSTRUCTION OF OUR SCENIC VIEWS AS REFLECTED IN THE PHOTOS PRESENTED HERE. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS NO VISUAL OBSTRUCTION BY LOCAL RESIDENTAL DEVELOPMENT AS REFLECTED IN THE PHOTOS PRESENTED HERE. I AM ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO RETURN THE PRECISE APPLICATION PLAN BACK TO THE APPLICANT MARKED "UNACCEPTALBE" BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME! Marilyn Forney If pools can be lowered 30 in. so can pad elevations. EXISTING VIEWS i MNIIMMININIIMMMMIMai ;SM!ei OBSTRUCTED VIEWS I CONSTRUCTED A POLE 18 FEET 4 INCHES HIGH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED UNITS AND ATTACHED MARKERS AT THE 18 FEET 4 INCH, 15 FEET 6 INCH AND 12 FOOT LEVELS. WE PLACED THE POLE 60 FEET FROM OUR REAR PROPERTY LINES TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED GRADING AND RECORDED THE OBSTRUCTION OF OUR VIEWS WITH PICTURES DISPLAYED HERE. OUR VIEW AT THE 12 FOOT LEVEL WAS OBSTRUCTED 65.2 %, AT THE 15 FOOT 6 INCH LEVEL OUR VIEW WAS OBSTRUCTED 84.4% AND AT THE 18 FOOT 4 INCH LEVEL OUR VIEW WAS OBSTRUCTED 1OWYo. r WILD LIFE RUFUSE, HOME TO MANY SPECIES WINTERING CANADIAN GEESE HAVE FOUND THEIR • VACATION SPOT, YEAR AFTER YEAR. 1Prie WE HAVE OBSERVED MANY DIFFERENT SPECIES OF WILD LIFE, THIS INCLUDES, VARIOUS SPECIES OF BIRDS, ,GEESE, HAWKS, DUCKS, COYOTES, SNAKES, MICE, BUGS AND BUTTERFLIES. AFTER THE STORM OF JULY , 2016 ..YOU WOULD THINK MOST OFTHE TREES THAT WERE DESTROYED WOULD HAVE AN AFFECT ON WILD LIFE. YOU WOULD THINK THEY WOULD AVOID OUR AREA. HOWEVER, THE WILD LIFE OUT ON THE OPEN SPACE FLORISH AND WE HAVE SEEN ADDITIONINAL BIRDS THAT HAVE NEVER WINTERED HERE BEFORE. Even though the grass is gone you can still see many species of birds, Owls, Doves, Hummingbirds and this year (2017) swallows. aUZ CC v Coyotes (The night before Trash Day) as current as March, 2017 . Lady bugs, butterflies and moths. W41IMMVYANI40 N. a ri 2 . . t -4 u) ci cc co L) ...5 co rr- ›- < N LL ‘Q 0 4 Jn W V ce _ D nC � < W Z W D v.) U W w W X �7 W op 1 MOCKING BIRDS HAVE ARRIVED r• rV r MI 1 TREE SWALLOWS ACTUALY SITS STILL. HUNDREDS MAY FLY TOGETHER. THEY MAKEAVERY DISTINCT SOUND WHILE FLYING. INFORMATION FROM WIKAPEDIA. P SWALLOWS MARCH Swallows were here for about two weeks. Click to activate the video. They are flying so fast. lir ■_ 0 CO 111400 re) u e co rin isb Z O 0 Li] . cx < (r) I— U < CO Z cCi < Y.] ° X LLJ'1:uJ • I Li] LJJ LI] I- 0 Z Ce I— 0 CO 0 O Zuj CO ce 1-1-1 < D co < IFF \O W 0 w Q > gzL7 OczULUc N O U '� NI IN 12-19-2015 GEESE ARE HERE w 7 ❑ H rn w Z X Q uJ >- • Q O � w < ❑ - LLI re w • Lh J W w U tO7 LLI V) w w (...? 0 r•I (.4 I NI• •M tteill C OM Z 14 ti CO C) CI r 00 emill•M I r ` 0 Z w w ce 0_ O 0 0_ The City owned retention area has grass /weeds coming up. More bike tracks, Human and animal foot prints, fruit in the bottom . WHEN DOES STHE CITY DO MAINTENANCE? 2-15-2017 SAME CONDITION. THE CITY SAYS OUR RENTENTION/DETENTION PLANS WILL BE 1-1/2 T❑ 2 1/2 FEET ❑EEP , WE ARE STILL CONCERNE❑ ABOUT THE NEGATIVE AFFECTS OF ANY OUT BEHIND OUR HOME , ESPECIALLY HAVING 9 BEHIN❑ US. NEGATIVE RESULTS: 1. Property near a retention/detention pond: Trulia, a well known Real Estate Company on line has a question/answer section Regarding this item. HOME BUYING NEAR A RETENTION POND/PRO-CON? ON Trulia , Many negative comments. Problems if there are maintenance concerns. WE WOULD BE CONCERNE❑ BECAUSE THE OWNER DOES NOT EVEN TAKE CARE OF THEIR AREA'S WHERE THEY ADDED ❑ESERT LANDSCAPING AN❑ THE EXECUTIVE COURSE IS A MESS. WE ALWAYS HAVE TO CALL CODE BEFORE ANYTHING IS CLEANED UP. 2. Insects can be a concern as well as mosquitoes, rodents, snakes. FOR THE PAST YEAR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD ❑N KENTUCKY HAS BEEN HAVING A VERY BAD RAT PROBLEM. CODE ,SOCIAL SERVICES AND PROFESSIONAL EXTERMINATORS ARE TRYING TO WORK ON THE PROBLEM. We are talking about 100's of rats. AS TO LANDSCAPING PLANS , NO FRUIT TREES. THEY BREED RAT PROBLEMS. 3. HOUZZ, http://thegardenweb.com/discussion/2584683/would you buy - house -next -to -a -water -easement -detention -pond Strange question: " We want to buy a house and it next to a dry storm water run-off detention pond. My question: Would a large detention pond/be bad for resale value/ Would this deter people from buying this home?. Buyers with kids? Comments will be much appreciated.' Comments: " If the water stayed very long in the retention area I would be concerned about mosquitoes. Even a little bit of water would worry me." "I think that retention areas are huge eyesores, breeding grounds for mosquitoes, along with rodents and snakes plus they never seem t❑ be maintained in older subdivisions." "Who will pay if the area ❑verflows and causes you damage?" "Probably no one. Unless you have flood insurance." 4. REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL/House Close t❑ Detention Basin, on line By Jim Root. "I can only say this about the issue as it pertains to value'and future marketability of the home you are planning to by ❑r sell, in an Appraisal Process, with everything else similar, comparing your proposed home to one that didn't have the detention Basin across the street would find your home to have a lesser value. How much? Only a local Appraiser, through a process called "Paired Sales" can tell you the "Dollar" difference. STO RM WATE RCE NTE R. N ET Paragraph just prior to References "Another economic concern associated with dry ponds is that they may slightly detract from the value of adjacent properties. One study found that dry ponds can actually detract from the perceived value of homes adjacent to a dry pond by between three and ten percent (Emmerling-Dinovo, 1995)" ■ Emmerling-Dinovo,C.1995 Stormwater ❑etention Basins and Residential Location Decisions. Water Resources Bulletin 31 (3) 515-521. 5. Resale should be the biggest concern. OUR EXECUTIVE COURSE HAS ALL READY SUSTAINED A LOSS IN VALUE OF OUR HOMES BECAUSE THE GOLF COURSE HAS BEEN CLOSED. Even the Riverside County Accessor's office said it could be devalued by 10%. 6. Child safety. Children are drawn to these areas to play. WE HAVE SMALL GRAND- CHILDREN AS WELL AS OTHER NEIGHBORS THE FOLLOWING I5 THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE THAT WAS FOUND IN RESEARCH OF RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS. SAFETY OF DETENTION AND RETENTION PONDS By Jonathan E. Jones, James Guo, Ben Urbonas, Rachel Pittinger Jonathan Jones, P.E., is CEO of Wright Water Engineers Inc. in Denver, CO. James Guo, Ph.D., P.E., is a professor in the University of Colorado's Civil Engineering Department. Ben Urbonas, P.E., is manager of the Master Planning Program for the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District in Denver, CO. Rachel Pittinger is a project engineer with Wright Water Engineers in Denver. Introduction Urban stormwater retention and detention ponds are widely used in the United States. Retention ponds, also commonly called wet ponds, refer to facilities that maintain a permanent pool, while detention ponds, often called dry ponds, contain water only in the aftermath of runoff events. Although retention and detention ponds can be effective for stormwater management and flood control, they can also pose risks to public health, safety, and welfare. Urban storm drainage system planners, designers, facility owners, maintenance staff, and municipalities, including their elected officials and governing bodies, must be aware of such risks and insist on the use of recommended techniques to minimize them. Licensed professional engineers should be especially concerned about the risks that their designs may pose and be knowledgeable of design approaches that reduce such risks, given that their paramount responsibility as licensed professionals is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The purposes of this article are to • review safety hazards that can be associated with retention/detention ponds; • discuss techniques that can be used to reduce the risk of such hazards; and • review representative pond safety recommendations and guidance from municipalities. state and federal governments, professional societies, and the general stormwater literature. Although the focus of the article is on wet and dry ponds, many of the issues and recommendations presented here apply to other stormwater facilities, such as best management practices (BMPs), long underground pipes, and culverts (see the discussion of this topic later in the article). Conceptual designs of a typical wet pond and dry pond are provided in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Photographs 1 and 2 show examples of typical facilities. Photo 1: Typical retention pond Photo 2: Typical detention pond Overview Unsafe conditions can occur under both dry and wet weather conditions. These range from readily apparent problems such as outlet pipes that are open (unprotected with trash/safety racks) to less obvious concerns such as outflow pipes that are subject to overwhelming hydrostatic forces due to high headwater depths. A complicating factor is that children are often attracted to stormwater facilities, and this poses special design challenges and risks. For instance, the authors are aware of a case where a dry pond in an office park had a rapid rise, and a child playing in the pond was apparently knocked down by jet flows from an inlet pipe, tumbled by vortex flows, and ultimately dragged into an unprotected outlet pipe by suction forces. These forces were not visible (apparent) when the water depth in the pond covered the pipe entrances and outlet. Although it is not feasible to anticipate every public safety risk, many scenarios are foreseeable and can be accounted for during design. Pond safety issues that do not involve drowning must also be considered. For example, embankment slopes that are too steep can be hazardous to the public and maintenance staff (such as those operating lawnmowers). Another example is high wingwalls or other vertical structures. In the past few years, a serious public health concern that has emerged is related to ponds that create mosquito -breeding habitat due to shallow and stagnant standing water, thus increasing the risk of West Nile virus to the adjacent community. Specific Safety Deficiencies The authors have observed the following safety deficiencies in storage facilities: Outlets are open and unprotected, they lack trash/safety racks, the racks have openings large enough to pose a danger to the public, and/or the racks are too close to the outlet to provide sufficiently slow flow velocities that will not impinge a person against them. Adjacent land uses are incompatible with storage facilities and few, if any, steps have been taken to minimize obvious risks. For example, a nursery school playground without a fence was observed immediately next to a retention pond that had a high concrete wall along one side without a suitable railing. The public is effectively invited to spend time near storage facilities because they are located in parks, along bike trails, next to playgrounds, etc., yet the designers fail to recognize that frequent use will occur, and public safety has clearly not been a specific design objective. Education of community residents, office and industrial park employees, users of multipurpose recreational facilities, etc., regarding pond hazards is not provided. Signs warning the public of rapidly rising floodwaters and associated danger are not posted. Sideslopes of the facility are excessively steep or vertical without suitable safety rails. As a result, it would be very difficult for someone to get out of the pond when water levels are rising. Sideslopes within the pond's permanent pool are too steep, and/or ponds lack "safety benches" around their perimeter. Pond inflow and outflow pipes are directly across from and in close proximity to one another. In this case, a person can be knocked over by the impulse forces (momentum) of inflows and then sucked into and/or pinned against the outlet structure. Pond depths increase very rapidly, and inflow/outflow pipes are quickly inundated and not visible. • Hydraulic structures are designed and constructed in a manner that makes them hazardous. For example, steel bars on grates are not beveled, rounded, or covered, but have sharp ends. Bolts have jagged, exposed ends. Gaps between steel bars and concrete walls are to❑ wide. Railings either are not used where they should be or are improperly designed. • Ponds have a "hard edge" appearance, such as a block or cobblestone vertical wall, immediately adjacent to the water surface drop int❑ a pond that has steep sideslopes, s❑ a person who falls in cannot get out without having to swim. • A variety ❑f problems with spillways have been observed. For example, spillways are undersized. Dams and embankments are not designed to withstand overtopping forces during floods larger than they were designed to detain, despite the presence of homes and businesses in the "dam break" floodplain downstream This is often the result ❑f designers assessing embankment behavior for the deign event, such as the 50-year storm or the 100-year storm, but failing to recognize that larger events can and do occur, and that the consequences of such events have to be considered. • Inadequate maintenance and monitoring ❑ccur, thus leaving the facilities unable to function as designed or intended. For example, when pond outlet structures are fully or partially blocked with debris, the risk of embankment overtopping and failure increases. Orifices in riser pipes that are used to gradually "bleed down" a water -quality design storm typically have small diameters, which leaves them vulnerable to plugging by trash, debris, sediment, algae, etc., unless frequently inspected and maintained. This can lead to prolonged pooling of shallow, stagnant water, which sets the stage for mosquitoes and, potentially, West Nile virus. • ❑ther drainage facilities adjacent t❑ the pond (designed at the same time as the pond) are unsafe, such as channels, drop structures, energy dissipaters, and culverts. The key to reducing the observations described above is careful consideration of risks in the design phase, coupled with regular inspection and maintenance of the pond to ensure that the facility is functioning as intended and that unforeseen hazards have not been created. ❑esign and Operational Techniques to Reduce Risks The following risk -reduction techniques are recommended (see Photographs 3-10 for examples): Photo 3: Detention pond outlet with trash/safety racks Photo 5: Wetland vegetation in pond bottom promotes water -quality enhancement and tends to discourage public access Photo 4: Detention pond with safe outlet, placed midpond, with mild sideslopes and good visibility from office building Photo 6: Limit the use of vertical walls, have mild sideslopes above and below walls, and use railings where appropriate. Photo 7: Retention pond with various safety Photo 8: Fences have pros and cons as a provisions, including mild sideslopes and safety measure; in general, do not rely shallow water around full pond perimeter exclusively on fencing for safety. Photo 9: There is widespread recognition of Photo 10: Trash/safety rack on drop inlet public hazards associated with urban -area pipe at wet pond impoundments and attempts to limit liability. 1. Inform members of the pond design team that promoting public safety is an essential design objective. Raise the subject regularly while the design is progressing. Educate designers to understand that safety can be addressed without significantly increasing costs or disrupting hydraulic function. 2. After a conceptual or preliminary design for the facility has been prepared, review it with the facility owner, municipality, state staff concerned with dam safety (if relevant), and parties charged with its long-term operation/maintenance for potential safety issues. Modify, as necessary, to reduce risks to the public. Pay particular attention to risks to unattended children. Engineers are advised to design storage facilities in concert with a landscape architect, who will often have excellent suggestions for promoting safety (along with techniques to enhance appearance and maintenance). 3. Outlets pose particular risks and merit special attention. Do not use open, unprotected pipes as outlets. Instead, integrate the outlet pipe into an outlet structure that has smaller openings, and/or utilize a sloping trash/safety rack at the pipe entrance. The rack should have a surface area that is many times larger than the surface area of the outlet pipe to reduce entrance velocities (which is necessary to minimize the risk of a person being pinned against the rack) and to ensure that if debris is a factor, at least some of the surface area of the rack will be open during flooding to enable the pond to drain. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in Deriver, CO, has prepared detailed minimum design guidance for pond outlet racks. The rack should be sloped at 3H:IV or milder. A clear opening at the bottom of 9 to 12 inches will permit small debris at lower flows to go through. The bars on the face of the rack should be spaced to provide 4- to 5-inch clear openings between them. Transverse support bars should be minimized, but they are essential for structural support under heavy hydraulic Toads and will enable a person to climb up the rack. 4. When feasible, place the outlet away from areas of heavy public use such as playgrounds, parks, and schoolyards. Screen the outlet so that the public will not be "drawn" to it. Thick shrubs, grading techniques, and aesthetic fencing or railing can be useful in this regard. Ensure that embankment sideslopes adjacent to the outlet structure are not too steep to enable people to scramble away from the structure as pond waters are rising. 5. Grade the overall site with safety in mind. For example, provide mild sideslopes leading to and within the pond and minimize the use of vertical walls. Use safety railings when vertical walls or overly steep slopes are used. 6. Integrate a safety ledge (also referred to as a safety bench) around the perimeter of the permanent pool of a pond. Fortunately, this recommendation is consistent with another technique related to stormwater-quality enhancement: integrating a littoral zone of emergent vegetation around the pond perimeter. Integrating a safety bench with emergent vegetation will discourage people from wading into the pond. This approach can also create wildlife habitat and provide an attractive natural shoreline. 7. Owners are advised to periodically observe the facility to ascertain how the public interacts with it. Owners should also consider the comments received from adjoining property owners. For example, if children are skateboarding on concrete pans in the bottom of a dry basin, they should be told not to do this and warned of the hazard. Signs that say "No Skateboarding" may be helpful. although it may also be necessary to create a rough surface to make skating difficult. For facilities that are on private property, it is often feasible to have them included on security watches. Security staff should be instructed to pay particular attention to them during runoff events. 8. Community education can be a valuable tool. Use signs that warn of rapidly rising floodwater and educational, interpretative signs that explain how the stormwater storage facilities work. Urge local radio and television stations to include short public service announcements that emphasize the hazards posed by storm drainage facilities. Educate schoolchildren to these risks. Distribute flyers. Inform homeowner associations and property owner associations (for commercial areas) of these risks. Ponds are often located near public facilities such as recreation centers, libraries, and fire stations. Staff can be asked to observe the storage facility during dry and wet weather conditions and to identify potential hazards. Similarly, facilities in office parks and industrial complexes are often visible to workers, and they can be asked to identify potential hazards. 9. Attempt to separate certain land uses, such as preschools, from ponds or incorporate obstacles that will assuredly prevent access. in. Separate inflow and oufflow pipes by long distances and ensure that the pipes are not directly across from each other. This will avoid the creation of a continuous flow stream (current), which poses special dangers for the public. If this is not feasible, use an energy dissipater at the outlet where it discharges into the detention facility. �. Regularly inspect and maintain the detention facility. Anticipate potential problems. Look at the impoundment from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the risks that such facilities pose. Look for potential hazards and address them. 12. Recognize that detention facility dams can be hazardous and use care in their design. Ensure that all aspects of dam safety, ranging from upstream and downstream sideslopes to spillway adequacy to behavior of the pond during overtopping, are addressed. In particular, acknowledge that floods larger than the 100-year event can and will occur, and determine how the dam will behave under such conditions. If the dam is anticipated to fail during extreme floods, analyze the downstream impact of such failure. 13. Take steps to eliminate shallow, shallow -stagnant water in the bottom of "dry" basins that can be conducive to mosquito breeding. For example, determine maximum groundwater table elevations prior to design. Do not use outlet structure designs that are subject to plugging. Consider the use of gravity underdrains. Because mosquitoes generally require a stable, shallow, and stagnant water surface for at least three days to reproduce, design ponds to drain the water - quality design storm in less than 72 hours and use fountains or aerators in wet ponds to induce waves. Over the past few years, there have been many articles in stormwater literature about mosquito control, and readers are urged to become familiar with this subject and to address it during design and operations/maintenance. 14. The question of whether to construct fences around detention facilities is complicated, with arguments both for and against the practice. Ultimately. the decision should be site -specific and there should be a good rationale for whatever decision is made. Fences certainly discourage some people from accessing ponds. Fences lend themselves to the installation of warning signs. Provided that fencing materials are carefully selected and well maintained, fences can be aesthetic. On the other hand, many children or youths will view crossing a fence as a worthy and exciting challenge. The authors have observed many unattractive, poorly maintained fences that are eyesores. It often seems to be the case that ponds surrounded by fences are not as well maintained as those that are in the open and more visible. Ironically, if a situation does occur involving public safety, reaching the person who requires assistance will be impeded by a fence. If the safety issues are addressed using many of the other techniques described in this article, it should not be necessary to fence the facility. Isolated lengths of fence can be desirable, provided that they are attractive and properly integrated into the overall site plan (again, this emphasizes the value in engineers working closely with landscape architects during design). For example, it can be valuable to include a fence at the top of a steep slope to discourage access. 15. Concrete pans in pond bottoms should be designed to make them less attractive for skateboarding, such as finishing the concrete with a rough texture and/or narrow V-shaped surface. 16. Reduce the number of small, onsite ponds that are used in new residential and commercial developments by appropriate drainage master planning, minimizing directly connected impervious area, using low -impact development measures, and emphasizing larger, regional storage facilities. It should not be necessary for every new convenience store. gas station, and fast food outlet to have its own dry detention pond, as this needlessly compounds public risks and creates other problems. Safety Racks at Stormwater-Qualitv BMPs, Long Underground Pipes, and Culverts Safety (trash) racks should often be integrated into the outlet structures for BMPs such as wetlands and swales. Although the primary focus of such facilitiesis water -quality enhancement, designers must concurrently protect public safety. The use of trash/safety racks at inlets to culverts and long underground pipes should be considered on a case -by -case basis. While there is a sound argument for the use of racks for safety reasons, field experience has shown that when the culvert is needed the most —that is, during heavy runoff —trash racks often become clogged and the culvert is rendered ineffective. A general rule of thumb is that a trash/safety rack will not be needed if one can clearly "see daylight" from one side of the culvert to the other, if the culvert is of sufficient size to pass a 48-inch-diameter object, and if the outlet is not likely to trap or injure a person. By contrast, at entrances to longer culverts and long underground pipes and for culverts not meeting the above -stated tests, a trash/safety rack is necessary (Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2001). Conclusion Public safety must be carefully accounted for when planning, designing, and maintaining urban stormwater detention and retention facilities, BMPs, culverts, and other facilities. Failure to properly address these risks could leave all parties involved with their ownership, design, and maintenance subject to legal liability in the event of injury or death. The potential risks are numerous and significant, but they can be managed. Indeed, the great paradox of designing safe stormwater detention and retention facilities is that if they are attractive, interesting, well maintained, and "inviting," they will be regularly used by people of all ages, and this will promote public safety. 12/19/2017 OBJETION TO TREES FOR PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB 69 CONDO PROJECT ON EXECUTIVE COURSE PLANS BETWEEN KENTUCKY AND OKLAHOMA, SHOWING TREES IN BACK OF RESIDENTS HOMES AND ON THER OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD 1 12/19/2017 WEATHER HISTORY OF THE AREA Since owning on Kentucky since 1984 , comments about the weather for this Area are very relevant. The wind blows from the NW usually during the winter And it blows from the NE during Santa Ana conditions. The golf hole that was # 3 used to have pine trees and a number of palm trees Shading the green. Over the years, prior to this owner, the trees were lost to the wind. On July 3rd , 2015 there was a terrible storm and two houses Were destroyed from Eucalyptus Trees falling on the homes. WE DO NOT WANT ANY TREES ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE ! At least not these Trees. These trees would be terrible for anyone with allergies. It would terrible for our pools and spas , as the trees shed flowers and pods and Are their branches are very weak and snap in the wind. cbo1, 1.14r1/ wbd wwrarY rmi n.61 • DeseR1Neal6r 5Er , Darn last VPdetM 1512017 1010 OA Detail `r* Stay 7�� 6 Rain - Water Year I I R • CO r Year AveMee RI eeranMric Frmeure I Dig.. pan SisWrar Hwa Saar Enema Dew Pn:11 • 2015 2014 011 tali ta11 2161 aloa 6.131 2666 qua Wei BUD RECORD FOR PALM DESERT MAX WIND SPEED 2004-2017 NOTICE : PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB GETS WIND FROM THE NORTH WEST AND WIND FROM NORTH EAST DURING SANTAANA WINDS. OVER THE YEARS HAVE UPROOTED MANY TREES ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE- JULY 3"0 , 2015 THERE WAS A MIRCRO BURST THAT DESTROYED 100'S OF TREES AND CAUSED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO MANY HOMES- 2 12/19/2017 3p1 Jan Feb Mar 17 • 174 tsa 20 124 21 144 211' 194 226 PALM DESERT WINDS Jun 1 ' M 28 + 26 + 26 3ar 28t 2. 26' 27 es 28 + 24 a 21 27+ 234 22 28t 25a Set 28t Sot 26t .28 It 25 28 t 30 Sot 26• 26t 25 . 28 t 29 t 28 .1 28 + 23 27---�-- 25 25 111 21 18 • 21 Palm Desert Country Ciob Executive Cotrrse Residents, get all the leaves. twigs, debris and sand when the wind blows from either the North west or North East- Residents are continuing to [lean their patios and pools- DESERTWEATHER.CO WAS CREATED TO PROVIDE UP TO DATE, ACCURATE WEATHER INFORMATION FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, LIVE DATA IS PROVIDED BY HIGH QUALITY SENSORS LOCATED IN THOUSAND PALMS, CALIFORNIA WEATHERUNDERGROUD ID: KCATHOUS8 3 Slide 6 Bpi. Barbara powers, 3/S/2017 12/19/2017 TIPUANA (Tipu) Tree Planned 36" BOX ► Great shade tree. Semi -evergreen with small apricot -yellow flower in summer, followed by pea -like seed pods im abundance. A rapid grower to 25 feet in a few years from a 24" box. Ultimately the tipu tree reaches 40 to 50 feet with a large arching crown. The fruit is a legume (pod). J. It sheds all of it leaves and "helicopter' seed packets from January to May each year. It produces masses of seeds most of which succeed I germinating. ► Invasiveness: It is known for having a very aggressive root system. ► The tree roots can easily lift up concrete and asphalt. ► Caution should be taken when planting near buildings, homes , or pools. ► WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE IN OUR OPEN SPACE! ► Information from Wikipedia and Arizona Landscaping.... On line. TI PU TREE (ACACIA NMOON RSERIES 4 12/19/2017 TIPUANA (Tipu) Tree -In bloom ACACIA WILLOW TREE.PLANNING ON 24" BOX 12/19/2017 Willow Acacia: a Willow Acacia, evergreen tree, grows to reach 20 to 40 feet. ► Spans 15 to 20 feet in width. Contains no thorns. ► Grows 3 feet a year with water. ► Branches break easy in the wind. ■ Prone to fatting over if water is shallowly. ■ Unexpected cold could kill the tree. ■ Abundent production of flowers and seed pods produces extensive litter ■ that may be undesirable around swimming pools. ► Roots spred looking for water. ► Beautiful to watch in a breeze , but makes a terrible mess. ► Sources: Home Et Garden Landscape, Amazon, Wikipedia. ► WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE PLANTED IN OUR OPEN SPACE! ACACIA ANEURA MULGA 24" BOX PLANNED 6 12/19/2017 Acacia Aneura Mulga ► Upright Et Very Stiff,evergreen , 20 to 25 feet. Wood is brittle. ► Mulga flowers are red/yellow stamens. Fruit in Spring small flat pod. ► Mulga flowers during warm season, heavily during fall. ► Needle -like ,silvery gray foliage, bright yellow,rod-shaped flowers that ► give away to pods 4 times a year. ► Sorties: Wikapedia, SF Gate and others. ► WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE PLANTED IN OUR OPEN SPACE. WOULD YOU LIKE THIS IN YOUR POOL OR ON YOUR PATIO? ACACIA SHOESTRING 12/19/2017 Acacia Shoestring 24" Box Planned ► Size: 30 ft High by 20 Feet Wide, spreading with age to 40 feet. ► Long, very narrow drooping, pale green. ► Flowers cluster of small''/" cream colored balls. ► Flowers Et Fruits: November to January, pods 8" long ■ Flowers in late fall and winter. ► Fruit: Seed Pod ► Comments: Moderate litter. No Torns. I. Maintenance: some, pod cleanup. ■ Needs aggressive training. ■ SOURCE: ARIZONA , EDU. ► WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE IN OUR OPEN SPACE. MESSY! HONEY MES • UITE TREE-36" Box Planned 8 12/19/2017 Flowers Et Pods From Honey Mesquite HONEY MESQUITE TREE ► Big and floppy branches with feathery foliage ,paired spines on twigs, reaches ► 20-30 feet but can grow as tall as 50 feet. Flowers March to November with ► Pale yellow elongated spikes and yellow seedpods. ► Supports: ■ Native pollinator species of bees and other insects. ■ SOURCE: Wikipedia NO TREES IN OUR OPEN SPACE , PLEASE 9 12/19/2017 SONORAN PALO VERDE 36" BOX PLANNED SONORA PALO VERDE TREE ■ ALSO KNOWN AS PARKINSONIA MICROPHYLLA ■ Mostly planted on slopes. ■ Slow growing 16 to 23 feet tall. Flowers are found on the end of a branch. • They occur late spring. Seeds will appear in 4-8 cm long. Soft poss. They 1 Ripen in July. Rodents often carry and store seeds underground, some ■ Will germinate. • SOUCE ; Wikipedia. 10 12/19/2017 DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE 36" BOX PLANNED DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE TREE 12/19/2017 DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE ■ Upright shade tree. Lage yellow blossoms in spsring lasting longer than other species. May re -bloom in summer. After flowers fall truck and stems remain green. Produces very few seedpods. Fast grower to 25 feet and width. SOURCE: MONROVIA LANDSCAPE ON WEB. NO TREES UNLESS PALM TREES ON OUR OPEN SPACE. VIEW NORTHSIDE OF MARRIOT SHADOW RIDGE WE WOULD LOOSE OUR VIEWS. NO TREES. SAME TYPE TREES IN BACKGROUND. 12 12/19/2017 NORTH SIDE OF MARRIOET SHADOW RIDGE. ACACIA TREES. NOT MUCH VIEW. REQUEST OF ARCH I ETUAL COMMITTEE WANT TO BE DIVIDED WITH ALL OF THE MANY TREES. THAT HAVE ALLERGIES IT WILL BE A NIGHTMARE. IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT WE WILL LOOSE OUR VIEWS WITH NEW CONDO'S ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. WE DO NOT FENC ES , WE DO NOT WANT TREES OUT IN THE OPEN SPACE , ESPECIALLY TREE S LISTED IN THIS PRESENTATION. OUR WINDS AT TIMES HAVE TAKEN OUT THE FLOWERS , SEEDS AND PODS WILL NOT ONLY FILL OUR POOLS BUT FOR THOS E WE HOPE YOU WILL LISTEN TO OUR COMMUNITY. THAN K YOU. OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE. 13 TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 2017 RE: PALM DESERT CC, ZONE CHANGE 69 CONDOS City of Palm Desert DEC 152017 Community Development WE NEED TO STUDY HISTORY IN ORDER NOT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES. OUTLINE: HISTORY: 8 OWNERS, 1.MARNEL (Original) 1961 PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON DEEDS RE: OPEN SPACE, 51% VOTE NEEDED TO ALLOW ANY THING BUT GOLF COURSE. Attachment of Articles of Development of PDCC. 2. MCMILLIAN: OWNED THE GOLF COURSE IN THE 80'S HE WANTED TO BUILD A 100 ROOM HOTEL IN FRONT OF THE CLUB HOUSE AND CONDO'S ON 13 AND 14. CITY DENIED. 3 JANPANESE GROUP, MR. NAKAMURA OWNED THE GOLF COURSE IN THE 90'S. HE TRIED TO DO THE SAME THING MAKING THIS A DESTINATION RESORT. THEY CLAIMED THEY COULD NOT MAKE ANY MONEY. DENIED. 4 CHAS BLALOCK (USC GROUP), BOUTH THE GOLF COURSE, REFINANCED AND LOST THE PROPERTY TO GOLF TRUST OF AMERICA. 5.GOLF TRUST OF AMERICA, (FORECLOSED ON CHAS) 6. SUNG SANG CHO PURCHASE FOR 4.79 MILLION BUT (FILED BANKRUPTCY, LEFT 18 MILLION OWEING IN BANKRUPTCY) PARTNERED WITH LARRY KOSMONT GROUP AND CHO SOLD 95 LOTS TO D.R.HORTON. NEIGHBORS GOT A NEW CLUB HOUSE, NEW WATERING SYSTEM, REMODELLED Z7 HOLES ON THE GOLF COURSES.) 7. CANADIAN GROUP (REQUESTING ZONE CHANGE) PURCHASED OUT OF BANKRUPTCY FOR 1.79 MILLION THERE ARE 18 HOLES ON THE CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE AND THERE WERE 9 HOLES ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. THE EXECUTIVE COURSE CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES. THERE ARE TWO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB HOA s. THE CHAMPSIONSHIP COURSE IS INCLUDED IN THE PALM DESERT CC HOA. THE NEW HORTON HOMES BELONG TOBOTH HOA'S. THERE ARE 111 HOMEOWNERS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE WHO ARE NOT IN THE PDCC HOA. THERE ARE 87 LOTS THAT ARE IN THE HOA THAT ALSO ARE INCLUDED ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. WHEN THE. ORIGINAL DEEDS WERE DRAWN UP THE CHAMPSIONSHIP COURSE HAD A PROTECTIVE CLAUSE THAT STATED THE OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE, 51% PLUS TO RELEASE ANY OPEN SPACE FOR BUILDING. TRACT 2137 2283. WHEN D.R. HORTON WANTED TO BUILD THE 95 HOMES, THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT A VOTE BE TAKEN OF THE ORIGINAL TRACT 2137 AND THE OTHER TRACK (2283) THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY BUILDING 95 HOMES. AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION WAS PREPARED (ASKING A ONE TIME VOTE TO RELEASE OPEN SPACE FOR BUILDING 95 HOMES. (POSSIBLY FROM THE LAW SUIT THAT WAS FILED BY THE PRESERVATION SOCIETY) THE BUILDER, (KOSMONT) PAID FOR THE MAILING AND WHEN NOT, ENOUGH VOTES WERE RETURNED, A COMMITTEE WAS FORMED. WE WENT TO HOMEOWNERS IN BOTH TRACTS 2137 & TRACT 2283 THAT HAD NOT RESPONDED VIA MAIL. WE HAD A NOTARY WITH US. WHEN ALL VOTES WERE IN, THERE WERE MORE THAN 51% GIVING CONSENT TO RELEASE OPEN SPACE TO BUILD THE 95HOMES. THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT TO KOSMONrS ATTORNEY FOR RECORDING ON EACH RESIDENTS PROPERTY. THE CITY THEN APPROVED THE BUILDING OF THE 95 HOMES. NONE OF THE EXECUTIVE COURSE OWNERS COULD VOTE BUT WE ENDURED SEVERAL MONTHS OF GRADING WHERE MORE THAN 4 FEET OF DIRT WAS ADDED TO THE EXECUTIVE COURSE BEHIND OUR HOMES._ Picture was submitted to the Arch. Committee. ONE ATTACHED. THE DECLARATION CLAUSE APPEARS NOT TO HAVE BEEN PLACED ON OTHER TRACTS. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT IT WAS M EARLY A TYPO THAT IT WAS LEFT OFF THE DEED RESTRCTIONS WHEN IT WAS RECORDED. THERE COULD BE A PROBLEM, AS THE 87 HOUSES IN THE HOA COULD VOTE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST RELEASING OPEN SPACE IF THEY LITIGATE THEIR RIGHTS IN A COURT. (Attachment) IF THIS IS NOT CLARIFIED THE OTHER 9 HOLES ON THE CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE COULD FACE THE SAME REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE, LEAVING ONLY A 9 HOLE COURSE, THUS CONTINUING THE ECONOMIC DOWNSIDE OF OUR AREA. 8. ONE OTHER PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE WHEN THEY VOTED TO ADD THE HORTON HOMES, THE BUILDER HAD REPRESENTED THE GOLF COURSES WOULD REMAIN IN A CONSERVATION ENTITY IN PERPUTUITY. THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD NOT LET THAT CLAUSE TO BE RECORDED IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCE 1068. I-IOMEOWNERS WERE NEVER TOLD ABOUT THIS . THUS IF YOU GET COPLAINTS THIS IS ONE REASON WHY PEOPLE ARE UPSET. WE HAD A. MEETING WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS., OUR HOME OWNERS ARE VERY UPSET THAT THIS PROJECT HAS DRAGGED ON FOR ALMOST 4 YEARS. THEY ARE REALLY UPSET THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MEETINGS WHERE MANY OBJECTIONS WERE MADE BUT VERY FEW WERE ADDRESSED. WE HOPE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM. THEY ARE ALSO UPSET THAT THE CITY HOSTED A FINAL ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ON 7-25-2017 WHILE MOST RESIDENTS WERE OUT OF TOWN AND THEIR WAS NO NOTICE TO THEM THAT A MEETING WAS BEING HELD. THE CITY PROMISED NO MORE MEETINGS UNTIL THE FALL AFTER THE MAY MEETING. NOW FOR MORE OBJECTIONS: 1. POWER POINT OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE RETAINING AREAS WERE GIVEN TO THE ARCH. COMMITTEE. LOSS OF 10 PER CENT TO PROPERTY VALUES IF YOU HOME IS NEXT TO ONE HEALTH HAZARDS ETC. (POWER POINT INCLUDED.) THIS SYSTEM IS TO DRAIN ON IT'S ON TO THE STREETS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT. INTERESTING THAT THE BIG ONE BEHIND OKLA:HOMA/CALIFORNIA IS TWO FEET DEEPER THAN THE ROAD IT IS TO DRAIN TO ON KENTUCKY. I HAVE PERSONALLY ASKED PLANNING AND ENGINEERING ABOUT THIS AT LEAST 3 TIMES AND RECEIVED NO ANSWER. NO RESPONSE FROM ARCH. COMMITTEE EITHER. THE CITY THOUGHTS ARE THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF LATER. THE RESIDENTS NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. 2. ARCHITECTURAL. COMMITTEE ASKED THE ARCHITECT THAT DESIGNED THE PROJECT TO MEET WITH EACH AND EVERY HOMEOWNER, ALONG WITH THE LANDSCAPING ARCHITECT. WE PUT THEIR PHONE NUMBERS ON OUR WEB SITE SO OUR HOMEOWNERS COULD CONTACT THEM. WE WERE THEN ASKED TO REMOVE THEIR PHONE NUMBERS AS THEY SAID THEY DID NOT GET PAID UNTIL THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WHAT IF YOU LIVED NEXT TOA HOME THAT WILL HAVE A SIX-FOOT WALL 8 FEET FROM YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN A 24 FOOT ROAD WITH A CONDO BEHIND YOUR HOUSE? YOU ALSO HAVE A 15% UP SLOPE. YOU WILL HAVE NO VIEWS. NOISE WILL BE A PROBLEM. FEDEX AND UPS DRIVE DOWN THE REGULAR STREET IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSESAT LEAST 4 OR 5 TIMES EACH. THE HOUSE SHAKES. THE TRASH TRUCKS COME ON FRIDAY ( 3) OF THEM, SOMETIMES 4 OF THEM, PLUS THE STREET SWEEPER. SO NOW YOU WILL GET IT ON BOTH SIDES. ALL OUR BEDROOMS FACE THE OLD EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE. NO SLEEPING IN AS THEY START AT 6 AM. OBJECTION TO THE TRAFFIC REPORT: WE ARE ASKING FOR A NEW TRAFFIC STUDY. WHEN THE CURRENT ONE WAS DONE, IT WAS A WEEK DAY AND LEFT UP FOR ONLY ONE DAY. THEY SHOULD ALSO MEASURE THE TRAFFIC FROM THE 100 SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT HAPPEN FOR THE TENNIS TOURNAMENT AND COACHELLA AND COUNTRY MUSIC FESTIVALES AND WEEKENDS. TRAFFIC BETWEEN 8 AND 9 AM IS VERY BUSY. WE HAVE A FEEDER ROAD COMING FROM OASIS CC. AND DUMPS OUT TO CALIFORNIA. IF YOU ARE WAITING ON FRED WARING TO TURN LEFT OR RIGHT, YOU USUALY MUST WAIT THROUGH 2 SIGNALS. PEOPLE CUT OVER FROM HOVELY, WASHINGTON AND CARS FROM THE EAST TAKE THIS SHORT CUT DOWN CALIFORNIA TO AVOID BUSYIER STREETS. I SENT RYAN STENDELL AN EMAIL THE DAY THEY WERE MEASURING TRAFFIC ON CALIFORNIA/KENTUCKY ETC. (Attachnrie it) I WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE LITTLE TIME THE STUDY WAS SET UP. 3. WE OBJECT TO THE MITIGATION OF "WILD LIFE. I PERSONALLY SENT YOU A POWER POINT PRESENTATION ON OUR WILD LIFE ON THE OLD EXECUTIVE COURSE. THESE BIRDS AND GEESE HAVE BEEN COMING HERE SINCE 1983 WHEN WE MOVED HERE. THE DEVELOPER IS PLANNING ON TEARING OUT THE EXISTING TREES ON ON THE COURSE AND THUS DESTROYING THEIR HABITAT. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID TO,A CONSERVATION GROUP IS WORTH LOOSING THE WILD LIFE. OUR ECO- SYSTEM WILL DISAPPEAR AND WILL DISRUPT THE OWLS, BLACK BIRDS AND HAWKS FOR CONTROLING THE RODENT PROBLEM. EMOTIONAL FACTOR: SO MANY OF US ARE IN OUR GO'S, 7Q'S 80'S, AND 90'S. WE BOUGHT OUR VIEW HOMES 25 TO 30 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF THE VIEW, THE PEACE AND QUIET, THE WILD LIFE, ETC. MOST OF US ARE ON FIXED INCOMESL WE ARE TOO OLD TO SELL AND MOVE. WE JUST DO NOT WANT OUR UUFESYTLE TO GO AWAY. WE 00 NOT NEED TRAFFIC BEHIND OUR HOMES, LIGHT THAT WILL TAKE AWAY OUR NIGHT SKY, NOISE WILL BE A VERY BIG FACTOR. IF THE CITY WANTS OUR PROBLEMS TO GO AWAY FIND SOMEOTHER WAY TO KEEP OUR OPEN SPACE. DENY THIS ZONE CHANGE! THIS PROJECT IS FOR PURE GREED. JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY. THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO PROJECT US. ct,v er 6c1 I e c k7 Ave-- Pli-Lwc Dose r e 7 zz- i/ 7 ' _777— c_)063— '( XMOW SWIM MT =OE MUM: T5: Othet the underriptd, Nana ►O tVELOP E!T CO., a corporative, heroin Ladled the " uealevent", ie the oWher of that c.cttnle real property is the County of River - State of Califovia, described as: Lots Has. 73, ;.a9, ;ebi, 405 and 45.3 in Tact 2137 4s ehOMle by may un file !n fioak 41 plvso 29, to 36 bot.h aJ.' records r,C f2aerstdo County, Cal,forn,a, That Deularant having subdivided Tract 2137 shown hy map aforesaid of record in the office of the Recorder, . of said County, does hereby certify and declare that it tine es-20t10.,d, and does hereby establish, a general plan for the improvement and development of said Tract , and does hereby establish conditions, restrictions and covenants upon sod subject xo which 441 of the restricted logs, and por- tions thereof, she.l be improved t-y It a! ^,t^h villas:, each and all of which shall 4.5 covenant© running with each of Bald restricted lots end for the benefit_ of each owner of, or lessee of an undivided interest of any lot within said Tract and shall inure and peas with each and every lot of said ^:.flat , and shall apply to and bind the respective successors in let -areal; of the present owner thereof, and are imposed on each rertructed lot as a servitude in favor _yR ' 4 -;'414086 "Htsi'Atileik'ffirliger304 1:71kOtt. As the dome bieee7 ,-,A0kbableiblet0 , i be amfoolhoo0be *West the ii tibitS14 lotii. VA 01011 of Mask, by tine them emoor nr ~ore. ioiSoo or lessees, of sny'tor lot ose Lott, cr imisprostut tbetaie, in Paid tract , to wit; A-0 restricted lots shill be use4 solely for the putpse of maintaining e golf coreaand such I .15,11111,141te roaiodably related thereto. No etrwetures *hall 7:%a pareittod thereon except club hcmees, pro-p,, equipment storage shacks, walls, pumps, and 04:719t improve,oente reasonably rulatcd to the comration of it golf course. 2, The Above restrictions 'hall he binding on all parties or persons claiming under ic until January 1, 1i92, at which clue it will oe Auto- matically extended for successive periods of five (5) years; provided, however, that such re- strictione may be aupplemented,uhanged or rescinded at any time after January 1, 1992, by the owners of fifty-one per cent (51%) cf the number of residential lots in Tract 2137 evidence by en insuru many. in wrtting executed by said owners in the mantle): provided by law for the couvoyance of reel property, and duly recorded in the office of the County Recorder aforee'id, and upon such recorda- tion shall be valid and binding upon all persons, IN WITNESS WhERZOF, the undersigro..ed has caused -2- 1 who r' 17. ‘11 STATE or cm.tryigtA covArn p flXV rDE " 0,,,,1064,....2,„41611.3_. before or, the trod' o PlotanPohlk IA gml fee eu4 cavity ill StatcperoosoLy ei . 011AL tfle•P0,4 te tot to tee the /atilt No1,1:fray, 2 fttr 0'4,0 Orli :e• be ;NIT. tootromoot, h.s.ni"rotolot tl:P"i14.ponsoht tAtti, .notrAt000t heltalf or ikt ,ottAtt Mot t'we'let telmf. thee, re ore, 14..f - that etrb torteoru.00 olotetrz-: 0410010 14,14e4-• oust promo or hp ITItin et rot•Itties Al tq Wird wirmes, t 'Ad tax • f t Do • :Ka 4em ttureeleet 0,4.wen Marnt Dwelopment- CL Boy. 33V Fiklm 0-eseri, Cla(ttnit% nsvitwalson A Corpt.riktioo • 7104*7: "af.21.a rent 1 0.141..••••••11,... ta r:f - ?v Rota mera ryIR • • _ - PART R. OE4PP.AL PROVISIONS 1.7 B-I. T_!IMS, C3 "I All or The Restrictions, Conditions, Covenants and Agreements shall affect all of the Lots of said Tract. Said Restrictions, Conditions and Covenants shall be binding on all parties and all Persons claiming under them until January 1, 19g8, at which time they shall be automatically extended fi,r successive 'eriods of five years, provided, naxevor, that such Restrictions, Con- ditions, Covenants and Agreements, or any of they tray be supplemented, changed or resainded in any or all earticulars at any time after Ungar, 1 1408 by the owners of 5i per dent of the entailer of Lets in sate Tract, evidenced by an Instrument in writing executed by the said owners in the -manner provided by lawlbr the conveyance of real property, and duly recorded in the Offioe of the Re- corder aforesaid, and upon such recordatiae shall be or valid and binding upon the Sellers and Owners of the said Lots in said Tract, and upon all..other persona. R-2, ENFORCEMENT, If the Parties hereto, or their aicceaaora shall violate or attempt to violate any of the Covenants here±nbefore January 1, 1998, or during any of the extended periods for which they are in force, it shall be lawful for any person, owning any Lot subject thereto to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attempting to -violate any such covenants, or either to arevent him or them from so doing or to recover damages or other dues for such violation. B-3, SUBORDINATION, • It is further provided that a breach of any of the conditions a contained herein or env re-entry by reason of such breach she'- not defeat orzuder Invalid the lien of any mortgage'or heel of Trust made in ±;uoo faith and for value*as to said pre- f mises or any part thereof, but said Conditions shall be binding upon and effeotive against any owner of said premises whose title thereto is acquired by foreclosure, Trustee's Sale or otherwise. B-4, SE ABILITY, Invalidation or any one or more of these oovenatta to Judgment or Cocrt Order shall in nowise affect any of the other pro- visions which shah remain in full foroe and effeot. In witnesa whereof. the undersigned has caused this Aealaration to be execuut�eed by its duly authorised offioers this .. day of i ,/...., , - /g.747 -4- PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB, INC. Byt ? An open -space easement is an instrument whereby the owner relinquishes to the public the right to construct improvements upon the land, effectively preserving for public use or enjoyment the natural or scenic character of the open -space land. (See Gov. Code, 51051.)" (Paoli v. California Coastal Com. (19861 178 CaI.ADD.3d 544. 548, fn. 2 1223 Cal. RDtr. 7921.) 1. The city/county is the holder of the easement (duh). 2. When such an easement is created as part of a zoning regime, it doesn't give the average citizen any rights to a permanent easement. 3. However, voters might be able to limit the right of the city to relinquish such easements. Thus, in County of San Mateo Coastal Landowners v. County of San Mateo, a group of owners seeking to develop their property sued to overturn a referendum which required any relinquishment of an open space easement by the city to be subject to voter approval. In that case, the court held that such a limitation on the city's right to relinquish its open space easement was a valid subject for referendum (in other words, voters could enact a rule limiting the city's right to relinquish open space easements...) 1 PftRP B. I E?P RAL PROVISIONS B-1. TERMS, "I All of The Restric :ions, Conditions, Covenants and Agreements shall affect all of the Lots of said Tract. Said Restrictions, Conditions and Covenants shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under thank until January I, 1998, at which time they shall be automatically extended fur euocesaive teriods of five years, provided, nowever, that such Restrictions, Con- ditions, Covenants and Agreements, or any of thep.a+sv be supplemented. changed or rescinded in any or ali n rticulars at any time after January 1„ 19o8 by the owners of Si per pent of the dumper or Lots in sate Tract, evidenced by an Instrument in writing executed by the said owners in the manner- provided by law t r the conveyance of real ,,,,. _ ►„ and duly recorded in the Office or the na- corder aforesaid, and upon Such recordation shall be or valid and binding upon the Sellers and Owners of the acid Lots in said Tract, and upon alL:other persons. B-2, ENFORCEMENT, It the Parties hereto, or their successors shall violate or attempt to violate any of the Covenants hereinbefare Tanusr, 1, 1058, or during any of the extended periods for which they are ih force, it shall be lawful for any person, cording any Lot subject thereto to prosecute any prooeedinis at law or in equity against the person or persons violating or attennttng to -violate any such covenants, or either to prevent him or them from so doing ar to recover damages or other dues for such violation. B-3, SUBORDINATION, • It is further provided that a breach of any of the conditions contained herein or any reentry by reason of such breach she"= not defeat orrender invalid the lien of any mortgnR_e'or heel of Trust made in :;Uoa faith and for value'an to said pre- mises or any' part thereof; but said Conditions shall be binding upon and effective against any owner of said premises whose title thereto is acquired by foreclosure, Trustee's Sale or otherwise. B-4, SE+VERABILITY, invalidation of any one or more of these oovenaats ty Judgment or Cocrt Order shall in-no.wise affect any of the other Pro- visions whit: shall remain in full force and effect. In xitnesa whereof, the undersigned has caused this Deolaration to be execu,)ed by its duly authorised officers this L day of -4- PAL!4 DESERT COUNTRY CLUB, INC. Ry: ( c 7'1., ://C RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WrIEN RECORDED VA. . TO: pccDiviaIorYrinrit. 7722,0 Caitfornits Dive PP".71 nesse, CA 922', 78 r? DOC SS 2004-09291579 i1/19/2014 04:0014 Foo:748.00 P494 233 Recorded in Off41,e, feco,os County of g;versiot Giwy L, Orlm rty Clerk gecorJer DA KCA ,P7CO1 Upg, 1 MISC AME.NOMENT TO DECLARAT OM OF RESTRICT!ONS Traci ru37 + y . ,IF.FUN?;,.000 pwanalF., This Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions ("Arnencimenr) is made this iith day of June, 2004, try undersigned property owners, comprising fifty-one percent (51%) of owners of residential tots In Tract 2137. Restrictens. On, Apr 7, 1961, the Marne Development Co., a corporation (Declaranr) executed a OeCieration of Ree•Victions (-Dedaration") which was recorded on Apr 12, 1961 as tristnArnent No. 31032 in the Official Records in the Office of the Netvider c‘ Riverside County, State of California. The Deciaratlon sets forth certain restrictions regardieg the use of certain reel property, more particularly described as Lots 73, 199, 261, 405 and 493 in Tract 2137 recorded in Book. 41, pages 29 '..vhrou036inciusive, records oF" Riv,.Pirside County, 2. i1e.ithotitv to...Mov, Pursuant to the *express terms of the Declaration, the restrictions lapsed as of January 1,1992. The Declaration further provides that, from and after January 1, 11,12, the restrictions are renewed for successive five (5) year terms unless, at any time after January 1,1992, the owners of fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the number of residential tots In Tract 2137 determine in lofting to supoiernent, change ce resdnd the restridiors contained in Me Declaration, Arqedmeint the peeittatiz., There are approireately four hundred severity .:470) resr6irotiel ".n Me portions of Tract 2137 affected by the Declaration. Sy their signatures hereto, 51% or more of the oveneea of suel rr.relcientizei lots is" Trot 2137 have oeterrhined to -modify and amend the Denier:8ton by modifying Paragraph 4. of saiiti tDen,tianertior by attire; to -the sedi of su.s.e paragraph, the tiseowlegi. Provided, however, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Declaration of Restrictions, there shall be allowed on the restricted lots, the subdivielon, development, construction sale/lease and/or occupancy of up to 17 single family lots upon which residential units may be constructed, all as is more particiviarty provided; under City of Palm 00SOrt Department of Community Cevgliooment Case Nos: CIZ 04-01, T7 31336, PP 04-01 and DA 04451. ti1143- -Prdecr) as such ProOot may Pe rr:oddied and fraliy approved by the Cy Peen Desert 4. Gouea1I. This Ageerrent may be executed counterparts,eac owhich snail be seem an original teit alt df weicr scial commute ibne and the 68010 illOttkitkettl 'Signatures Appear on Fallowing Pao nrie Company inas recordeiz tnis instrument by regeest as an acobirrimcda- %ion only and nes not xarmned !ior Teg,V- 4stily and sefficiency or as its effett ths tttle to any ,f-eiso may be described herein. Tract 2137 - Page 1 RECORDWG REQUESTED BY AND WE RE-=RDED MAI TO: PDCC Development, LLC 77200 California Drive ?aim Desert, CA 92211 ec Spam, above Eh Doc ** zeko4—eyez95e 11/19/20ee 06:0MQ Feeaali.04 Pegs 1 of 25 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside Gary L. Orso r, County Clore 4 Recorder f I e , u U MCA e ULt ,Tfe -.CCP / • A I L COPY ,-0,40 1 REF -MO , AMENDMENT 70 DECLARATIONS OF RESTRiCTIONS 7ra4t. 2,28.3 2- '4- V- 2s Arne per Decieration of Restiections ("Arneedimenr) fs made this eth clay of june, 2004, rey vedersiened property owners, correpeiseee fifty-one percent (51%) of owners of reskentia; toots in !red 2283, DeciarcidOn of -R'seerictions. On March 6, 1963, the Aflame Development Company, a co-poration ("Declarant") executed a Declaration of Restrictions ("Declaration") which was recorded on March 12, 1963 as instrument No. 24845 in the office of the Recorder of Riverside County, State of California, The Declaration sets forth certain restrictions regarding the use of certain real property, more particularly described es Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 In Tract 2283 recoreeer Scree 42, cie-e.ees throc.fgh -8$i) :,-ncft..f.islve. records cif Riiieerside Coenty, 2 itt,hoiritv Mfitisttf;, Plytis'iftent to ',`be exerees te,-Trs of the Deeearatiore the restrictiore lapsed as of january 1,1992. There may be a porton of omitted: ianiguage ii ee Declaration ender paragraph 2 viteeri was contained in a companion Declaratton o' Restrictions for Track 2137, (the `Tract 2137 Deiearaeon"), The Tract 2137 -Declaration provides that, from and afZer ..,iarieary 2, vie restrictions wouie oe renewed ifori successive five .(5) yeas 'terms eniess, at any time after January 1,1'392, the owners of fifty-one percere 5`.(Iiiei or more of he number at residerinal,Iots in 'Tract 2137 determined in writing to supplement, change or rescind the restrictions contained in the Tract 2137 Declaration, As of the date of this Amendment, there has been no judicial determination that the Declaration is to be automatically renewed for successive five (5) year terms as provided in the Tract 2137 Restriction, However, in the event it is ever oetemened by a court of competent juesdiction thaii the Decteration is to be reformed to inciude the language o' the Tract 2137 Dectaration regardirig the atitorriatic renewa... for successive 5 year periods unless at any time after January ',1992, tne owners of fty-one perceet (51%) or more oi the number of residents lots 'in Tract 2283 determine n writirig to suPeienlenti change or reS010, Ine restriction:1 contained in the Declaration, then tee undersignet owners 7iecfarehon, as extended by such court order, to be moeified as provided in his Amendment. AmertemeM to the Declara.Xn_ There are aperoximateiy our ;--11..aolrett CitieVy-nine (499) reseeentize itee in the portions of Tract 2283 affected by the Declaration. By their signatures hereto, more than 51G/0 of the owners of such residential lots have determined to modify and amend the Declaration by modifying Paragraph 1 of said Declaration by adding to the end of such paragraph, the following: Provided, however, notweestaricting anything to the contrary contained n th Deciaration of Restrictions. teere shaiii be a"towed on the t•estrtcted :lets tee subdivision, development, constnrceon sale/lease aneeter ocouparicy of ue le. 7e sine family tots won which residential units may be constructed, ex( as ia more particularly prOsit.de<i under City tx Pairn Desert aapartsnent o' Co,nnt-nunity 'Developtriem Case Nos: CIZ '04-01, T7 31636, PP 04-0i ant OA "pfiotect")as suc•it.t Proiect May he sobsequeney modined and enaty approved by the City of Palen Desert 4. Ceunterparte, This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which she!' constitute one and the same instrument. Cr 'Tate Corrparly lacorded this inslrerne.re by reeve.sti as an accommoda- tion on;y and nas not examinctl1t tot regu- larity ale sufficiency or ae to its Oact upon the tittle to any real. property that toe described berain. [Signe:urea Appear or Pattnwiry pages] Trac 2283 - Page '1 .5%4 riNple a aeldo + 5%40,04 rvb- et.) IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Amendment to tne Declaration of Restrictions is executed, effecIve as o 1e Cy and yea,•• first: at•-ove. OWNER( 5-K '-EGA. DESCRIPTION OF OWNERS Signature: ' Lot 392, of Tract 2137, as shown on Tract 2137 filed in the office of County ) I Recorder, Riverside County. California Signet ,•,/ d//,,2 / I , i on December 28, 1960. as Instrument No, '0922C- „ r ; c„f 4 Ny , .' , i), , ,.„ Fia',R.M OF OWNERCP: $N, STATE OF CALEFORVA ss. COUNTY OF RiVERSIDE Aewor Pat-ce. Nurnbe7: 637-124-018 Addres: 77185 Calf r17 Paitrn Desert,. CA 02211 On (. Jsc, Oi()0,-. 200 , fors me, i1/4\ti \kkg'Ilk.Crk- personaappeared personalty known to me (or proved to me on the Oasis of sags -factory evkdence tpi. he the ,_ , 41erne0 fe (ere1 eulasertbed to the within instrument end aoknowtedged to me emit helsttetthey executed the same In nis/her/their authorized capacIty(ies), and that hy hie/heritheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(S), or the entity' upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my nand and official seat, rVy secrmission enpres STATE Or CALIFORNIA, ) ss, COUNTY OP RIVERSIDE -y tgoic in and for tne State of Caiiforma On jC c„' i,ci ,--p : :,^ ,r4-,-„r ,A.Aytitii.ali „ a I 2 0 Od4, bet% me, ,-, , 4 i r .4, ,„ , rso a ty , pei rsonaly 'mown to iris (cir proved to me on tne basis o sabstactory evPC'eaid' ericree \-7, i-A,-- -io se the persons) whose rrre(s) Its are) subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged v.,. me Mat c,eisne/tney executed the same 4.1 his/her/their authomec: Caper:110es), and that oy hisTherttleir signature(s) on the instrument tpa person(s), Or the entity won behalf of which re person(s) acted, executed the ,nstrurnent. WiTNESS my nand and offin4 sea. (SEAL) .;,-.1oln•rsslon expoog ,FSnedure P&ge Atrenc'irerg oOecierprico ic in and for California da. aAFL f ERIN ANN WOulatetr. Commission $ t 1284$11 Notary Pubtic • Catit'ornts FInforaido County •C-40`te, filetitto 0.4 IA, 2ocre Tract. 2137 - • ag ; cu yo 741/e RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: PDCC Development, LLC 77200 Califomia Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 »del- �2c2313378 4. Space above thl A I R L AMENDMENT TO DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICT( Tract 2283 DOC tts 2004-09298E 1 11/19/2004 08:00A Fee:886.80 Page 1 of 256 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside Gary L. Orso Assessor County Clerk 4 Recorder PAGE MSC LA-4 COPY i LONG gEFUNp NCNG ONS KW This Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions ("Amendment") Is made this 4th day of June, 2004, by undersigned property owners, comprising fifty-one percent (51%) of owners of residential Tots in Tract 2283. 1. Declaration of Restrictions. On March 6, 1963, the Marne' Development Company, a corporation ("Declarant") executed a Declaration of Restrictions ("Declaration") which was recorded on March 12, 1963 as instrument No. 24645 in the office of the Recorder of Riverside County, State of California. The Declaration sets forth certain restrictions regarding the use of certain real property, more particularly described as Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in Tract 2283 recorded in Book 42, pages 82 through 89 inclusive, records of Riverside County. 2. Authority to Modify. Pursuant to the express terms of the Declaration, the restrictions lapsed as of January 1,1992. There may be a portion of omitted language in the Declaration under paragraph 2 which was contained in a companion Declaration of Restrictions for Tract 2137, (the "Tract 2137 Declaration"). The Tract 2137 Declaration provides that, from and after January 1, 1992, the restrictions would be renewed for successive five (5) year terms unless, at any time after January 1,1992, the owners of fifty-one percent (51 %) or more of the number of residential Tots in Tract 2137 determined in writing to supplement, change or rescind the restrictions contained in the Tract 2137 Declaration. As of the date of this Amendment, there has been no judicial determination that the Declaration is to be automatically renewed for successive five (5) year terms as provided in the Tract 2137 Restriction. However, in the event it is ever determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that the Declaration is to be reformed to include the language of the Tract 2137 Declaration regarding the automatic renewal for successive 5 year periods unless at any time after January 1,1992, the owners of fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the number of residential lots in Tract 2283 determine in writing to supplement, change or rescind the restrictions contained In the Declaration, then the undersigned owners want the Declaration, as extended by such court order, to be modified as provided in this Amendment. 3. Amendment to the Declaration. There are approximately four hundred ninety-nine (499) residential lots in the portions of Tract 2283 affected by the Declaration. By their signatures hereto, more than 51 % of the owners of such residential lots have determined to modify and amend the Declaration by modifying Paragraph 1 of said Declaration by adding to the end of such paragraph, the following: Provided, however, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Declaration of Restrictions, there shall be allowed on the restricted Tots the subdivision, development, construction sale/tease and/or occupancy of up to 73 single family lots upon which residential units may be constructed, all as is more particularly provided under City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development Case Nos: C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01, (the "Project") as such Project may be subsequently modified and finally approved by the City of Palm Desert. 4. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed In counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. Chicago Title Company has recorded this (Signatures Appear on Following Pages] instrument by request as an accommoda- tion only and has not examined it tor regu- larity and sufficiency or as to its effect upon the title to any real property that *-----"Ntr be described herein. Tract 2283 - Page 1 i IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions is executed, effective as of the day and year first written above. OWNER(S): Signet P ne C.1 Signature: Ar41.ur j�.Iptetc� FORM OF OWNERSHIP: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) On t� , 2004, before me, 11 e� personally appeared —D4t-r1� C- 1 t2 t I , . ,.Ill I.,,,,..., L ..:Z. (or pro ed o = on the ba Is of satisfactory evidence) to be the rsorti'whose name Is (�{>f4) subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that 1 i6/she/tiler executed the same In t� rsLherttt Lauthorized capacity(i�), and that by lhedthesignature(lkon the instrument the person( or the entity upon behalf of which the person( acted, executed the instrument. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OWNERS ,LOT: Lot 398, of Tract 2283, as shown on Tract 2283 filed in the office of County Recorder, Riverside County, California on November 14, 1961, as Instrument No. 98132 Assessor Parcel No: 637-254-002 Address: 77015 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) My commission expiresS RAX-dn. 2-ec 3 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE Y-4-V10n v \tICAQ _ , 2004 , ) ss. rni 'ly:\J to be the person(s.whbde name(i) is { subscr he/sht r executed the same In his/tmrfter author instrument the person), or the entity upon behalf of w WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) My commission expires gkr(.1 [Signature Page to Amendment to Decta before me„ iL personally appeared -te-me-(or p ved to a on the b6sis of satisfactory evidence) ibed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that ized capacity( and that by his/ttif�tkseir slgnature(�on the hich the perso acted, executed the instrument. Tract 2283 - Page 2 cti��� RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: POCC Development, LLC 77200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 Orf%- ...3 zo3S-378 ,L ZC. Space above this DOC is 2004-0929679 11/19/2084 08:00A Fee:748.00 Page 1 of 238 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside Gary L. Orso Assessor, County Clark 1 Recorder MI II II II 1111 rn s U A R L COPY LONG PAGE SIZE 23S' AMENDMENT TO DECLARAT ONS OF RESTRICTIONS Tract 2137 DA Pcc NOCOR SKIP REFUND NCHG MI6C 121> KW This Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions ("Amendment") is made this 4th day of June, 2004, by undersigned property owners, comprising fifty-one percent (51%) of owners of residential Tots in Tract 2137. 1. Declaration of Restrictions. On, April 7, 1961, the Memel Development Co., a corporation ("Declarant") executed a Declaration of Restrictions ("Declaration") which was recorded on April 12, 1961 as Instrument No. 31032 in the Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, State of Califomia. The Declaration sets forth certain restrictions regarding the use of certain real property, more particularly described as Lots 73, 199, 261, 405 and 493 in Tract 2137 recorded in Book 41, pages 29 through 36 inclusive, records of Riverside County. 2. Authority to Modify. Pursuant to the express terms of the Declaration, the restrictions lapsed as of January 1,1992. The Declaration further provides that, from and after January 1, 1992, the restrictions are renewed for successive five (5) year terms unless, at any time after January 1,1992, the owners of fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the number of residential lots in Tract 2137 determine in writing to supplement, change or rescind the restrictions contained in the Declaration. 3. Amendment to the Declaration. There are approximately four hundred seventy (470) residential lots in the portions of Tract 2137 affected by the Declaration. By their signatures hereto, 51 % or more of the owners of such residential lots in Tract 2137 have determined to modify and amend the Declaration by modifying Paragraph 1 of said Declaration by adding to the end of such paragraph, the following: Provided, however, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Declaration of Restrictions, there shall be allowed on the restricted lots, the subdivision, development, construction sale/lease and/or occupancy of up to 17 single family lots upon which residential units may be constructed, all as is more particularly provided under City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development Case Nos: C2 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01, (the "Project") as such Project may be modified and finally approved by the City of Palm Desert. 4. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but ail of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. (Signatures Appear on Following Pages] Chicago Title Company has recorded this instrument by request as an accommoda- tion only and has not examined it for regu- larity and sufficiency or as to Its effect upon the title to any real property that may be described heroin. Tract 2137 - Page 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions is executed, effective as of the day and year first written above. OWNER( Signature: _, Signat, /=', i9(' '�� I riCA4 `s FORM OF OWNERSHIP: Hjiu # . Z.\--/T- LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OWNERS LOT: Lot 392, of Tract 2137, as shown on Tract 2137 filed in the office of County Recorder, Riverside County, California on December 28, 1960, as Instrument No. 109220 Assessor Parcel Number: 637-124-018 Address: 77185 California Dr Palm Desert, CA 92211 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On .Ill ) E c 6, a 0O'-( 200 before me, Elk Yt IAn �CSMRCI personally appeared �W m/a , personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the piirson rwhose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same In his/her/their authorized capacity(les), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) tary Public in and for the State of Califamia My commission expires » ' ,CA 05 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ss. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ERIN ANN WOMACK Commission a 1334061 Notary Public • California f z Rive/skin County *Comm. &ohs Oct ttl, 2006 On Qn'? to , 2004� before me, EY i U\ �Y\ t(iO»1 C4rsonaily appeared `1.Vk-�ci 1 G; Q • y pn2 personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person s) whose n me(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) lic in and for the State of California My commission expires 14 \ 1 ` 05 [Signature Page to Amendment to Declaration of Restrict) ERIN ANN WOMACK Commission t 1324061 Notary Public - CalRornia Riverside County MyComm. Expk+is Oct 19. 2006 Tract 2137 - Page 2 SAFETY OF DETENTION AND RETENTION PONDS By Jonathan E. Jones, James Guo, Ben Urbonas, Rachel Pittenger Jonathan Jones, P.E., is CEO of Wright Water Engineers inc. in Denver, CO. James Goo, Ph.D.. P.E.. is a professor in the University of Colorado's Civil Engineering Department. Ben Urbonas, P.E., is manager of the Master Planning Program for the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District in Denver, CO. Rachel Pittinger is a project engineer with Wright Water Engineers in Denver. Introduction Urban stormwater retention and detention ponds are widely used in the United States. Retention ponds. also commonly called wet ponds, refer to facilities that maintain a permanent pool, while detention ponds, often called dry ponds. contain water only in the aftermath of runoff events. Although retention and detention ponds can be effective for stormwater management and flood control, they can also pose risks to public health, safety, and welfare. Urban storm drainage system planners, designers, facility owners, maintenance staff, and municipalities, including their elected officials and governing bodies, must be aware of such risks and insist on the use of recommended techniques to minimize them. Licensed professional engineers should be especially concerned about the risks that their designs may pose and be knowledgeable of design approaches that reduce such risks, given that their paramount responsibility as licensed professionals is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The purposes of this article are to • review safety hazards that can be associated with retention/detention ponds; • discuss techniques that can be used to reduce the risk of such hazards; and • review representative pond safety recommendations and guidance from municipalities, state and federal governments, professional societies, and the general stormwater literature. Although the focus of the article is on wet and dry ponds, many of the issues and recommendations presented here apply to other stormwater facilities, such as best management practices (BMPs), long underground pipes, and culverts (see the discussion of this topic later in the article). Conceptual designs of a typical wet pond and dry pond are provided in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Photographs 1 and 2 show examples of typical facilities. Photo 1: Typical retention pond Photo 2: Typical detention pond Overview Unsafe conditions can occur under both dry and wet weather conditions. These range from readily apparent problems such as outlet pipes that are open (unprotected with trash/safety racks) to less obvious concerns such as outflow pipes that are subject to overwhelming hydrostatic forces due to high headwater depths. A complicating factor is that children are often attracted to stormwater facilities, and this poses special design challenges and risks. For instance, the authors are aware of a case where a dry pond in an office park had a rapid rise, and a child playing in the pond was apparently knocked down by jet flows from an inlet pipe, tumbled by vortex flows, and ultimately dragged into an unprotected outlet pipe by suction forces. These forces were not visible (apparent) when the water depth in the pond covered the pipe entrances and outlet. Although it is not feasible to anticipate every public safety risk, many scenarios are foreseeable and can be accounted for during design. Pond safety issues that do not involve drowning must also be considered. For example, embankment slopes that are too steep can be hazardous to the public and maintenance staff (such as those operating lawnmowers). Another example is high wingwalls or other vertical structures. In the past few years, a serious public health concern that has emerged is related to ponds that create mosquito -breeding habitat due to shallow and stagnant standing water, thus increasing the risk of West Nile virus to the adjacent community. Specific Safety Deficiencies The authors have observed the following safety deficiencies in storage facilities: • Outlets are open and unprotected, they lack trash/safety racks, the racks have openings large enough to pose a danger to the public, and/or the racks are too close to the outlet to provide sufficiently slow flow velocities that will not impinge a person against them. • Adjacent land uses are incompatible with storage facilities and few, if any, steps have been taken to minimize obvious risks. For example, a nursery school playground without a fence was observed immediately next to a retention pond that had a high concrete wall along one side without a suitable railing. • The public is effectively invited to spend time near storage facilities because they are located in parks, along bike trails, next to playgrounds, etc., yet the designers fail to recognize that frequent use will occur, and public safety has clearly not been a specific design objective. • Education of community residents, office and industrial park employees, users of multipurpose recreational facilities, etc., regarding pond hazards is not provided. Signs warning the public of rapidly rising floodwaters and associated danger are not posted. • Sideslopes of the facility are excessively steep or vertical without suitable safety rails. As a result, it would be very difficult for someone to get out of the pond when water levels are rising. • Sideslopes within the pond's permanent pool are too steep, and/or ponds lack "safety benches" around their perimeter. • Pond inflow and outflow pipes are directly across from and in close proximity to one another. In this case, a person can be knocked over by the impulse forces (momentum) of inflows and then sucked into and/or pinned against the outlet structure. • Pond depths increase very rapidly, and inflow/outflow pipes are quickly inundated and not visible. • Hydraulic structures are designed and constructed in a manner that makes them hazardous. For example, steel bars on grates are not beveled, rounded, or covered, but have sharp ends. Bolts have jagged, exposed ends. Gaps between steel bars and concrete walls are too wide. Railings either are not used where they should be or are improperly designed. ▪ Ponds have a "hard edge" appearance, such as a block or cobblestone vertical wall, immediately adjacent to the water surface drop into a pond that has steep sideslopes, so a person who falls in cannot get out without having to swim. • A variety of problems with spillways have been observed. For example, spillways are undersized. Dams and embankments are not designed to withstand overtopping forces during floods larger than they were designed to detain, despite the presence of homes and businesses in the "dam break" floodplain downstream. This is often the result of designers assessing embankment behavior for the design event, such as the 50-year storm or the 100-year storm, but failing to recognize that larger events can and do occur, and that the consequences of such events have to be considered. • Inadequate maintenance and monitoring ❑ccur, thus leaving the facilities unable to function as designed ❑r intended. For example, when pond outlet structures are fully or partially blocked with debris, the risk of embankment overtopping and failure increases. ❑rifices in riser pipes that are used to gradually "bleed down" a water -quality design storm typically have small diameters, which leaves them vulnerable to plugging by trash, debris, sediment, algae, etc., unless frequently inspected and maintained. This can lead to prolonged pooling of shallow, stagnant water, which sets the stage for mosquitoes and, potentially, West Nile virus. • Other drainage facilities adjacent to the pond (designed at the same time as the pond) are unsafe, such as channels, drop structures, energy dissipaters, and culverts. The key to reducing the observations described above is careful consideration of risks in the design phase, coupled with regular inspection and maintenance of the pond to ensure that the facility is functioning as intended and that unforeseen hazards have not been created. Design and Operational Techniques to Reduce Risks The following risk -reduction techniques are recommended (see Photographs 3-10 for examples): Photo 3: Detention pond outlet with trash/safety racks ort 011 r•, 3- Photo 5: Wetland vegetation in pond bottom promotes water -quality enhancement and tends to discourage public access Photo 4: Detention pond with safe outlet, placed midpond, with mild sideslopes and good visibility from office building Photo 6: Limit the use of vertical walls, have mild sideslopes above and below walls, and use railings where appropriate. Photo 7: Retention pond with various safety provisions, including mild sideslopes and shallow water around full pond perimeter Photo 9: There is widespread recognition of public hazards associated with urban -area impoundments and attempts to limit liability. 1. Inform members of the pond design team that promoting public safety is an essential design objective. Raise the subject regularly while the design is progressing. Educate designers to understand that safety can be addressed without significantly increasing costs or disrupting hydraulic function. 2. After a conceptual or preliminary design for the facility has been prepared, review it with the facility owner, municipality, state staff concerned with dam safety (if relevant), and parties charged with its long-term operation/maintenance for potential safety issues. Modify, as necessary, to reduce risks to the public. Pay particular attention to risks to unattended children. Engineers are advised to design storage facilities in concert with a landscape architect, who will often have excellent suggestions for promoting safety (along with techniques to enhance appearance and maintenance). 3. Outlets pose particular risks and merit special attention. Do not use open, unprotected pipes as outlets. Instead, integrate the outlet pipe into an outlet structure that has smaller openings, and/or utilize a sloping trash/safety rack at the pipe entrance. The rack should have a surface area that is many times larger than the surface area of the outlet pipe to reduce entrance velocities (which is necessary to minimize the risk of a person being pinned against the rack) and to ensure that if debris is a factor, at least some of the surface area of the rack will be open during flooding to enable the pond to drain. Photo 8: Fences have pros and cons as a safety measure; in general, do not rely exclusively on fencing for safety. Photo 10: Trash/safety rack on drop inlet pipe at wet pond The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in Denver, CO, has prepared detailed minimum design guidance for pond outlet racks. The rack should be sloped at 3H:IV or milder. A clear opening at the bottom of 9 to 12 inches will permit small debris at lower flows to go through. The bars on the face of the rack should be spaced to provide 4- to 5-inch clear openings between them. Transverse support bars should be minimized, but they are essential for structural support under heavy hydraulic loads and will enable a person to climb up the rack. 4. When feasible, place the outlet away from areas of heavy public use such as playgrounds, parks, and schoolyards. Screen the outlet so that the public will not be "drawn" to it. Thick shrubs. grading techniques, and aesthetic fencing or railing can be useful in this regard. Ensure that embankment sidesiopes adjacent to the outlet structure are not too steep to enable people to scramble away from the structure as pond waters are rising. 5. Grade the overall site with safety in mind. For example, provide mild sidesiopes leading to and within the pond and minimize the use of vertical walls. Use safety railings when vertical walls or overly steep slopes are used. fi. Integrate a safety ledge (also referred to as a safety bench) around the perimeter of the permanent pool of a pond. Fortunately, this recommendation is consistent with another technique related to stormwater-quality enhancement: integrating a littoral zone of emergent vegetation around the pond perimeter. Integrating a safety bench with emergent vegetation will discourage people from wading into the pond. This approach can also create wildlife habitat and provide an attractive natural shoreline. 7, Owners are advised to periodically observe the facility to ascertain how the public interacts with it. Owners should also consider the comments received from adjoining property owners. For example, if children are skateboarding on concrete pans in the bottom of a dry basin, they should be told not to do this and warned of the hazard. Signs that say "No Skateboarding" may be helpful, although it may also be necessary to create a rough surface to make skating difficult. For facilities that are on private property, it is often feasible to have them included on security watches. Security staff should be instructed to pay particular attention to them during runoff events. 8. Community education can be a valuable tool. Use signs that warn of rapidly rising floodwater and educational, interpretative signs that explain how the stormwater storage facilities work. Urge local radio and television stations to include short public service announcements that emphasize the hazards posed by storm drainage facilities. Educate schoolchildren to these risks. Distribute flyers. Inform homeowner associations and property owner associations (for commercial areas) of these risks. Ponds are often located near public facilities such as recreation centers, libraries, and fire stations. Staff can be asked to observe the storage facility during dry and wet weather conditions and to identify potential hazards. Similarly, facilities in office parks and industrial complexes are often visible to workers, and they can be asked to identify potential hazards. 9. Attempt to separate certain land uses. such as preschools, from ponds or incorporate obstacles that will assuredly prevent access. 10. Separate inflow and outflow pipes by long distances and ensure that the pipes are not directly across from each other. This will avoid the creation of a continuous flow stream (current), which poses special dangers for the public. If this is not feasible, use an energy dissipater at the outlet where it discharges into the detention facility. 11. Regularly inspect and maintain the detention facility. Anticipate potential problems. Look at the impoundment from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the risks that such facilities pose. Look for potential hazards and address them. 12. Recognize that detention facility dams can be hazardous and use care in their design. Ensure that all aspects of dam safety, ranging from upstream and downstream sidesiopes to spillway adequacy to behavior of the pond during overtopping, are addressed. In particular, acknowledge that floods larger than the 100-year event can and will occur, and determine how the dam will behave under such conditions. If the dam is anticipated to fail during extreme floods, analyze the downstream impact of such failure. 13. Take steps to eliminate shallow, shallow -stagnant water in the bottom of "dry" basins that can be conducive to mosquito breeding. For example, determine maximum groundwater table elevations prior to design. Do not use outlet structure designs that are subject to plugging. Consider the use of gravity underdrains. Because mosquitoes generally require a stable, shallow, and stagnant water surface for at least three days to reproduce, design ponds to drain the water -quality design storm in less than 72 hours and use fountains or aerators in wet ponds to induce waves. Over the past few years, there have been many articles in stormwater literature about mosquito control, and readers are urged to become familiar with this subject and to address it during design and operations/maintenance. 14. The question of whether to construct fences around detention facilities is complicated, with arguments both for and against the practice. Ultimately, the decision should be site -specific and there should be a good rationale for whatever decision is made. Fences certainly discourage some people from accessing ponds. Fences lend themselves to the installation of warning signs. Provided that fencing materials are carefully selected and well maintained, fences can be aesthetic. On the other hand, many children or youths will view crossing a fence as a worthy and exciting challenge. The authors have observed many unattractive, poorly maintained fences that are eyesores. It often seems to be the case that ponds surrounded by fences are not as we!] maintained as those that are in the open and more visible. Ironically, if a situation does occur involving public safety. reaching the person who requires assistance will be impeded by a fence. If the safety issues are addressed using many of the other techniques described in this article, it should not be necessary to fence the facility. Isolated lengths of fence can be desirable, provided that they are attractive and properly integrated into the overall site plan (again, this emphasizes the value in engineers working closely with landscape architects during design). For example, it can be valuable to include a fence at the top of a steep slope to discourage access. 15. Concrete pans in pond bottoms should be designed to make them less attractive for skateboarding, such as finishing the concrete with a rough texture and/or narrow V-shaped surface. 16. Reduce the number of small, onsite ponds that are used in new residential and commercial developments by appropriate drainage master planning, minirnizing directly connected impervious area, using low -impact development measures, and emphasizing larger, regional storage facilities. It should not be necessary for every new convenience store, gas station, and fast food outlet to have its own dry detention pond, as this needlessly compounds public risks and creates other problems. Safety Racks at Stormwater-Qualitv BMPs. Lona Underaround Pines. and Culverts Safety (trash) racks should often be integrated into the outlet structures for BMPs such as wetlands and swales. Although the primary focus of such facilities is water -quality enhancement, designers must concurrently protect public safety. The use of trash/safety racks at inlets to culverts and long underground pipes should be considered on a case -by -case basis. While there is a sound argument for the use of racks for safety reasons, field experience has shown that when the culvert is needed the rnost—that is, during heavy runoff —trash racks often become clogged and the culvert is rendered ineffective. A general rule of thumb is that a trash/safety rack will not be needed if one can clearly "see daylight" from one side of the culvert to the other, if the culvert is of sufficient size to pass a 48-inch-diameter object, and if the outlet is not likely to trap or injure a person. By contrast, at entrances to longer culverts and long underground pipes and for culverts not meeting the above -stated tests. a trash/safety rack is necessary (Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2001). Conclusion Public safety must be carefully accounted for when planning, designing, and maintaining urban stormwater detention and retention facilities, BMPs, culverts, and other facilities. Failure to properly address these risks could leave all parties involved with their ownership, design, and maintenance subject to legal liability in the event of injury or death. The potential risks are numerous and significant, but they can be managed. Indeed, the great paradox of designing safe stormwater detention and retention facilities is that if they are attractive, interesting, well maintained, and "inviting," they will be regularly used by people of all ages. and this will promote public safety. Palm Desert Country Club Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2016/Page 7 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. El I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date City of Palm Desert Printed Name For City of Palm Desert % A t.. , 'ZIP Palm Desert Country Club Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2016/Page 8 Environmental Checklist and Discussion: The following checklist evaluates the proposed project's potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the project's potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. 1. AESTHETICS — Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Mitigation Impact Incorporation No Impact a) Less than Significant Impact. The project site involves a decommissioned nine -hole executive golf' course that is divided into three areas of former fairways and greens within the existing Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC). For the purpose of this project, the three golf course areas are identified as Parcels "B", and "C" respectively. These separate parcels are located within relatively close proximity of each other in a south-central portion of the country club. The existing interior streets of the country club follow a curvilinear layout design that frames the placement and orientation of existing homes, as well as the extents of the former executive golf course. Specifically, Parcel "A" encompasses a decommissioned area of approximately 13.56 acres surrounded by existing single-family homes facing Oklahoma Avenue to the west and north; Tennessee Avenue to the east; and Kentucky Avenue, Oregon Circle, and California Avenue to the south. Parcel "B" involves approximately 6.15 acres surrounded by existing single-family homes that face Kentucky Avenue to the west and north; Tennessee Avenue to the east; and California Drive to the south. Parcel "C" involves approximately 9.74 acres surrounded by existing homes facing Colorado Street and New Mexico Drive to the north; California Avenue to the east; Indiana Avenue to the south; and Tennessee Avenue and Utah Circle to the west. The adjoining residential uses on the east side of Parcel "C", along California Drive, include Villas an the Green. which consist of 76 age -restricted (55 plus age) rental dwelling units configured in two-story buildings. The current visual character of the project parcels is distinguished by the remaining conditions of the former golf course fairways and greens. These areas are now characterized by gentle mounds and slopes with scattered mature trees. Portions of concrete paths also remain on -site. The discontinuance of the golf course resulted in a reduction in the landscape maintenance. Moreover, the recent statewide and local water -use restrictions have required operators and home owners to substantially reduce water irrigation use, resulting in the current dry or brown lawn conditions that visually differ from the active green areas in the Country Club. The perimeter of each project area is adjoined by the rear yards of neighboring homes. These individual limits are distinguished by varying physical demarcations, including metal fences and garden walls. Some homes lack a physical rear yard boundary. The placement of existing homes is generally elevated in relation to former golf course, As a result, existing residents have limited visual obstructions of the decommissioned golf course from their rear yards. r rstendell@cityofpalmdesert org Mon 2/1/2016 8:42 AM To gourdpower@msn,[am <gourdpower©msn-com I'm not sure, ! know they did several locations but our traffic folks will review the dots when they are presented. If they are insufficient we will make that comment. baps--,!outlook•live.com/owaRviewmodei=ReadMesssgeltemBlteml0=AQMkADAwATIwMTAwACOwMAEOLWRIZDItM1]ACLTAwegBGAAADTDukWZK3tkKRHS•Io2BG5i)gM °Ia2FAcAnaW EXQjd4kGMM 2 Thanks, l would assume they are putting their documents together for a submittal, I also found out that they were the ones doing traffic counts, my guess in anticipation of submitting a traffic study as a part of their proposal. Sent from my Verinnt Wireless 40 LTF. smurtphone ht[ps:lloutiook.live.comlowal?viewmodei=ReadM essageltem&Item ID=AQMkADAwATIwMTAwACO NMAEOLWRIZDItMDACLTAwCgBGAAADTDukW2K3tDKRH51 2BGSOgM%2FAcAnaW EXQjd4kGM M4, , . /. • Palm DeseUU 'f or,. 7 75;:p Pr,i July 21, 2004 Re: PDCC Golf Course improvement, Clubhouse Renovation, and Residential Project - UPDATE Dear PDCC Resident: The past few months have been a busy and exciting time for our proposed golf course improvement, clubho renovation, and residential project, and we want to keep you updated on the project's status and activities. It also come to our attention that there may be some confusion and misinformation circulating about certain asp of the project and we hope to set the facts straight with this communication. The following information provides answers to the most frequently asked questions surrounding the project explains what PDCC residents can expect in the corning months. If you have a question or concern that is addressed here, please feel free to visit our website at or call us toll free 877.760.PDCC. I4 J1e Droiect &teen isooroVe ? Yes. At the June 24t' Council meeting, the Palm Desert City Council unanimously approved the projec proposed. This includes development of 95 new single-family, one-story homes, update and rehabilitation c 27 holes of the golf course, renovation of the existing clubhouse to enhance and modernize faciii neighborhood improvements such as signage and landscaping, an automated irrigation system, and permar preservation of the PDCC Golf Course as a golf course. The project has also received unanimous support from the Palm Desert Parks and Recreation Departrr Architecture Review Board, Citizens Advisory Committee for Project Area Number 4, and the Palm DE Planning Commission. Additionally, an election conducted by the PDCC Horne Owners Association sho nearly 70% of members in favor of the project. L..an the lawsuit hied or. the "Pr''r e. Preserva.EuII aci .iety 414114v idtproiet,i Yes. A lawsuit filed by the purported "PDCC Preservation Society" challenges the legality of the project base the restrictions indicated in number three below. We believe that this challenge is completely unsuppo because the original deed documents clearly state that such restrictions can be modified if a majoril homeowners in each respective Tract determine in writing to do so. By gathering signatures on the Amend to Restrictions document, PDCC Development LLC is strictly following legal requirements to move this pr forward. The lawsuit filed by the "PDCC Preservation Society" identifies only two people as the plaintiffs: Jer Pineau and Lisa Theodoratus. ..[ :+ u►a ,4 Ut MUment to 11ecialatio, ductifltrilt that homeowners are Deim 044,1 to sire The Amendment to Declarations document amends the 40-year-old restrictions that are in place on the u: property within the PDCC development Tracts. When signed by the majority of homeowners in the respe Tracts, this document authorizes development of 73 new homes to be built in Tract 2283 and 17 new homes built in Tract 2137. Sale of these new homes will provide the funds needed for renovation of the clubhc rehabilitation of the golf course. and other community improvements. If you are not in these Tracts, this doe apply to you. No. "he new homes proposed in this project are the only use authorized by the Amendment to Dec!aratk dodument. The remainder of the original restrictions will l remain in place and further development on PD property will be prohibited into the future. In fact, PDCC Development LLC will be dedicating a golf course easement in perpetuity, which means t after this project is completed, no other homes can ever be built on golf course property in the P: Desert Country Club. ,— Will the new homes cause pmp.rtv vehres to qo down No. Property values in PDCC will likely go up, as is evidenced by developments everywhere in the Palm De area that have added new homes and upgraded amenities. The new homes will bring new owners to the ai and the older homes will benefit from the enhanced facilities. As required by the City, PDCC Development I will be investing nearly $7 million in the golf course and clubhouse. We already have an unsolicited tis potential buyers interested in purchasing a home at PDCC as a result of this impending project — this is proc real estate value and interest. All plans, maps, renderings and project timeline, which have been approved by the City, are available on website at . You will see from these plans that houses are not being installed din behind existing homes. If you would like to receive this information by mail, please call us at (877) 76O-PDCi Abiding by legal requirements, we have to wait until a majority of the homeowners sign the Amendme !Declarations before beginning improvements. Also, legally, a transfer of title or sale of property cannot take c while there is pending litigation affecting that property. This means that sale of the PDCC golf course and str proposed improvements must be delayed until judgment is awarded in the lawsuit filed by the "P Preservation Society". While our belief is that this lawsuit is unfounded, as described above, it will delay init. of work and our project timeline will be affected accordingly. We are confident that this project is a positive investment in this community, and what we have heard thr hundreds of conversations with PDCC residents confirms that most of you agree. We do, however, under: that not everyone will be on board with the project. Unfodunai ely, these few opposing parties may cause undue delay in our plans for enhancing the PDCC golf course, clubhouse, and neighborhood. Further, according to the "PDCC Preservation Society" website, the leaders of this group have threatened ti the Homeowners Association because the Board voted to support the Project. In essence, the "F Preservation Society" is threatening to use the courts to overturn the vote of the PDCC Homeowners. Despite the "PDCC Presentation Society's" aggressive and litigious style, please know that we are fully comr to going the distance with this Project and accomplishing the best for the Palm Desert: Country Club a residents. We hope that you and your neighbors understand th ,t we are here for the long term, and committed to putting millions of dollars into your golf course and community. We thank you for your support. if you have any questions or concerns, please visit our updated project web or contact us at (877) 760-PDCC or v p the email addresses below. Sincerely, L.afry J. Kosmont, CRE Managing Partner Randy Case Partner & Project Ma, :ag e - Seamy Ryan artrer City of Palm Desert DEC 15 2017 Community Development DECEMBER 19, 2G17 TO: THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, PLANNING COMMISSION MY NAME IS CHUCK POWERS . I RESIDE ON KENTUCKY AVE IN PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB. I PURCHASED OUR HOME IN 1983 AND MOVED HERE PERMANENTELY IN 1992. I HAD 30 YEARS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN I RETIRED. IN 1992 THERE WERE 14 RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT LIVED WITHIN OUR STREETS. . THAT IS NO LONGER TH- CASE. THERE ARE A FEW OF US LEFT. SINCE 1992 OUR THREE STREETS, TENNESSEE, OKLAHOMA AND KENTUCY HAVE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. WE KNOW WHO BELONGS ON THE GOLF COURSE OR NOW OPEN SPACE. WE HAVE CLEAR VIEWS OF EVERYONE'S BACKYARDS. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT DURING THE SUMMER AS MANY HOMEOWNERS ARE SNOWBIRDS. IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED THIS ABILITY WILL DISAPPEAR. ACCORDIINGG TO NATIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH , THEY RECOMMEND HARDIN-G OF ONE'S HOME THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN. PALM DESERT POLICE RECOMMEND THE SAME.. TRACY AUSTIN IS THE COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER THAT IS IN CHARGE OF NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. THIS MEANS NO TREES OR BUSHES BLOCKING THE VIEW OF THE HOMEOWNER, NO SOLID FENCES THAT BLOCK OBSERVATION OF THE AREA BY THE HOMEOWNER. THERE ARE MANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH BLOCK CAPTAINS AND HOMEOWNERS NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR VIEW TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES FROM PREDITORS. I AM ASKING YOU NOT TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AS PRESENTED. CHUCK POWERS Ceja, Eric From: Ruth DeGeorge <randde767@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:39 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: PDCC former executive golf course Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert: My name is Ruth DeGeorge and I am a homeowner on California Drive in Palm Desert Country. I am concerned that the proposed project for the above project will mean increased traffic on California Drive resulting in delays at Fred Waring intersection. California Dr. bisects our whole community resulting in noneresidents using it as a shortcut to get from Fred Waring to Washington St. In addition, we have homeowner traffic from Kentucky Ave., Oklahoma Avenue, Tennessee Ave., Virginia Street and Florida who need to travel onto California to get access to Fred Waring. Also the residents of the gated Oasis Country Club have a gate from their club onto Virginia in PDCC to travel to Fred Waring. The addition of 69 Condominium units each with a two -car garage in this western area of our community will mean increased noise for our community and delays at the traffic light at Fred Waring. I understand a traffic study was made but for how long? With all due respect, I would like to know how many days , what days of the week and what month was the study conducted and what criteria was used to the conclusion that would be no significant impact on the increased traffic in our community. Your answer to these questions would be appreciated. Ruth DeGeorge 1 Ceja, Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:32 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Good morning, Eric. We received the message below yesterday afternoon from a resident regarding development of the former Palm Desert Country Club executive course. Thanks very much for any information that Planning can provide to Mr. Harrod. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760.776.6411 Direct: 760.776.6380 dhermann@cityofpalmdesert.org From: webmasterca7citvofoalmdesert.ora fmailto:webmaster@cityofpalmdesert.orci1 Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:08 PM To: Information Mail Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 12/14/2017 3:07 PM Response #: 775 Submitter ID: 7876 IP address: 47.158.94.119 Time to complete: 23 min. , 48 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Larry Last Name Harrod Email Address harrodlarrv@gmail.com Phone Number 7606363065 Address 76848 Kentucky Ave Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 1 lama: (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: 76848 Kentucky Ave I am contacting you concerning the proposed condo project on the old Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course. When I bought this home over 20 years ago one of the primary reasons was the golf course off the back yard and the views it provided. If condos are to be built on this property I would expect the developer to construct at least a 6 foot block sound barrier wall between their street and condos and my back yard/ I certainly do not want to view a street and condos from my back patio. I also understand that the condos will be time shares, making traffic and noise on weekends unpleasant. Thank you for your consideration Larry Harrod Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management SystemTM. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 December 17, 2017 City of Palm Desert DEC 18 2017 Community Development To: CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION RE: Palm Desert Country Club Proposed Development -Former Executive Golf Course From: Sharon Laskin, 76974 California Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 I, like many others, are against this new condo project. I read someone reference this condo project as a "change"....and went on to say that "people have a hard time with change." I resent the fact that this was so trivialized. One cannot call this a mere change...and to get used to it! We are not talking about new stop signs, new speed bumps, etc. We are talking about our Lives! Gone will be the days we can open our windows that currently face the course and hearing silence at night and birds in the morning. Instead we will listen to the cars driving by, leaving dust and dirt in their trail, the car's beeping for entry (or exiting), car alarms, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Yikes! How can one call this a mere change??!! I can guarantee that not one of us would purchase a home preferring to be surrounded by these noises. As a realtor, I predict our homes will suffer discounted prices being purchased only by those who cannot afford homes with the nicer, quieter environments. We are collateral damage. Why should all of us suffer at the hands of a developer only looking out for his own personal interests? Why were other options for this open land that were suggested to the developer by the homeowners not even considered? This is an insensitive move by a developer who is just plain greedy. Why has this been allowed to go on for so long? Why doesn't the city understand our viewpoint? I guess money is the issue here, not our happiness. Ceja, Eric From: Barbara powers <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 7:31 PM To: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric; Sabby Jonathan Subject: STAFF REPORT AND DECEMBER 19, 2017 PLANNING MEETING. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU POSTPONE THIS MEETING/ OR SCHEDULE IT AT A LATER DATE. For one solid week we were trying to get a report and only last night at 5pm was the report available. 165 pages is a lot to consume. There are many errors and I am only on the first few pages. It is also a very bad time to schedule this meeting as probably half of our residents are gone for the holiday. I have been getting many emails that state they can't come because they are out of town. Hopefully they are sending you their objections. EVEN IF YOU READ IT ASK FOR A 1ST READING AND GIVE US TIME TO CHECK THE REPORT OUT AND SCHEDULE AN OTHER MEETING. Barb Powers, Secretary for Open Space. Barbara Powers Ceja, Eric From: Jack Fleming <flemingjamf@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:14 AM To: Barbara Powers; Ceja, Eric; CityhallMail Subject: [SPAM] - Re: OpenSpaceAction Committee: Planning Commission Public Hearing/Agenda Item Barbara, I would love to be there. But it is extremely apparent that the City has no intentions of hearing our concerns. They need the $$$ in their pockets and are not concerned about the citizens in the PDCC area. Even though property values for us will go down. Sadly we dont have the $$ to file a lawsuit. So this way they win. Good luck but it is useless to waste more time on an uncaring City. But we will remember this at election time for sure. On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Barbara Powers <openspaceaction@gmail.com> wrote: Just a reminder about the Plannin_ Commission Public Hearing for the Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course. Scroll all the wa down Please attend this hearing and help us fight to save our Open Space and our quality of life. CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2017 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 Listed Agenda Item for Hearing: C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to rezone three parcels from Open Space (OS) to Mixed Residential (R-2) and approve Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242 for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres located on the former executive golf course at Palm Desert Country Club; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, & 37242 (McFadden Architects, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715, recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, & 37242 i Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715, recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, & 37242. Action: X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART 2 Ceja, Eric From: Stendell, Ryan Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:38 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: O'Reilly, Monica Subject: FW: PDCC EXECUTIVE COURSE Ryan Stendell Director of Community Development Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6386 rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Home [mailto:rculver@dc.rr.com] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:16 AM To: CityhallMail; Stendell, Ryan; Planning Subject: PDCC EXECUTIVE COURSE Raymond & Kathryn Culver 43505 Oregon Cir Palm Desert, CA. 92211 City of Palm Desert Architectural Committee Zoning Committee Planning Committee City Council December 16, 2017 RE: PDCC Executive Course To Whom It May Concern We object to the proposed rezoning of PDCC Executive Course from OS to R-2 for the following reasons: 1) No one in PDCC bought next to speculative land. In 1974 when John & Virginia Culver purchased this house they did so because it was on a cul de sac, so road expansions would not effect them, and on a golf course. since they knew there would be no construction immediately behind them. Most, if not all, of the 300 effected homeowners paid extra in the purchase price of their homes and understood their property taxes would reflect that they did not buy next to land that would be developed as anything but open space. Treating the property and loss of views to the homeowners as if we should have expected the possibility of the land being developed after 40+ years of it being open space is unreasonable. 1 2) Zoning changes are either a natural progression or require extraordinary reasons behind them. These reasons include: City's need for Revenue Increase Property Value Shortage of Housing Shortage of Land for Development Repurposing an Abandoned Property This is not a natural progression zoning change. City has no need for this revenue According to public records Palm Desert is running a considerable surplus. But the city is beginning to have a shortage of open space. The property value of property next to zoned open space is considerably more than next to zoned R-2 which could allow for any kind of future development. There are no shortage of condominiums in Palm Desert or the valley, a current search of Trulia shows the number of 538 for sale. There is no shortage of speculative land. A simple drive around shows numerous lots for sale and even more that have been developed over the last 4 years that the golf course owners missed out on. The property is NOT abandoned. We know who the owner is because they are making this petition. The owner has the property patrolled They do repairs to water sprinklers, and do minimum maintenance. So it is not actually abandoned in the true sense of the term. The course owners purchased a 27 hole golf course with a newly renovated club house While they maintain in good condition the clubhouse and 18 of the 27 holes. they choose to maintain in a blighted condition the 9 hole course. The analogy of someone killing their parents and then pleading mercy because they are an orphan comes to mind. So NO obvious extraordinary circumstances exists to justify the zone change. As stated by a member in the Architectural Committee "A project like this has NEVER been done here." Many homeowners translate that as "this is an experiment." An experiment is not an extraordinary reason and should not be sufficient reason for reducing the value of approx 300 homes in favor of 69 condos. 3) This has created an unnecessary division in the PDCC community and will create an even bigger division. The golf course has been the only thing that makes PDCC a group. Previous owners of the golf course always understood this and respected it. These owners have not. They have divided people with a golf course view from people without. Divided the 18 hole home owners from the 9 hole home owners. HOA members against non-HOA members, in fact this project is even pitting HOA members interests against each other. Making promises regarding the 18 hole if the HOA abandons the HOA members on the 9 hole. 2 The course owners have used the City of Palm Desert as a club to beat the home owners over the head. Instead of resolving the issues within the community as soon as they heard "no" they went to the city. There has been no legitimate attempt to address our concerns. They have repeatedly made promises they have reneged. If the project proceeds it will only create bigger divides. It will not bring us together as a community. If you remove the golf course we are on, we will not be part of PDCC. What will we be? Will it also change our property tax designation of PDCC zone 13? 4) Palm Desert Country Club and in particular the Executive Course have been the victim of shortsightedness for decades. Most of the people on the Executive Course are not part of the Home Owners Assoc. This is because when the expansion was proposed the HOA did not want the "new people" using the pool. Short Sighted. When the last owner made all the renovations he did not anticipate the housing bubble. Short Sighted. When Palm Desert could have taken over PDCC and made it the city's golf course they only saw "free" money for building on undeveloped land. Short Sighted. Changing the zoning on a golf course simply because the owner sees a way to make "easy money" is incredible short sighted. One Final point. There is a dog leg on Hovely and Kansas. After numerous cars crashing into the home on that corner the city finally had the house removed. This project creates a similar situation with the proposed placement of the roads. There is a house on California and Kentucky with a young family. The proposed project puts a road directly behind them. I'm sure the home owners had not expected to be surrounded by roads on three sides but in addition this new roadway will be an access road to and from party condominiums while their children are playing in their backyard. PLEASE DO NOT BE SHORT SIGHTED ON THE POTENTIAL TRAGEDY. Refuse the project or at least insist the road be removed or buy out this house. This is a water shed decision with potential affects for the entire valley. It should not be taken lightly. The valley is a vacation destination for golfing but if you set the precedent that a developer can buy up a smaller golf course, let it go to seed, cry poverty and then turn it into speculative land, the valley will not be a golf Mecca in the future. Sincerely, Raymond Culver Kathryn Culver 3 Ceja, Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 8:52 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Good morning Eric, We received the message below over the weekend from a resident regarding PDCC. Thanks very much for any assistance/information that Planning can provide to Mr. Herrell. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760.776.6411 Direct: 760.776.6380 dhermann@cityofpalmdesert.org From: webmasterCacitvofoalmdesert.ora Finailto:webmasterCacitvofgalmdesert.ora] Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 2:10 PM To: Information Mail Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 12/17/2017 2:09 PM Response #: 778 Submitter ID: 7884 IP address: 67.49.94.162 Time to complete: 11 min. , 3 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Michael Last Name Herrell Email Address Jamiacomoftvahoo.com Phone Number 760-777-0274 Address 76946 Kentucky Ave Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 lama: (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: Planning, I am a resident negatively affected by the proposed development of 69 Condo's at Palm Desert Country Club Zone Change.l Just received from you a 165 page document to review last Friday December 15th @5pm.I am requesting a second meeting with the planning commission so we can thoroughly and accurately review this document. Please advise to me ASAP . Thank You, Mike Herrell Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management SystemTM. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 1-25-2016 RE: RETENTION PONDS/DETENTION AREAS I posted all the grading plans on a large board and counted 39 retention areas on PDCC plans. I wanted you to know there are many more negative comments on the Internet. I have enclosed Several of the articles. Has PDCC FILED THE BMP REPORT, we don't know. The two major items , negative about these areas are: 1. Children are drawn to these areas like a magnet. Very dangerous health wise for them to play in and around these areas if not fenced in. 2. Health hazards where animal feces and other debris remain in the area. 3. Mosquitoes and other insects. 4. Of course we do not want any building on the Executive Golf Course but to have any of these Fenced it would be horrible to view. 5. In speaking with Eric Ceja, the water in these areas would not be pumped into the street And CVW will not let them discharge in the sewer system. They must just drain in Place. The current owner doesn't even take care of the weeds and other items now , even When Code is contacted. Why would you think it would be any different for them to follow the laws on the books and keep the area dean and safe. 6.We rarely get rain but in the past two years we have had our share. If any of these Areas would flood on to neighbors property there is no insurance from the owners, Or HOA when it is released to them and unless the home owner has flood insurance they are not covered. I know our side of Kentucky near Tennessee has had it's share In flooding during these rains. One household claimed they had $7000. In damage. SO THESE ARE OBJECTIONS OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE (Secretary, Barb Powers) Ceja, Eric From: Lisa Theodoratus <lisatheo@msn.com> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:58 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Jonathan, Sabby; Harnik, Jan; Kelly, Kathleen; Weber, Susan Marie; Nestande, Gina Subject: RE: Theodoratus - Formal request to treat resolution 2715 as a 1st reading on December 9 Hi Eric Thank you for sending these, they had not previously been provided to me. One has the building marked as B-12 which I will assume is C-12. That section also is noted "resident site improvement encroach onto condo units". I had my property professionally surveyed about 15 years ago and know that my walls do not encroach outside of my property. Unless they are talking about overgrowth of my oleander hedge this statement is incorrect. Pertaining to this section unit C-12 is shown as a maximum building height of 10 feet on the site plan . Is this correct? On the other section the pool building is also shown as 10 feet high. On page 6 of the report the pool buildings height is shown as 15 feet 6 inches. If the actual height of the building is not 10 feet then the cross sections are incorrect, deceptive, and do not reflect the reality of the proposal to the planning commission. The site section that is still missing is the cross section to unit C-4 from my backyard which is one of the two I requested many month ago. That unit is much closer to my home and appears to be elevated on the site plan I am looking at which will block my mountain views. I noticed that a letter from the Palm Desert Country Club Association dated November 3, 2017 is included in the planning documents. PDCCA has not formally asked the opinion of impacted home owners on this project prior to sending the letter nor has the PDCCA polled or carried out a special ballot measure on this project. The PDCCA board has, I believe entered into a contract with the developer detrimental to some members of PDCCA and benefiting other members without the knowledge or consent of the PDCCA members. The PDCCA board of directors has no right to speak for members without their consent and has I believe misrepresented the association and their fiduciary duty to protect all of their members. As you know I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow and request that this update be sent to the planning commission for review. I do believe that many affected homeowners have yet to see the documents released at 5pm Friday for Tuesdays meeting much Tess respond. Given that this meeting should be treated as a first reading to give everyone the chance to absorb the gravity on the lives of those affected. Sincerely, Lisa Theodoratus 77040 Utah Circle From: eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:05 PM To: lisatheo@msn.com; rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org Cc: jharnik@cityofpalmdesert.org; sjonathan@cityofpalmdesert.org; kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org; sweber@cityofpalmdesert.org; gnestande@cityofpalmdesert.org Subject: RE: Theodoratus - Formal request for treat resolution 2715 as a 1st reading on December 9 Hi Lisa, 1 Thank you for your email. As we discussed, your correspondence will be provided to the Planning Commissioners at their meeting tomorrow. In regards to your particularly question, attached are "sections" that show the grading and elevations for the rear of your property. Please contact me with any other questions. Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Lisa Theodoratus Finailto:lisatheoCa�msn.com1 Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:22 AM To: Ceja, Eric; Stendell, Ryan Cc: Harnik, Jan; Jonathan,' Sabby; Kelly, Kathleen; Weber, Susan Marie; Nestande, Gina Subject: Theodoratus - Formal request for treat resolution 2715 as a 1st reading on December 9 Hi Eric I am making a formal request that the planning commission treat resolution 2715 (Palm Desert Country Club) as a first reading at the December 18, 2017 meeting. The document was only made available Friday December 15 at approximately 5 PM. My reason for this is that the affected residents of Palm Desert Country Club have not been given a reasonable amount time to read the 165 page document, much less determine their own opinion of the document and notify the City of Palm Desert in writing of potential personal damages. Many months ago when we spoke at length at the planning counter I requested that you obtain an additional elevation for my property as "H PSS2" strategically misses the dwelling (C-4) closest to my home which I believe will block my view of the mountains. I also requested an elevation to unit C-12 which will also potentially block my mountain view and for relief of the walking path and retaining wall which is currently only 2 feet from my property line. I have currently not received the requested information from you. There are many issues that I plan to address later on the staff report, one of which is that my property value will decrease if this project is allowed to proceed. I plan on having a appraisal of my property both currently and if the proposed building are built and believe that my personal damages will exceed $20,000. I am also making this claim for Christine Sampson 43400 Tennessee Avenue aged 92 who is currently in the hospital and unable to respond for herself. If each of the 290 affected homeowners has a property value loss of $5,000 which I believe is a very low estimate for many this amounts to 1.5 million in loss to homeowners of Palm Desert Country Club many living off of a small social security check. Please reply to this message today as otherwise I will need to stay up all night tonight preparing a full response as I am working until 5pm today and also tomorrow! Kind Regards, Lisa Theodoratus, Owner The Cruise Experience 415 457-7186 Lisa@TheCruiseExperience.com 2 Ceja, Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 5:51 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Hi Eric, We received the message below today from a resident regarding Palm Desert Country Club and the proposed development of the former executive course there. I am forwarding for your information/follow up as appropriate. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760.776.6411 Direct: 760.776.6380 dhermann@cityofpalmdesert,org From: webmasterCacitvofoalmdesert.ova Finailto:webmaster(acitvofbalmdesert.oral Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 5:21 PM To: Information Mail Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 12/18/2017 5:21 PM Response #: 782 Submitter ID: 9886 IP address: 67.49.64.58 Time to complete: 18 min. , 27 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Mary Suzanne Last Name Tracy Email Address mstretdPme.com Phone Number 17603453746 Address 77-020 Utah Circle Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 1 I am a: (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: Palm Desert City Council Members: Palm Desert Planning Commission: Dear Sirs and Madams: I have lived at 77-020 Utah Circle, Palm Desert, California, 92211, since 1970. I was part of a small group who objected to the first development which occurred in the early 2000s. We lost on that issue and were told that the remaining land would be zoned Open Space in perpetuity. I understand that even though the land became Open Space, it was not in perpetuity. What a disappointment to find that the people we voted to represent us do not care about our interests. I am now facing further development in this area. I hope the City Council and the Planning Commission will vote against this development. My issues include: loss of privacy, light pollution, noise pollution, and loss of view. There are many other reasons to object to the development and I am sure you have heard them all. Please do NOT condone this development. I decided to stay here in retirement because I thought this was a wonderful place to retire. I also thought Palm Desert had great leadership. But my opinion is changing when I see that the Council and Planning Commission do not care about what happens to its residents. Please consider what you are doing to some of the people who voted you into your position. I hope to be able to say in the future that the Palm Desert City Council members really do care about their citizens. Sincerely, Suzanne Tracy 77-020 Utah Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management SystemTM. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 11-6-2017 Ryan Stendell, Director Community Developmemt City Of Palm Desert Re: Palm Desert Country Club, 69 Condo Request fora Zone Change & Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. We are submitting the enclosed Power Point Presentation to show that there is significant wild life on the executive golf course. No amount of money donated to any group could replace our Wild life. The building proposal would greatly affect the wild life habitat. This power point takes a few minutes to load. Also attached is page 7 dated September 2, 2016,Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. The box checked states it all. Also attached is the most recent picture taken 11-2-2017, GEESE HAVE RETURNED. The tree swallows were spotted on 11-1-2017. WE ASK THAT THIS BE A MAJOR ISSUE IN DENYING A ZONE CHANGE. PLEASE PASS ALONG TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Sincerely, Barbara Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 760-777-006 gourdpower@msn.com Palm Desert Country Club Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2016/Page 7 D RM1 A' ON: (To be completed by the Lead Agency), On the basis of this initial evaluation._ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect ire this case because x+evisions its the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. 0 I .find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a *potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the envirotrrraent, but at least orte effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier E}R or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date City of Palm Desert Printed Name For City of Palm Desert Environmental Checklist and Discussion: The following checklist evaluates the proposed project's potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a.,potential adverse impact .may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the project's potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. al A r 2, G 3 s tiK b4 o !• ‘' .. I 1A g !Y 1U A 11-6-207 Planning Commission Members: RE: PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB APPLICATIONS FOR A ZONE CHANGE AND BUILDING 69 CONDOS. I know it is early for you to be studing the applications for a zone change, etc. but this is a very sensitive project and wiff affect the Fives of all' of us flying in Palm Desert Country Club, especially the 188 home owners that live on the closed executive course. Please find a copy of a letter written to Ryan 5tendell, including the power point presentation, regarding all of our wild life on the late golf course. We are looking forward to providing your more information from our home owners. Sincerely, Barbara Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 760 777-0065 gourdpower@msn.com 11/12/2017 RE: PDCC Ex.course E, Reply I `f ® Delete Junk I V RE: PDCC Ex.course .i ..4 rstend a 11@ cityofpa l m desert. ory Mon 2/1/2016, 8:42 AM You ryanstgendellcitypd rkftc.c. srooy ') 'Reply I'm not sure, I know they did severs! Inca -bons but our traffic folks will review the dots when they are presented. If they are insufficient we will make that comment. Ryan Stendell Director of Community Development Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6386 rstendell@citvofoalmdesert.ora ,-- _tom= - �_ - _� �� z : .-_ ,. r.c,.-.-. From Barbara powers (maHto:gourdpower[tans .com} Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 8:28 AM To: Stendell, Ryan Subject: RE: PDCC Ex.course Thanks. If they were the ones doing the traffic study the measuring period was sure not very long. Like one day:` Thanks BArb. Sent from my Verizoia Wireless 40 LTE smartphone Original message -------- From: rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org Date: 02/01/2016 8:20 AM (GMT 08:00) To: gourdpoweraxr sn.com Subject: RE: PDCC Ex.course Thanks, i would assume they are putting their documents together for a submittal. On Dec 15, 2017, at 9:45 PM, Tam Walton <twaltonarne.com.> wrote: Barbara, no problem using my name. What is right is right, what is fair is fair. What 1 have come to understand about this city is they are way in over their heads with respect to properly managing OW. And f am totally appalled that this City would even consider disenfranchising 180 residents to support a greedy foreign developer. Total nonsense. PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB: Owners of PDCC, claim that water costs and labor costs have rendered the 9-hole course unfit as a business and have requested a rezoning of the 9-hole course area to build condos. If a zoning change is approved, many home owners fronting this 9-hole golf course would be impacted and disenfranchised. Why do we have zoning? to protect our investments. to bring peace of mind to those who invest in real property in Paim Desert. What is the purpose of a zoning board? The primary purpose of zoning is to segregate uses that are thought to be incompatible. in practice, zoning also is used to prevent new development from interfering with existing uses and/or to preserve the "character" of a community. If Council members support a change in zone to help an outside owner who purchased a country club in Paim Desert fully knowing how difficult it is to make any country club viable in this market, they should be held accountable at the next election. Businesses have the responsibility to conduct a thorough due diligence before purchasing any business. if later they find they made a bad business decision, it is not the City's responsibility to bail them out with a re -zone decision that would harm residents! How can this City justify protecting an outside business while disenfranchising Palm Desert residents. Residents, whom many are retired — whom many purchased these affordable homes on a fairway as much as thirty or forty years ago to enjoy their later years and retirement. Now this Council is going to pull the rug out from under these home owners and disenfranchise their investments to bail out a single business? If the owners of PDCC want to built condos, there is plenty of room within the Palm Desert city limits to do so. Maybe they could offer a free membership at PDCC's nine -hole golf course to all those who purchase one of their condos or homes! Maybe we should ask this council if they believe it is a responsible City position to re -zone a country club when it impacts and disenfranchises 180 residents? This is a no brainer—sorry golf course business —this City is not responsible for bailing out your business decision to purchase Palm Desert Country Club especially when you didn't even try to properly market your 9-hole golf course. Fro= F athr7 f manta; Festh 7@dt.rr.tom] Sent: Saturday, March 22, 2014 7:09 AM To: ACR C : ' J Subject: Assessed values of property Dear Mr. Ward: In a Golf Course Community. Are houses abutting the golf course appraised (o-g-- taxed) at a higher, lower or the sabre than similar properties in the community not abutting the golf course? If a differential exists, What would the percentage be? Marilyn Forney 76831 Kentucky Ave. Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 -- t?rlgln I Mewiage F�om: AGR sclapar[rrentlieaa To: 'FeathrT Sant Monday, Martin 24, 2014 3:09 PM Subject: RE' Assessed values of property Csocx1 dicrrnaan, discussed your inquiry with the appraisal staff in our desert office and the percentage would be llrf%, generally speaking. or example, if a home on a coif course lot sold, itwtluld allow for 35% of the market value/sales price to be allocated tattle land 1175,O00 . if the same home on a non- golf course kit sotd. 75% the markettrluelsales oricewcutd brraltoestecftot-'se land ;i75,3001 Thank you for your inquiry. --Wernher #642 Public Service dicisiMrr Asa or•Courtry Clerk Recorder Riverside [:utrnty • Serena Illk 76971 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 December 19, 2017 Planning Commission: Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chair, Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Chair, Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Staff: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner One of the most compelling reasons to stop the proposed development of the former PDCC executive course is that no matter how well designed this in -building of our neighborhood is, it is in serious conflict with our existing community. Such development would destroy valuable open space and our residents quality of life for the sole purpose of enriching the PDCC ownership. To approve a development based on the determination that it may (temporarily) resolve a problem area and assume there are no other alternatives, would be a major policy error. There has to be a better way than further destroying lifestyles and property values of concerned residents and property owners. 188 property owners directly affected by this development may seem a small number, but we deserve to have the city protect our remaining quality of life which has already been degraded by the actions of PDCC ownership over the past 4 years. Many of us are seniors living on fixed incomes, but we should not be overlooked in favor of the avarice which is proposing development. We are citizens of the City of Palm Desert and our interests should be protected by our City Officials! I will now read a quote from an article published in the Desert Sun on May 2, 2015 written by Sherry Barkas. The statements were made by Lauri Aylaian, then the city's community development director and currently the Palm Desert City manager. (Attached article, page 3.) Begin quote: "In my opinion, the likelihood of a successful rezone depends almost entirely upon the response of the neighbors," Aylaian said. The city doesn't stand to gain much from the development of 65 homes or timeshares, she said. With about 1400 timeshares in Palm Desert already, PD Investments' development would be less than a 5 percent increase. The city receives only a small portion of property taxes on new residential development, which would essentially offset the cost of providing services to the new units, Aylaian said. " Therefore, the city's primary concern will be with protecting the interests of the residents who are most directly impacted, to the extent that is within our authority to do so." End quote. I bring to this hearing a notebook of 678 signed petitions by property owners within the Palm Desert Country Club community ( this is obviously more than just those homeowners directly adjacent to the destroyed executive course), stating they are opposed to the proposed development. I would suggest that this is a significant 'response from the neighbors'! Thank you for your time and consideration. Serena Ilik Attachment: Desert Sun article published May 2, 2015 Golf course' s future splits Palm Desert community Wherry Barkas, The Desert Sun 9:03 a. m. PDT Kay 2, 2015 Buy Photo Fred Sinunons, left, and Charlie Ash are among Palm Desert Country Club residents whose homes are along the nine -hole "executive" course that golf PD Investments wants to permanently close to build up to 65 timeshare condos on the 30 acres. Many of the homeowners are opposed to the development but golf course owners say it's a matter of economics. Buy Photo 50 CONNECTTWEET 1 LINKEDIN 6 COMMENTEMAILMORE Standing at her patio door, Barbara Powers looks out over the fairway of the Palm Desert Country Club's shuttered nine -hole golf course. Her view of turf --- now faded to brown, with some patches of green is more inviting, she says, than a row of timeshare condos being proposed for the land. "We would be directly looking at a parking lot. There would be condos all behind us," said Powers, a Palm Desert Country Club resident whose home is one of 179 that line the smaller of two golf courses. "I don't want anything out there. I don't even care if this stays open space like this all my life." Course owners say it's a matter of economics: While the 18-hole championship course has done well since PD Investments bought the club out of bankruptcy three years ago, the par 3, nine -hole executive course is a financial drain. "It was costing $300,000 (per year) to maintain with a revenue of $80,000," said Wilf Weinkauf, general manager and one of about half -a -dozen partners in PD Investments. The course was closed nearly a year ago and the debate over its future has been ongoing. Weinkauf said they've "tried everything" to make the course appealing, including cutting green fees in half to $25. He said he also reached out to a nonprofit youth group, but said it couldn't afford the rate. "No one wants to play the course," Weinkauf said. "We're not going to sit around and wait for this to drag us under." He envisions between 60 and 65 single -story timeshare units built on the 30 acres. Photo Barbara and Chuck Powers' Palm Desert Country Club home is one of 179 along the nine -hole "executive" golf course that owners are looking to permanently close and develop into timeshares. Powers said she would rather look out at the open space than a row of condos. "We will leave at least 45 percent in green space, so it's very, very low development," said Weinkauf, who also owns a home along the executive course. Weinkauf said he has tried to come up with a development that wouldn't disrupt anyone's view of the Santa Rosa mountains but would instead boost property values. But Powers and some of her neighbors, who gathered at her home last weekend, disagree. They believe such a development will bring property values lower than the open space. Plus, they say, they bought their homes specifically because they were on a golf course. Bob Brennan, who has been in the golf business for many years, said not enough has been done to market the nine -hole course and draw players from outside the home owners association or the city. "The senior population is growing and this is a great walking course," he said. Weinkauf said he understands the opposition. He said he has tried to be upfront with the residents, and formed an eight -member committee that includes himself, another staff member and residents. But there are many hurdles yet to clear, not the least of which is getting a zone change approved by City Hall. The golf course, currently zoned as open space, would have to be rezoned for whatever the owners propose to develop, said Lauri Aylaian, the city's community development director. "In my opinion, the likelihood of a successful rezone depends almost entirely upon the response of neighbors," Aylaian said. The city doesn't stand to gain much from the development of 65 homes or timeshares, she said. With about 1,400 timeshares in Palm Desert already, PD Investments' development would be less than a 5 percent increase. The city receives only a small portion of property taxes on new residential development, which would essentially offset the cost of providing services to the new units, Aylaian said. "Therefore, the city's primary concern will be with protecting the interests of the residents who are most directly impacted, to the extent that it is within our authority to do so. One thing that we cannot do is force the owners to continue to operate the golf course if they don't find it profitable ... or if they simply don't want to," Aylaian said. Powers has begun circulating a petition among homeowners. Those who sign are also asked if they have any suggested alternatives for the land use. "So far, all have said, 'No buildings'," Powers said, but haven't offered any other suggestions. The near 60-year-old Palm Desert Country Club was the valley's first HOA community. The two golf courses have always been privately owned and property owners don't pay an assessment or any other type of fee that contributes to golf course maintenance. Nor do they receive discounted green fees. The course has changed hands several times over the years. Powers said there have been six owners since she and her husband bought their home in 1984. Homeowner Jack Forney said he's open to compromise. "Maybe a six -hole golf course and half the number of homes they want to build," he said. Desert Sun reporter Sherry Barkas covers the cities of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert. She can be reached at sherry.barkas@thedesertsun.com or (760) 778-4694. Follow her on Twitter Raymond & Kathryn Culver 43505 Oregon Cir Palm Desert, CA. 92211 City of Palm Desert Architectural Committee Zoning Committee Planning Committee City Council December 16, 2017 RE: PDCC Executive Course To Whom It May Concern We object to the proposed rezoning of PDCC Executive Course from OS to R-2 for the following reasons: 1) No one in PDCC bought next to speculative land. In 1974 when John & Virginia Culver purchased this house they did so because it was on a cul de sac, so road expansions would not effect them, and on a golf course. since they knew there would be no construction immediately behind them. Most, if not all, of the 300 effected homeowners paid extra in the purchase price of their homes and understood their property taxes would reflect that they did not buy next to land that would be developed as anything but open space. Treating the property and loss of views to the homeowners as if we should have expected the possibility of the land being developed after 40+ years of it being open space is unreasonable. 2) Zoning changes are either a natural progression or require extraordinary reasons behind them. These reasons include: City's need for Revenue Increase Property Value Shortage of Housing Shortage of Land for Development Repurposing an Abandoned Property This is not a natural progression zoning change. City has no need for this revenue According to public records Palm Desert is running a considerable surplus. But the city is beginning to have a shortage of open space. The property value of property next to zoned open space is considerably more than next to zoned R-2 which could allow for any kind of future development. There are no shortage of condominiums in Palm Desert or the valley, a current search of Trulia shows the number of 538 for sale. There is no shortage of speculative land. A simple drive around shows numerous lots for sale and even more that have been developed over the last 4 years that the golf course owners missed out on. The property is NOT abandoned. We know who the owner is because they are making this petition. The owner has the property patrolled They do repairs to water sprinklers, and do minimum maintenance. So it is not actually abandoned in the true sense of the term. The course owners purchased a 27 hole golf course with a newly renovated club house While they maintain in good condition the clubhouse and 18 of the 27 holes. they choose to maintain in a blighted condition the 9 hole course. The analogy of someone killing their parents and then pleading mercy because they are an orphan comes to mind. So NO obvious extraordinary circumstances exists to justify the zone change. As stated by a member in the Architectural Committee "A project like this has NEVER been done here." Many homeowners translate that as "this is an experiment." An experiment is not an extraordinary reason and should not be sufficient reason for reducing the value of approx 300 homes in favor of 69 condos. 3) This has created an unnecessary division in the PDCC community and will create an even bigger division. The golf course has been the only thing that makes PDCC a group. Previous owners of the golf course always understood this and respected it. These owners have not. They have divided people with a golf course view from people without. Divided the 18 hole home owners from the 9 hole home owners. HOA members against non-HOA members, in fact this project is even pitting HOA members interests against each other. Making promises regarding the 18 hole if the HOA abandons the HOA members on the 9 hole. The course owners have used the City of Palm Desert as a club to beat the home owners over the head. Instead of resolving the issues within the community as soon as they heard "no" they went to the city. There has been no legitimate attempt to address our concerns. They have repeatedly made promises they have reneged. If the project proceeds it will only create bigger divides. It will not bring us together as a community. If you remove the golf course we are on, we will not be part of PDCC. What will we be? Will it also change our property tax designation of PDCC zone 13? 4) Paim Desert Country Club and in particular the Executive Course have been the victim of shortsightedness for decades. Most of the people on the Executive Course are not part of the Home Owners Assoc. This is because when the expansion was proposed the HOA did not want the "new people" using the pool. Short Sighted. When the last owner made all the renovations he did not anticipate the housing bubble. Short Sighted. When Palm Desert could have taken over PDCC and made it the city's golf course they only saw "free" money for building on undeveloped land. Short Sighted. Changing the zoning on a golf course simply because the owner sees a way to make "easy money" is incredible short sighted. One Final point. There is a dog leg on Hovely and Kansas. After numerous cars crashing into the home on that corner the city finally had the house removed. This project creates a similar situation with the proposed placement of the roads. There is a house on California and Kentucky with a young family. The proposed project puts a road directly behind them. I'm sure the home owners had not expected to be surrounded by roads on three sides but in addition this new roadway will be an access road to and from party condominiums while their children are playing in their backyard. PLEASE DO NOT BE SHORT SIGHTED ON THE POTENTIAL TRAGEDY. Refuse the project or at least insist the road be removed or buy out this house. This is a water shed decision with potential affects for the entire valley. It should not be taken lightly. The valley is a vacation destination for golfing but if you set the precedent that a developer can buy up a smaller golf course, let it go to seed, cry poverty and then turn it into speculative land, the valley will not be a golf Mecca in the future. Sincerely, Raymond Culver Kathryn Culver December 19, 2017 Good Evening Madam Chairman, Commissioners and Staff My name is Jack L Forney, I live at 76831 Kentucky Ave., Palm Desert, Ca. Initially let me state that I am opposed to any construction on the Former Executive Course. Open Space Development is Open Space lost forever. On December l 1th I deposited with the Planning Department a written statement of my concerns and compromise suggestions for the Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course for each Commissioner and Staff. In the interest of time and redundancy I will summarize the main points of the statement. I am not an Architect, Engineer or Contractor therefore I can't comment on the structural integrity of the Proposed Units, but as an interested owner (my home abutts the former course) I believe the proposed project could be made more community friendly by some compromise adjustments. PDCC is a community of single family homes primarily occupied by retired senior citizens who purchased their homes for the majestic mountain views and the open area of the golf course for their golden years. They take pride in the community, maintain their property, respect their neighbors and are an asset to the City of Palm Desert. This project as I pointed out in my written statement should be revised to insure compliance with Article 5 of the Project Application Development Plan. Compromises should be made to protect, views, minimize noise and pollution, provide privacy and security for the surrounding residents. I believe my written suggestions for the Overall Proposed Plan for unit location, height, elevation, walls, fences and landscaping would help achieve these objectives. On a personal basis the proposed road is 16' from my rear property line. Attached are sketches showing the proposed and requested 90 degree relocation of Units B8, B9, B 10 and B 11 to allow the units and the road to be moved 30' or more feet toward the south property line. Sheet 1 is the now proposed location and sheet 2 is the desired requested location. The former owners of Palm Desert CC in applying for a change of zone to allow construction on the former driving range and other areas of the course, provided several amenities: ie. automated sprinkler system, new club house with modern kitchen, dining room, bar and pro shop as well as a new water line, covered golf cart parking, practice facilities, putting green, facility for maintenance equipment and most importantly the Right to Vote on the development by adjacent property owners. This Quid -Pro -Quo offering was met with approval by the club members, adjacent property owners and the community resulting in a change of zone and construction of the "Horton Homes" at Palm Desert CC. Mr. McFadden thus far has not made any significant changes to the original design of the project and Palm Desert Holdings, the current owner of the project has provided a Quid -Pro -Quo that includes, Dust, Dirt, Visual Blight, Pollution, the loss of property value to the 188 home owners abutting the Former Executive Course and no opportunity to play 9 holes of golf of this 27 hole course.. The construction of the project will provide additional problems for the area. 1 believe some cash compensation to the property owners who have suffered 4 years is appropriate from the 6 to 8 million dollar profit that the course owners will achieve from this project while still owning the 18 hole course and club house. In closing as I have previously quoted Abraham Lincoln -Who once said "Public Sentiment is everything, with Public Sentiment you can't fail, without it you can't succeed. The only way to measure Public Sentiment is to Vote." Let the surrounding affected property owners vote on this project as was allowed the affected owners prior to a change of zone and construction of the Horton Homes. Thank you for you time and consideration. FP: 896.50k) H 0 S 7-77— / 1 i ilk 8, 1 � '�M�i 01 Cice.1 TR u zamitom \ 7a8 . ■ ' f 1/ ciLLI.33118 398 3N11HI3LVw J• i i 0 z Q 0 2 6 C N 0\ 00 V 0 - TDI- OREGON DRIVE w 0 0 W cc co WZ W 0 to m C) CO v co o CO CD 07 J 00 CO z 0 NOT TO SCALE REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY December 11, 2017 To: City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto Chair Nancy DeLuna Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, Community Development Department Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Proposed Development of the PDCC Former Executive Course Madam Chairwoman, members of the Planning Commission and staff My name is Jack L. Forney, I own and reside at 76831 Kentucky Ave, Palm Desert, Ca, which abutts the former 8th tee box of the closed Executive Course of the Palm Desert CC. Let me state that l am opposed to any construction on the Former Executive Course! Development of open space is open space lost forever, however I am a realist and believe that the property will never be a golf course again and will not be open space forever! Property owners have rights to utilize their property within limits of established zoning laws. This property development infringes on some rights of existing home owners abutting the proposed development ie., noise, traffic, view and air pollution. An equitable way to minimize these problems is to compromise. A recent definition of the word COMPROMISE is "A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. Existing home owners have made numerous suggestions for utilization of the property and all have been met with the same response "The golf course is closed". This infill project is unique in it's application to build condominiums down the middle of an area 95% comprised of single family homes. A change of zone to allow development of this project as currently proposed will do irreparable harm to the 188 owners abutting these former fairways. They have already suffered 4 years of dust, dirt and visual blight due to the lack of proper water and maintenance of the property. They have lost green grass and the convenience of living on a golf course and most importantly the loss of 1O% of their property value as reported by the Riverside County Assessor's Office: "A property abutting a golf course is typically appraised 10% higher than a similar property not on a golf course". The applicant has shown total disregard for the surrounding property and their owners. 1 have reviewed the minutes of the March 14, 2017 Architectural Review Commission meeting and the summary of the minimal changes made. Compliance with Article 5 of the City of Palm Desert Precise Application Plan Development Standards should be addressed as follows: A. Site Access and Circulation Standards: Single road in and out of the project does not appear to meet this standard. B. Site planning shall occur that minimizes obstruction of scenic views of adjacent properties: 15' to 18' planned structures does not minimize obstruction of scenic views of surrounding properties. C. Site planning shall be compatible with existing terrain: Gentle sloping area as opposed to current hilly conditions in some areas. D. Site planning shall occur in a manner that does not expose unattractive areas or activities to the detriment of adjacent properties. Swimming pools, pickle ball courts, 30" high walls to screen headlight intrusion does not meet this criteria. E. Tree selection should be carefully considered as to family type, maximum height and spread of canopy: Messy trees of the Acacia Family as proposed grow to 30' to 40' in height with similar size canopies. In an effort to provide compromise suggestions that can be applicable to the entire project on these 200' plus wide fairways, I have offered in writing and oral presentations to the Architectural Review Commission on May 23, 2017 as follows: A. Na structure, portion thereof or recreational facility shall be closer than 80'from the closest adjacent property line. B. No structure or appurtenance thereon shall exceed 10' above the elevation of the nearest adjacent property line and a distance of 100' in each direction along said property lines. Relocating air conditioning units and the surrounding screen fence to the ground would help. C. All roadways shall be a minimum of 60' from existing property lines. The currently proposed roadway is 16' from my rear property line. D. All roadways shall be a minimum of 3' below the elevation of adjacent property lines. This will eliminate the need for 30" segmented walls. E. All exterior fencing should be constructed of material selected by adjacent property owners from 3 choices; Stucco block wall with wrought iron on top Solid stucco block wall Wrought iron For consistency no less than 3 adjoining properties (180') shall be of the same construction type. F. No exterior fencing shall be permitted 1' away from existing permanent property line fencing. No double fence line where existing permanent fence is in place. G. Maximum height of mature trees shall be 30' and canopy diameter 30'. Trees shall be located 100' from structures, other trees or property lines. H. All landscaped areas shall be a minimum of 5O% green grass. In discussion with planning staff and review of the minutes of the May 23, 2017 meeting, none of my suggested compromises were included. Therefore at the July 25, 2017 meeting of Architectural Review Commission Meeting I again offered written and oral presentations specific to my home and those of my immediate neighbors that could be applicable to other locations in the development where the proposed roadway is 16' or less from existing property lines. PROBLEM: Proposed roadway is 16' from my rear property line. SOLUTION: Rotate the structures for units B8, B9, B10 and B11 90 degrees making the long side (96') parallel with the edge of the former fairway and the short side (58') perpendicular to the edge of the fairway (fairway at the location is 210' wide) this will allow the structures and the proposed roadway to move 30' or more toward the south property line of the fairway providing safety, less noise and pollution from the roadway. PROBLEM: View obstruction and non -compatibility of proposed roof design. SOLUTION: Remove superfluous roof projections ie. dormers, air conditioning units and screening, provide for 4/12 pitch or flat roof for all structures which will be compatible with the roof design of existing surrounding properties. Lower pad elevations 12 to 18 inches. Mr. McFadden and Palm Desert Holdings(listed owner) have not made any significant compromises on their application as originally proposed for this project. This project as currently proposed does not conform to the structures or character of the surrounding community. A good faith effort of compromise and good citizenship by Palm Desert Holdings and a quid -pro -quo offering to the 188 homeowners abutting the former executive course for their suffering and loss of property value would be a cash reimbursement equal to 10% of the assessed value as shown on their 2017 tax bill. This would be less expensive than the amenities provided by the former owners in exchange for the change of zone that allowed construction of the Horton Homes. I request this project be returned to the applicant to correct the flaws in the precise development plan I have outlined and provide a revised plan that includes the compromise suggestions I have made. Abraham Lincoln once said, "Public sentiment is everything, with public sentiment you can't fail, without it you can't succeed. The only way to measure public sentiment is to VOTE". Let the surrounding affected property owners vote on this development as was allowed prior to the construction of the Horton Homes at Palm Desert Country Club. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jack L. Forney 76831 Kentucky Ave. Palm Desert, California 760-345-8598 2-13-2018 To: Eric Ceja, Planning Ryan Stendell, Community Development Mayor, Sabby Jonathan, Councilmembers: Jan Harnick, Susan Marie Weber , Gina Nastande, and Kathleen Kelly, From: Barbara Powers, 76918 Kentucky Ave, Palm Desert SUBJECT: PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB 69 CONDO PROJECT AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY DONE FOR THIS PROJECT. The City's Planning Department totally ignored my request for a new traffic study. I would like to bring to your attention a very big traffic congestion problem during the weekdays. Every morning, Monday through Friday there is e big back up on California Ave Trying to exit out on to Fred Waring, both East and Westbound between 8 am and 9 am. This morning was a good example: 1 approached the intersection at 8:41 on California Ave to turn right on Fred Waring. The light had just turned red for California. I counted 11 vehicles in front of me. Mixed vehicles of pool business trucks, construction trucks and regular cars. 1 was the 12th vehicle and behind me came 3 more cars from Virginia(which feeds out from Oasis Country. Club). We sat through 2 signals of 3 minutes each before turning on to Fred Waring, We akso have parents taking their kids to Palrn Desert High School a little earlier. THE PLANNING COMMITTEE NEVER ADDRESSED THIS ISSUE. SEE ATTACHED EMAIL TO RYAN STENDELL IN 2016, WHERE I COMPLAINED THE TRAFFIC STUDY WAS LEFT FOR 1 DAY. TRAFFIC 15 A BIG PROBLEM EARLY MORNING AND LATER AROUND 5 PM WHEN PEOPLE CUT ACROSS OUR COUNTRY CLUB TO USE SHORT CUTS TO AND FROM HOVELY , WARNER TRAIL BOTH DIRECTIONS BETWEEN HOVELY AND FRED WARING. ALS❑ RESIDENTS FROM ❑ASIS COUNTRY CLUB USING THEIR EXIT ON VIRGINIA ONTO CALIFORNIA_ PLEASE DON'T JUST WHITE WASH THIS ISSUE. WE NEED A NEW TRAFFIC STUDY. Cc: Attachment of Email to Ryan Stendell SINCERELY, BARB POWERS 76918 KENTUCKY AVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92211 760-777-0065 11112€2017 RE: PDCC Ex.ceurss 7ftC,'c.. SOi Reply p Delete Junk,' V RE: PDCC Ex.course rstendelI@cityofpaliiddese t:oig tl Reply Mon 2C1/2015. 8:42 AV You v r karistaencieiicitypo k'm'not avre, 1 know they did several locations but our traffic folks will review the docs when they are preserrted. they are insufficient we will make that comment. Ryon S -ende Director of Community Development Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6386 rstendde II@ citwofncsi mdesert_oro Frown Barbara powers fmailta:gocirdperwer@msn.com] Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 8:28 AM To: Stendell, Ryan Subject RE: PDCC Ex -course Thanks. If they were the ones doing the- traffic study the measuring period was sure not very Long. Like t Vs1.4.....irianks B Alb. Sera from my Verizem Wzreks s 4G L7 E arty rre --- Original message ---- From: rstendellkeityofna1mdesert.arg Date: 02/01/2016 8:20 AM (GMT 08:00) To: gourdpowerCmsn.com Subject: RE: PDCC Ex.course Thanks, 1 would assume: their are putting their documents together fora submittal. January 2, 2018 TO: NANCY DeLUNA, PLANNING COMMITTEE, AND OTHER MEMBERS, MAYOR, SABBY JONATHAN, PRO TERM MAYOR ,SUSAN MARI E WEBER, COUNCIL MEMBERS ,KATHLEEN KELLY, JAN HARNICK, GINA NASTANDE, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, RYAN STENDELL, PLANNING, ERIC CEJA City of Palm Desert JAN 0 2 2018 Community Development SUBJECT: COYOTES AND CONVERSATION OF NANCY DeLUNA AT PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Ms. DeLuna, In discussion about 6-foot fence that was brought up at the Planning Commission Hearing, you Stated it would be good to have the 6 -foot fences to keep out the coyotes 1 have lived in Palm Desert Country Club since 1984 and you can not keep out the coyotes. Fact #1 . The coyotes have their dens in the White -Water Wash. They have been coming on to our golf courses almost every Thursday evening before trash day. They come in the spring and sometimes bring their pups. This year the HOA for Palm Desert put out a warning to the residents. (See attached #1 Article about the coyotes) Also I have included a search from google (Attachment #2), Coyotes can jump almost any fence. Fact #2 . 1 have attached the grading plans for our area. This is just in my little area of the dead executive course between Oklahoma and Kentucky, bordered to the East by Tennessee. (Attachment #3 and 4) A suggested 6- foot fence around the perimeter of the project is shown on the plans. THAT BLOCKS US ALL OUT BETWEEN THE BUILDING PROJECT BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM: THE LOTS ALONG TENNESEE HAVE MANY OPENINGS AS THERE ARE NO PENCES BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE HOMES, (WHICH ARE ALL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY). If a coyote enters that space, we now have a problem because there is not much room between the homeowner's property and the fence belonging tothe project. If confronted in this area, a coyote could be a danger. If you tried to scare or shoo it away it now has nowhere to go except on another homeowner's property.. We recently had a coyote on our patio. He was not afraid at all and sat their watching my dog. We called neighbors to tell them to watch out for it. His mate was seen several homes down from ours. I called Animal Control and they told me it would go away on its own, At least when we yelled at it , it ran to the open space. I would not want to confront one in a closed in area with a 6- foot fence. HOW DO YOU SOLVE THIS PROBLEM? This is a problem through out our open space, I have just chosen our little area to make a point. WE DO NOT WANT ANY FENCES. Sincerely, Barbara Powers We have received reports that a Coyote has been spotted inside Palm Desert Country Club Homeowner's Association. We urge you to take precautionary measures and not leave small pets outdoors. The coyote (Canis latrans) is a member of the dog family, It resembles a small German shepherd with the exception of the long snout and bushyblack-tipped tail. Coyotes are extremely adaptable and resourceful, and can survive on whatever food is avaltable.They prey on rabbits, mice, birds and other small animals, as well as deer and occasionally bighorn sheep. In urban areas, coyotes are known to attack small cats and dogs, particularly pets allowed to roam free or left out overnight. A typical coyote weighs between 20 and 50 lbs., and can easily outmatch a smaller pet. Coyotes are adaptable predators found in most open habitats, including city neighborhoods, open space, parks and trails. They are tolerant of human activities, and adapt and adjust rapidly to changes in their environment. People with pets should keep them on a leash when walking. White at home, do not allow pets to roam freely. Even pets in enclosed yards run the risk of predation. People should feed their pets inside in an effort to keep pet food from attracting coyotes and other wildlife. Remind children not to approach or feed any wildlife. While attacks on humans are extremely rare, people should still take precautions. Tips to Remember: Discouraging Coyotes Near Homes • Frighten coyotes with loud noises; use unnatural odors (such as ammonia) to clean trashcans. • Yell and Throw things at coyotes whenever you see them near your home. • Cleanup food attractants such as dog food, garbage and spilled seed beneath birdfeeders. • Use yard lights with motion detectors — appearance of the sudden light may frighten coyotes away. R44Acb.r.• dest Protecting Pets and Children • Keep pets in fenced areas or kennels; remember split rail fences and invisible fences will not keep your pet safe from predators. Pet kennels and runs should have a fully -enclosed roof. • Provide human supervision while outdoors, even in your own backyard. • Do not allow pets (or children) to run loose in areas where there is coyote activity. Keep pets on leash or leave the area when you see a coyote. Most urban areas have leash laws requiring dogs to be under control. Coyotes and foxes are thought to be responsible for many cat disappearances in residential neighborhoods. • Although rare, coyotes could potentially injure people_ Teach your family not to approach wildlife and never feed wildlife. • Treat the presence of a coyote as an unfamiliar and potentially threatening dog. Coyote Encounters Rural coyotes are wary of humans and avoid people whenever possible. Urban coyotes seem to be more comfortable around humans. Overtly aggressive behavior toward people is not normal and should be reported. Never feed or attempt to `tame" a coyote. Do not turn your back or run from a coyote. If approached or followed by a coyote, Hulce loud noises, yell and make yourself look big. If the coyote approaches to an uncomfortably close distance, throw rocks or other objects. 1/1/2018 picture of coyote jumping fence - Google Search picture of coyote jumping fence All Shopping Videos Images News More About 897,000 results (0.51 seconds) Images for coyote jumping fence 4 More irnagea for coyote jumping fence Compilation of Coyotes jumping fences - YouTube Doodon https:llwww,youtube.com/watch7v=WO4p76uzse0 • Sep 21, 2014 • Uploaded by Wiener News Protect your pets. Coyrries can lump almor.l any fence. Cuyote Deterrent helps _ htlpl/amzr.1o12ek5gg1.. Settings Toots Report images Coyote jumping a 6-0" wail to Phoenix, Az. - YouTube Dlortco litral D Dec,l2012-Upo Uploaded keDaddcuWp3COjk • c 3, 2012 • Uploaded by DaSrneke�addy Coyote; are kr/ling dogs and cats to the -Phoenix Arizona metropolitan area. This is r, the first time I have .. Coyote jumping fence at night.MOV - YouTube IZINorun https://www.youtobe.com/watch?v=TIXyh3gmEkg Aug 9, 2011 - Uploaded by argylecoyote Coyote Jumping fence at night. You should watch your pets. Coyotes can jump most fences. Keep your pets safe from Coyotes » AdoptaPet.com Blog Cuortom www. a d optap e l .com/blog / k eep-your-p ets-safe-fro m-coyotes) • Sep 19, 2011 - (As you can sec rn this photo ) They can jump and get over a 6.7ft fennce harely touching n with their paws - we've seen it live. it looks like they are levitating! Heres a video of a coyote, reaping like a cal onto a Eft wail: http:llwww.youtube.comlwatch?v=a3atOR8QZWE (the leap happens ai the very end) How high a fence can coyotes jump? — Orange County Register C https. //www. ocregi ster. com/2 017/ 06/0 71h ow-h rg h-a-f ence-can-coyotes-jump/ Jun 7, 2017 - Here's how they might end up in your backyard SCALING FENCES: When searching for food in neighborhoods, coyotes are known to scale perimeter walls and fences Coyotes can easy leap ant 8-foul reuse or wall. They have been potted climbing over a 14-foot cyclone lento. OCR-L-COY70E- JUMP. Haw To Keep Your Pets Safe From Coyotes - Gizmodo Ism https://gizmodo.com/lbw-to-keep-your-pets-safe-from-coyotes-1586728445 • Jun 5, 2014 - Coyotes now live in every stale but Hawarl and thrive around human civilization, eating our garbage acid sometimes, even our pets here's what you can ... Tipping the fence with barbwire or a Coyoin Roller will prevent them from climbing over the lop. Any gales in the .. a coyote off Piiot".:. [tan Hutcheson *z ,w..wr Coyote Control FQA - DesertUSA Lea^ laps: //www. gong ie.co rrllsearch?q = picture+of+coyote+jumping+fence&taq =p'ictune+of+coyote+jtml pirtg+fe nee &eqs=chrome , .69i5 7.12232jOj7dnsourceid ... 11. 12/31/2017 Welcome To Palm Desert Country Club Association f j •r r r rIIr fc rlr�r CJ�:' = �i•Jr•!J!!:! I L;rir:: .rJ •!E•l:rE:. i'4 a,.:�:r r..vr U WELCOME TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATION Palm pert Country Club Association was origiraliy known as Palm City Association and was Incorporated fn 1961. The Clabhou$e and adjoining structures were built along with 3 display homes. In 1977 the name was changed to Paim Desert Country Cub Association. The "primary purpose for which the corporation was farmed was to provide ath!ettc, recreational and dub faculties for the use of the residents" of the Association, There are now 1054 homes or lots built on two tracts of land that make up the total membership of Palm Desert Country Club Association. Over the years the corn r unt y has built up around the original development bordered by Washington St., Bosley, and Fred Waring Drive. "r'ii - •' l.. g. "fir en ub its he http://wwwpdcoa.com/ MATCHLfNE SEE SHEET 4 + . l E1 fil at �I'! 1 ,,I „e M : 4 _� ;° i —_1 fC% 02 g$m ;frig >G .L--r I r 1 I 0 I .I + i• ��,4-__ 45 ' a =_,1 -1 111J 1& • ,11E i I __� , 1 P g__ to ti f a`1H 1 MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 4 / /�- / .. / -� ! �� I. / �• / : RCS I Ix II�II� °° di1 , I . I I, 1 3 N /I \ I,I ... --,./ t_ t-YI�— �•ti ALAfRA I k ,�I I. / I -III 4 I } 1 I I+ ��-1 µ I. 0 =- +I 11 1 i /v/ N \\ / a \ - \ 14 / \\'C /�\ //) i y \ y / �' /, �%' /a \ • / /VAN ‘' -_��;- s• _ -� =— �,:- A.' Lb 'A N -_a Clty of Palm Desert JAN 19 2018 P.O. Box 12140 Community Development Costa Mesa CA 92627 15 January 2018 Sabby Jonathan, Mayor Susan Marie Weber, Mayor Pro Tem Jan Harnick, Council Member Kathleen Kelly, Council Member Gina Nestande, Council Member Lauri Aylaian, City Manager Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Dear Sirs: I am an owner of a single family residence on California Drive that borders on the 9-hole golf course for which a residential development plan has been ceaselessly progressing through various parts of the City of Palm Desert. It has been reported to me by another affected property owner -- who took his complaint about this development plan to a City of Palm Desert employee --that he was told that by that employee that he should propose a viable alternative. I have attached what I believe is an viable alternative. It is also a good alternative in that, if put to a vote, it would conclusively determine whether the affected property owners are serious about preventing residential development on subject golf course. Sincerely yours, 7-r 762 Frederick P. Kent Atch (1) The "Do the Right Thing" Alternative (DoRight) t❑ the "Grossly Inappropriate Proposal" (GIP) regarding residential development of the defunct Executive Golf Course (DEC) by the Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Recommendation: The City of Palm Desert (CPD) will: 1. Obtain ownership of DEC 2. Landscape the DEC property 3. Maintain the DEC property 4. Devise a municipal bond to cover these costs 5. Propose an allocation scheme t❑ recover these costs as an added line item in the appropriate property tax bills 5. Get the required approval from the affected property owners 7. Issue the municipal bond In so doing CPD will also: 9. Acknowledge that the majority of owners of the affected properties have been and continue t❑ be adamantly against the GIP 10. Acknowledge that the DoRight alternative not only is in accordance with the CPD General Plan regarding open space, but is also consistent with the surrounding area that current property owners bought into and that they rightfully expected to stay reasonably the same Elaboration: 1.1. It has been said that CPD was offered the DEC by PDCC at no charge. It is difficult to understand why such an offer would be refused. 2.1. One of the alternative landscapes to be considered should be desert-scape, with native plants, to keep maintenance costs (water, labor, etc.)lower 3.1. Estimated maintenance expenses must be made accurately in order to properly size the municipal bond 4.1. Terms of the proposed municipal bond (eg. size, term and interest rate) should be included in the materials provided to current property owners when they vote 5.1. The annual DEC expenses/bond paid interest expenses are to be totally recovered the added bond line item on the property taxes bills 5.1. The bond proposal needs to be put t❑ vote with the margin of approval specified in the CPD charter or other governing documents 7.1. It is certain that the majority of the affected property owners have been opposed to the GIP since it was first proposed in 2014. What is not certain is whether these owners can and will approve of a tax added to their property tax bills. It is therefor imperative that an accurate estimate be made ❑f the size of the added tax per property. Supporting Text: 1.1.1. If the DEC cannot be gifted to CPD, an unbiased appraisal should be arranged. That appraisal should reflect the fact that the property has been deteriorated substantially under PDCC ownership. A once viable business has been intentionally abandoned and the landscaping allowed to all die. They poor stewardship of the property they bought has certainly decreased its value. It could supported that the property is currently worth no more than 1/3 of their purchase costs (9 short course links abandoned divided by 27 total links purchased). Also the appraisal should not consider the use of the land for residential development. As has been proven by the PDCC proposal, residential structures could only be shoe -horned into that space. If the property had been intended for future for residential development, it would have had fairways sized like the rest of the area, with room for a central street with housing ❑n both sides. 5.1.1. There is no doubt that the owners of property that directly borders the DEC would be the principle beneficiaries of the changes proposed in this DoRight alternative. But a case can also be made that ❑ther owners ❑n the bigger course would also benefit to some extent and could share a part of the cost burden/tax line addition. 4.1.1. Pro -forma of bond details: In addition to the purchase price of the DEC by PDC, the bond would also have to fully cover the initial landscaping costs, annual maintenance costs, annual interest paid to bondholders, etc. The estimation of these costs, the sizing of the bond, etc. requires a full financial analysis. However, the following figures may help determine the feasibility of such an effort. A $1,000,000 bond issued for 30 years at 1.005k per year would require a semi-annual payment of $35,979 and a new (average) tax on the 188 properties of $192 on the two annual property tax bills. At 2% the payment would be $38,748 and $207 on the two property tax bills. The low interest rate is justified since municipal bond interest is exempt from California income tax and the bond would be well secured by the mandatory property tax payments. ### Clty of Palm D uort .JAN 0.3 2018 Community Development P.O. Box 12140 Costa Mesa CA 92627 29 December 2017 Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Dear Mr. Stendell: I am an owner of a single family residence on California Drive that borders on the 9-hole golf course for which a residential development plan has been ceaselessly progressing through various parts of the City of Palm Desert. This is a very important issue to me and the other property owners who also border on that course. I personally think it is an important issue also to the owners who border on the 18-hole course, which I predict course will be the next development plan. It is also my opinion that this is --or at least should be --a very important issue to the City of Palm Desert. Everything that 1 want to say about this issue is in the attached. It is long, but this is a very big and complex issue with a lot of reverberations. I hope that you will take the time to read it all he way through as you consider how you will vote on this issue. Sincerely yours, Frederick P. Kent Atch (1) Regarding the Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Proposal to develop their "defunct" 9-hole g❑lf course It is totally unbelievable that: The City of Palm Desert and or the Planning Committee has ❑ ignored their constituency ❑ coddled the developers for 4+ years now o ignored $47M of investment for $2M (max!) o approved the destruction of green belt o shown undue concern about the developers' "loss" o shown no concern about home owners' real loss ❑ never seen financial proof of course unprofitability ❑ spent all their time on minute details o never mailed absentee owners anything ❑ scheduled meetings at bad times ❑ worked with known checkered people o cited other cities as "precedent" o approved without solving the ragged property line ❑ approved with the wall issue still a tangle o approved with drainage problems remaining o further compromised the local water problem ❑ mis-approved the course as valid residential z❑ning o not taken any aspect of a systems management approach Conclusion: There must be some powerful underlying reas❑n for all of this. 1 Supporting Facts: I reiterate my remarks made at the 19 Dec 2017 Planning Committee meeting: The City of Palm Desert has the cart before the horse. Way before the horse. They have considered in painstaking detail all the little particulars of the PDCC proposal: walls, buildings, fences, trees, windows, heights, etc. as though this is and has always been a done deal. The bigger issue that should have been developed first is that the golf course is properly unfit for residential development. Translation: totally unfit for residential zoning. The area was neither zoned nor designed for future residential development. If it were, it would have been designed with fairway widths the same as the corresponding widths in the surrounding residential areas, ie. wide enough to accommodate a 2-way street down the middle with residences on both sides. The PDCC proposal is clearly a shoe -horned effort to force residential into an inappropriate place. The fact that the City of Palm Desert didn't see this at the very beginning is a gross oversight. Zoning is a method of keeping similar uses of land together. The PDCC plan is not similar development. In fact, it will divide residences there into haves and have-nots. The proposed structures are condos, not single family residences. They are new modern/Bauhaus architecture, not vintage western ranch/bungalow. They have their fence, and the surrounding properties will have theirs, at times a barrage of fences apparently. They will use our streets but we will not use theirs, similar t❑ New Mexico and the other streets that were added in the area a few years ago. Their density will be in 3 little cul-de-sac globs, contrasting with the surrounding more uniform density. Their roads will be jammed into the space available versus the surroundings, that were designed in a conventional manner. Theirs will be the aberration by every measure, yet they will pull down the values of all the in -place surrounding residences. This is equally as poor of a fit with the surrounding properties as it would be to surround the City ❑f Palm Desert municipal complex, Police Department, pool etc. with an industrial park. There are 188 homes on the now defunct 9-hole course. If they have a conservative value of $250,000 each, their total valuation is $47,000,000. Forty seven million dollars! 2 It is alleged that current PDCC owners paid $1,790,000 for the course, with clubhouse. Less than two million dollars; the equivalent of eight (8!) homes. The sale included a clubhouse, a functioning 18-hole golf course, and a functioning 9-hole golf course. Thus, that 9-hole golf course couldn't be worth more than one third of the purchase price, ie. $1,790,000 / 3 = $596,667, ie. less than 2.4 homes!. It is certainly worth less now that PDCC has destroyed the course. And they intentionally destroyed it by not marketing and advertising it and by letting the fairways deteriorate. If it is worth only $500,000 as a result, the rati❑ of PDCC investment to PD property owners investment becomes .5 to 47, or 1.1%. That they PDCC should prevail in this issue is clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog. The gross misrepresentation in the PDCC pitch regarding their false lament about the demise of their abandoned 9-hole course is proven by the fact that they never released their financial statements. Of course, as a private company they may have that right. But PDCC would surely have released these statements had they supported their contention that the course was unprofitable. Obviously those financials did not support their contention, and they chose to not release them. The current PDCC owners have taken great liberty with the truth all along. They are notorious for that, as I am sure City of Palm Desert is aware. If not, then the city has not done their due diligence in investigating all aspects of this matter. Why is it that the City of Palm Desert has coddled the PDCC owners along for so long in the face of almost unanimous opposition by the surrounding property owners from the very beginning, in 2013. The current residential property owners all bought in an area that had ❑pen space between them --on at least one side --and the homes across the fairway. These owners legitimately thought that this space would remain a golf course, but if not, then at least it would remain open space--ie. no other buildings, residential or commercial. The 4-1 approval of the zoning change for the abandoned 9-hole golf course honors the desires of a $1,790,000 of a foreign investment consortium over a $47,000,000 investment of Palm Desert residence owners. If it is this easy to get such a contrary zoning change, why even have zoning. This appears a gross miscarriage of re -zoning. Would it be this easy to re -zone as industrial or agricultural the area around Palm Desert City Hall (a rhetorical question, as we all know the answer is "no"). The City of Palm Desert has not helped the current owners in their drive to bring the proposal to a complete halt. 3 Open public meetings have been scheduled when the snow -birds are out of town, or close to Christmas when owners are understandably otherwise very busy. And whose idea was it to schedule the 19 Dec meeting at the very same time as the PDCC HOA meeting? Since 2013 when this issue first surfaced, I have, never (until last month 11/2017!) received any notification of meetings either from PDCC (as expected, as they would surely prefer that owners not show up in force) or from the City of Palm Desert (understandable for the very same reason?). Owners have mainly been able to keep somewhat abreast of this issue as a direct result ❑f the Open Space Action Committee and a few dedicated owners in the complex that took it upon themselves to keep all the other owners informed as this issue was being nursed along by City of Palm Desert. At the Planning Commission meeting I also took issue with the release of the exceedingly lengthy staff report just a few days before the Dec 19 PlanComm meeting. And they further slammed attendees by saying that only things that were brought up in the 3 minutes of allowed speaking time would be permissible in any future resultant litigation. Because of that time limit, I was unable to ask the PlanComm details of what their report stated regarding the following issues: 1) jagged property lines, 2) multiple walls: where, why, how many altogether, 3) the space between these walls: how much, who do they propose to own and to maintain it, and what about those gaps, some just a foot wide, 3) drainage, as for example, the settling pond by Kentucky that is suppose to into a street that is higher than the basin, 4) how they reconcile their position with City of Palm Desert's commitment to open space in their General Plan. PDCC has put forth the false premise that the abandoned 9-hole course died due t❑ a waning interest in golf. However, golfers say that the course had/has a unique niche here in the valley: it was a short, 9-hole course without a lot of challenge, perfect for older golfers, golfers just starting out, young people, families, etc. The course died because the owners from the beginning bought it to develop. They did not market/advertise it as they would have had they really wanted it to survive. To add insult to injury, they allowed the property to deteriorate as a tactic t❑ win current property owners over to their plan, basically by demonstrating that development is far better than an unwatered, unkempt, weed -infested, dying -and -dangerous -trees property. Though they didn't have any luck convincing the surrounding residential owners, they certainly did far better with the City. 4 If they did buy it as a golf course, then a case can be made that they did not do their due diligence of investigating their purchase. They alone then deserve any losses they have incurred, and neither the current property owners nor the City of Palm Desert has any responsibility for salvaging their "failed" business. How can the City of Palm Desert approve a change in zoning for a project that is so unfair, inappropriate, and incomplete. The change in zoning was approved 4-1 while the ragged property line issue remains unsolved. Some current homes have intruded onto golf course land. The PDCC owners propose "generously" giving this land to the appropriate owners. Residential owners should be very wary of accepting this land as they will also be accepting the responsibility of maintenance of it forever, property, some of which may be difficult to access, or even totally unaccessible. This so-called generous offer will absolve PDCC owners from all future problems. And it will ultimately result in a change in property tax, if not for the current owners, then certainly for any new owners that current property owners or their heirs sell to in the future. And those jagged property lines and/or multiple fences will undoubtedly rear their ugly aspects again in unknown ways in the future. How can zoning be legitimately voted on and changed with such far reaching, unresolved, tangles such as the above. At the PlanComm meeting, a PDCC principal, as the last speaker, waived his hand through much of his sales pitch to the committee members, liberally using such words as "probably," "we think...," "best effort," etc. Those are imprecise statements which are hard to resolve after the fact. Compare the future difficulty of these statements to those made in past promises which were much more precise but which were unfortunately never recorded and thus not able to be enforced (eg. the promise of a perpetual green belt). PDCC has made a lot of statements all along that have never been committed to written, recordable promises. Why this didn't stop the rezoning process is unknown. It seems t❑ be --as was reiterated by several of the planning commission members explaining their vote --that their recommendations rested heavily on precedents of this type of thing, precedents "in other cities"! # # # 5 RUTH ❑EGEORGE , WH❑ LIVES ON CALIFORNIA SENT A LETTER TO THE CITY BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING. SHE REQUESTED INFORMATION REGARDING THIS TRAFFIC STUDY AND COMPLAINTS ABOUT SPEED. SHE ALSO CALLED BACK IN 201E WHEN THIS TRAFFIC STUDY WAS GOING ON FOR ❑NE DAY AT CALIFORNIA AND TENNESSEE. P.O. Box 12140 Costa Mesa CA 92627 29 December 2017 Mayor Sabby Jonathan The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Dear Mayor Jonathan: RCIVED CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT, CA 2018JAN .4 AM10:2 City of Palm Desert JAN 4 4 2018 Community Development I am an owner of a single family residence on California Drive that borders on the 9-hole golf course for which a residential development plan has been ceaselessly progressing through various parts of the City of Palm Desert. This is a very important issue to me and the other property owners who also border on that course. I personally think it is an important issue also to the owners who border on the 18-hole course, which I predict course will be the next development plan. It is also my opinion that this is --or at least should be --a very important issue to the City of Palm Desert. Everything that I want to say about this issue is in the attached. It is long, but this is a very big and complex issue with a lot of reverberations. I hope that you will take the time to read it all he way through as you consider how you will vote on this issue. Sincerely yours, Frederick P. Kent Atch (1) CONTO PIah l Y7 DATE I-'� i�' Regarding the Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Proposal t❑ develop their "defunct" 9-hole golf course It is totally unbelievable that: The City of Palm Desert and or the Planning Committee has o ignored their constituency o coddled the developers for 4+ years now o ignored $47M of investment for $2M (max!) o approved the destruction of green belt o shown undue concern about the developers' "loss'' o shown no concern about home owners' real loss o never seen financial proof of course unprofitability o spent all their time on minute details o never mailed absentee owners anything o scheduled meetings at bad times o worked with known checkered people o cited other cities as "precedent" o approved without solving the ragged property line o approved with the wall issue still a tangle o approved with drainage problems remaining o further compromised the local water problem o mis-approved the course as valid residential zoning o not taken any aspect of a systems management approach Conclusion: There must be some powerful underlying reason for all of this. 1 Supporting Facts: I reiterate my remarks made at the 19 Dec 2017 Planning Committee meeting: The City of Palm Desert has the cart before the horse. Way before the horse. They have considered in painstaking detail all the little particulars of the PDCC proposal: walls, buildings, fences, trees, windows, heights, etc. as though this is and has always been a done deal. The bigger issue that should have been developed first is that the golf course is properly unfit for residential development. Translation: totally unfit for residential zoning. The area was neither zoned nor designed for future residential development. If it were, it would have been designed with fairway widths the same as the corresponding widths in the surrounding residential areas, ie. wide enough to accommodate a 2-way street down the middle with residences on both sides. The PDCC proposal is clearly a shoe -horned effort to force residential into an inappropriate place. The fact that the City of Palm Desert didn't see this at the very beginning is a gross oversight. Zoning is a method of keeping similar uses of land together. The PDCC plan is not similar development. In fact, it will divide residences there into haves and have-nots. The proposed structures are condos, not single family residences. They are new modern/Bauhaus architecture, not vintage western ranch/bungalow. They have their fence, and the surrounding properties will have theirs, at times a barrage of fences apparently. They will use our streets but we will not use theirs, similar t❑ New Mexico and the other streets that were added in the area a few years ago. Their density will be in 3 little cul-de-sac globs, contrasting with the surrounding more uniform density. Their roads will be jammed into the space available versus the surroundings, that were designed in a conventional manner. Theirs will be the aberration by every measure, yet they will pull down the values ❑f all the in -place surrounding residences. This is equally as poor of a fit with the surrounding properties as it would be to surround the City of Palm Desert municipal complex, Police Department, pool etc. with an industrial park. There are 188 homes on the now defunct 9-hole course. If they have a conservative value of $250,000 each, their total valuation is $47,000,000. Forty seven million dollars! 2 It is alleged that current PDCC owners paid $1,790,000 for the course, with clubhouse. Less than two million dollars; the equivalent of eight (8!) homes. The sale included a clubhouse, a functioning 18-hole golf course, and a functioning 9-hole golf course. Thus, that 9-hole golf course couldn't be worth more than one third of the purchase price, ie. $1,790,000 / 3 = $596,667, ie. less than 2.4 homes!. It is certainly worth less now that PDCC has destroyed the course. And they intentionally destroyed it by not marketing and advertising it and by letting the fairways deteriorate. If it is worth only $500,000 as a result, the ratio of PDCC investment to PD property owners investment becomes .5 to 47, or 1.1%. That they PDCC should prevail in this issue is clearly a case of the tail wagging the dog. The gross misrepresentation in the PDCC pitch regarding their false lament about the demise of their abandoned 9-hole course is proven by the fact that they never released their financial statements. Of course, as a private company they may have that right. But PDCC would surely have released these statements had they supported their contention that the course was unprofitable. Obviously those financials did not support their contention, and they chose to not release them. The current PDCC owners have taken great liberty with the truth all along. They are notorious for that, as I am sure City of Palm Desert is aware. If not, then the city has not done their due diligence in investigating all aspects of this matter. Why is it that the City of Palm Desert has coddled the PDCC owners along for so long in the face of almost unanimous opposition by the surrounding property owners from the very beginning, in 2013. The current residential property ❑wners all bought in an area that had open space between them --on at least one side --and the homes across the fairway. These owners legitimately thought that this space would remain a golf course, but if not, then at least it would remain open space--ie. no other buildings, residential or commercial. The 4-1 approval of the zoning change for the abandoned 9-hole golf course honors the desires of a $1,790,000 of a foreign investment consortium over a $47,000,000 investment of Palm Desert residence owners. If it is this easy to get such a contrary zoning change, why even have zoning. This appears a gross miscarriage of re -zoning. Would it be this easy to re -zone as industrial or agricultural the area around Palm Desert City Hall (a rhetorical question, as we all know the answer is "no"). The City of Palm Desert has not helped the current owners in their drive to bring the proposal to a complete halt. 3 Open public meetings have been scheduled when the snow -birds are out of town, or close to Christmas when owners are understandably otherwise very busy. And whose idea was it to schedule the 19 Dec meeting at the very same time as the PDCC HOA meeting? Since 2013 when this issue first surfaced, I have never (until last month 11/2017!) received any notification of meetings either from PDCC (as expected, as they would surely prefer that owners not show up in force) ❑r from the City of Palm Desert (understandable for the very same reason?). Owners have mainly been able to keep somewhat abreast of this issue as a direct result of the Open Space Action Committee and a few dedicated owners in the complex that took it upon themselves to keep all the ❑ther owners informed as this issue was being nursed along by City of Palm Desert. At the Planning Commission meeting I also took issue with the release of the exceedingly lengthy staff report just a few days before the Dec 19 PlanComm meeting, And they further slammed attendees by saying that only things that were brought up in the 3 minutes of allowed speaking time would be permissible in any future resultant litigation. Because of that time limit, I was unable to ask the PlanComm details of what their report stated regarding the following issues: 1) jagged property lines, 2) multiple walls: where, why, how many altogether, 3) the space between these walls: how much, who do they propose to own and to maintain it, and what about those gaps, some just a foot wide, 3) drainage, as for example, the settling pond by Kentucky that is suppose to into a street that is higher than the basin, 4) how they reconcile their position with City of Palm Desert's commitment to ❑pen space in their General Plan. PDCC has put forth the false premise that the abandoned 9-hole course died due t❑ a waning interest in golf. However, golfers say that the course had/has a unique niche here in the valley: it was a short, 9-hole course without a lot of challenge, perfect for older golfers, golfers just starting out, young people, families, etc. The course died because the owners from the beginning bought it to develop. They did not market/advertise it as they would have had they really wanted it to survive. To add insult to injury, they allowed the property t❑ deteriorate as a tactic t❑ win current property owners over to their plan, basically by demonstrating that development is far better than an unwatered, unkempt, weed -infested, dying -and -dangerous -trees property. Though they didn't have any luck convincing the surrounding residential owners, they certainly did far better with the City. 4 If they did buy it as a golf course, then a case can be made that they did not do their due diligence ❑f investigating their purchase. They alone then deserve any losses they have incurred, and neither the current property owners nor the City of Palm Desert has any responsibility for salvaging their "failed" business. How can the City of Palm Desert approve a change in zoning for a project that is so unfair, inappropriate, and incomplete. The change in zoning was approved 4-1 while the ragged property line issue remains unsolved. Some current homes have intruded onto golf course land. The PDCC owners propose "generously" giving this land to the appropriate owners. Residential owners should be very wary of accepting this land as they will also be accepting the responsibility of maintenance ❑f it forever, property, some of which may be difficult to access, or even totally unaccessible. This so-called generous offer will absolve PDCC owners from all future problems. And it will ultimately result in a change in property tax, if not for the current owners, then certainly for any new owners that current property owners or their heirs sell to in the future. And those jagged property lines and/or multiple fences will undoubtedly rear their ugly aspects again in unknown ways in the future. How can zoning be legitimately voted on and changed with such far reaching, unresolved, tangles such as the above. At the PlanComm meeting, a PDCC principal, as the last speaker, waived his hand through much of his sales pitch to the committee members, liberally using such words as "probably," "we think...," "best effort," etc. Those are imprecise statements which are hard to resolve after the fact. Compare the future difficulty of these statements to those made in past promises which were much more precise but which were unfortunately never recorded and thus not able to be enforced (eg. the promise of a perpetual green belt). PDCC has made a lot of statements all along that have never been committed to written, recordable promises. Why this didn't stop the rezoning process is unknown. It seems to be --as was reiterated by several of the planning commission members explaining their vote --that their recommendations rested heavily on precedents of this type of thing, precedents "in other cities"! # # # 5 January 24, 2018 To: City of Palm Desert City Council Sabby Jonathan, Mayor Susan Marie Weber, Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Kelly, Council Member Jan Harnik, Council Member Gina Nestande, Council Member From: Open Space Action Committee: Barbara Powers, Secretary Serena Ilik, Director Sue Adamson, Director Cindy Stevenson, Director rep 91, r (c. r 1,44 Subject: City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Meeting December 19, 2017, Staff Report: Planning Commission Resolution 2715, Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, 37242 REQUEST: Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council to rezone three parcels from Open Space (OS) to Mixed Residential (R-2) and approve Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242 for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres located on the former executive golf course at Palm Desert Country Club; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Open Space Action Committee is a group of your Palm Desert Country Club property owners working for the greater good of the whole PDCC Community. Our goal is to preserve the Open Space that comprises the Former PDCC Executive Course that has been in existence and zoned as Open Space for 57 years. We have on file 678 signed petitions of property owners within the Palm Desert Country Club Community who have signed a petition stating they are opposed to the Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course. That figure represents 43% of the of the total property owners within the PDCC Community and continues to increase, This is Significant! The Open Space Action Committee submits the following for consideration by the City of Palm Desert City Council: A Tentative Tract Map is made for the purpose of showing the design and improvement of a proposed subdivision Any deviation from the project description, exhibits or conditions must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission for conformity and approval. Deviations and revisions may require approved changes to the reap and/or further environmental review. Deviations and revisions without the above described approval will constitute a violation of map approval. The absence of Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241 and 37242 attached to the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715 dated December 19, 2017, were listed as document attachments. This is a deviation from the Planning Commission Approval Process therefore constitutes a violation of map approval. The Planning Commission shall receive all evidence and testimony, both oral and documentary, concerning the tentative tract maps. The Tentative Tract Maps mentioned above are non -compliant with the PDCC Proposed Development as it exists today, i.e. Pad Elevations, Structure Heights, Swimming Pool Elevations, Perimeter Wall Construction/Locations, Internal Vehicle Ingress/Egress, Easement Locations/and the Dedicated Land (5' Wide) to Existing Property Owners. The Initial Environmental Study dated October, 2017 is non -compliant with the PDCC Proposed Development as it exists today due to the revisions and deviations of the Tentative Tract Maps mentioned above, therefore, a new, complete Environmental Study should be completed. It is our understanding that Commissioner Lindsay Holt asked the Planning Commission Panel, "Whether they were going to make their decision based on the fact that they did not yet have the Tract Maps? Her concern was that if the Planning Commission approved the project recommending the zone change and sent the approval to the City Council without the Maps, then the developer could sell the land with the approved zone change. The new buyer would purchase the R2 property and could build something other than condos on the land. The Planning Commission DID NOT 'Tie' the land to the map." We feel the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission failed in its Fiduciary Power by rendering an approval of Planning Commission Resolution No.2715 in lieu of holding their approval under advisement pending the receipt and and review to the above mentioned Tentative Tract Maps. Additionally, we feel the City of Pam Desert Planning Commission failed in its Fiduciary Responsibility especially involving trust with regard to the relationship between the City and the property owners directly impacted by this development. We are asking the City of Palm Desert City Council not to schedule the PDCC Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course for Public Hearing until the City Council has called for a review of the Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241 and 37242 and a new and complete Environmental Study has been completed. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing from you on or before February 8, 2018. Open Space Action Committee Barbara Powers, Serena Illk, Sue Adamson, Cindy Stevenson 42215 Washington St. Ste A Box 237 Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 openspaceaction.com openspaceaction@gmail.com cc: Matt T. Ward, Ward Law Group, PC. Lauri Aylaian, City Manager Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner u.ci lctry of Patm Desert Mr. Joseph Pradetto, Chairman City of Palm Desert Planning Commissions Dear Mr. Chairman: DEC 27 2017 cor mun+tY DevelopmentDecember 26,2017 I appeared before your Commission recently and thought 1 had been dropped down into George Orwell's 1984. It was 1992 when I first appeared before the City Council to announce I had secured commitments from Target Stores and Saks Fifth Avenue to anchor two properties I had contracted to acquire and develop on the Howard Ahmanson properties. I met with wholehearted support. Prior to appearing in'92, I was introduced to mayor emeritus Walt Snyder. He was enthralled with the prospects of adding two major retail components to Palm Desert. He promised full support if staff interference was encountered. Snyder had been instrumental in bringing Ernie Hahn to Palm Desert after Palm Springs had resisted. Hahn was told..."whatever you need from our City, we will be cooperative...we want you here." For many years I led teams in the planning, design and developing of large scale mixed -use regional centers with retail, office, hotel, and residential. I was invited by James Rouse to join in planning and developing the new town of Columbia, MD from scratch on 15,000 acres between Baltimore and Washington D.C. In subsequently years I was recruited to Federated/Macy's department stores overseeing, directing, planning, and building large scale, mixed use projects. This led me to work as a financial advisor on a team of young MBA investment wizards in Boston, serving Harvard, General Motors, and AT & T, among others... investing one billion dollars annually in choice U.S. commercial real estate properties. It is my practiced judgment that this applicant for a major zoning change might not be playing it quite straight, A nine hole Short Executive Course is a highly viable use as more golfers have backed off from having to spend half -a -day to play one round. But when the applicant realizes the gain he can make by securing a rezoning bonanza, yielding $7 to $10 million dollars, by simply selling the rights for 69 dwelling units...it's a no brainer! l cannot fault him. He enjoys a zero financial basis on the 9-hole course and it would be so simple to transfer the 69 dwelling unit approval to a home builder...passing on the requirements to service the site with roads, and utilities. The essence of this deal is to effectively transfer wealth from existing resident homeowners in lost value...directly to the developer's credit. It's no wonder an elderly resident of some 30 years was guided out of the meeting sobbing and crying..., devastated by the Commission's seeming disinterest in resident concerns. I know that was not the Commissions intent. I sensed members felt there were fiw alternatives. We should talk! I have some ideas. Respectively, Ned Wilmot 43631 Tennessee Ave., Palm Desert, CA 92211 760.565.7071 For submittal to City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Meeting of December 19, 2017 (Extended remarks to my prior Letter.) 1 was told 1 would limited to five minutes. My name is Ned Wilmot and 1 reside at 43631 Tennessee Avenue, Palm Desert, CA I've had the good fortune at age 32 to be recruited from Shell Oil in New York, to join James Rouse in creating a New Town on 15,000 acres of beautiful open Maryland countryside between Baltimore and Washington D.C. Rouse was driven by the idea that by having a large unrestrained parcel he could offer a better plan, providing a quality of living experience for people, to live, work, and recreate. Today, Columbia is a City of 100,00 residents with more folks coming into the City each day to work than commuting out. My concerns with the subject applicants request for zoning change is it breaks with the integrity of the original planning for The Palm Desert Country CIub Community. What we today call, a PUD...a Planned Unit Development of mixed -use retail, office, apartment, public housing and freestanding single-family homes. The PDCC was planned as a golfing community built on the surrounds of 27 holes, a clubhouse, a practice driving range, acreage that constituted open views of our magnificent mountains. Over the last19 years we have resided here we have seen that community plan dismantled, piece -by -piece. The problem being, those pieces have all come from the open space golf acreage! The integrity of the original "good" planning is being lost! The golfing lands were not just for golf, they served to provide us with those amazing views! shut down after 3 minutes at this point In reading the staff report and recommendation it appears we have lost sight of "the forest for the trees!" It evaluates the specific parcels to be rezoned with little or no regard to the original Country Club Planned Community. A staff report is exactly that. I would hope a review by the Commission and City Council would recognize the broader implications of what is being asked of us. My developer analysis is... the applicant's request for change represents a clear transfer of wealth from homeowners, who will incur a 10% decline in value...some $6,O00,000. And a gain to the developer of approximate $7 to 10 million plus dollars based upon a conservative $100,00 sale/transfer per dwelling unit to a builder. For submittal to City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Meeting of December 19, 2017 My name is Ned Wilmot and I reside at 43631 Tennessee Avenue, Palm Desert. CA...within the PDCC, fronting directly on the subject land. I first came to this valley 25 years ago at the behest of a long time friend and member at Shadow Mountain Club. Tony Beck had been a senior executive for real estate operations at Carter, Hawley, Hale in Los Angeles, when I was president of Federated Department Stores real estate group, now Macy's. He asked me to analyze and undertaking development of Howard Ahmason land holdings...a full -undeveloped block on El Paseo and a 50-acre vacant parcel at Fred Waring and Hwy 111. That began my introduction to this magnificent valley. Soon after I acquired control, Saks Fifth Avenue pleaded to be taken out of Palm Springs and locate them the El Paseo site. In 1967 I was recruited from the Shell Oil Real Estate Group, and invited to join James Rouse in Baltimore to undertake the planning, design, and development of a New Town on 15,000 acres of beautiful Howard County land between Baltimore and Washington D.C... that town today is Columbia, MD, a pre -planned city of 100,000 people. The Rouse Company gained considerable notoriety from a Time magazine story in 1972 with Jim Rouse on the cover. Cities and towns from across the Country came to us for advise. They wanted to create New Town zoning on prime land holdings in their communities to attract developers. We advised every one of them to proceed with extreme caution. The zoning of large parcels of land for density mixed use development is a risky scheme. The act of creating comprehensive New Town zoning of strategic land holdings creates substantial land values. This invites an opening for abuse, and will tend to attract irresponsible developers. You must seek proven and successful developers first! In this instance, the City of Palm Desert is being asked to grant density residential development on long existing open space/golf course lands. The application for a major zoning change has severe implications for existing long-term residents who were originally attracted to and invested in properties directly abutting the property. This warrants careful consideration of several factors. Briefly, I will identify salient factors to for consideration. • Has the applicant suffered some economic hardship to warrant zoning relief? No. The subject Palm Desert Country Club grounds were acquired under attractive terms from an institution's that had received the property in bankruptcy. A nominal price was agreed to, just to remove the asset from their books. The nominal purchase price, just applied to the 18 hole course and clubhouse alone was extraordinary low. The 9 acre executive course and subject property were incidental to the purchase. • Will granting the applicant zoning relief result in a major financial windfall? Yes. With 69 new dwelling units created at $100,000 each ... value to a builder/developer is $6,900,000. • Will existing homes abutting the subject property incur a loss in value? Yes - modestly, this would be a ten to fifteen percent reduction in home value, which would constitute the approximate owners equity in their home. The 177 existing homes fronting the applicant land, at a 10% reduction in value, will equal in excess of $6,000,000. Dollars. Points for the City leaders to carefully ponder. Most of us sought homes located on the golf course for the extremely attractive views of the mountains, privacy, and a neighborhood of compatible folks living similar retirement years. It appears we are looking essentially at a transfer of wealth from existing long-term tax paying residents to a developer offering... what? A redistribution of wealth? I am stumped . The City must decide "The Right Thing" ... Country Club residents clearly harbor a negative view. Thank you, Ned Wilmot January 2, 2018 TO: NANCY DeLUNA, PLANNING COMMITTEE, AND OTHER MEMBERS, MAYOR, SABBY JONATHAN, PRO TERM MAYOR ,SUSAN MARIE WEBER, COUNCIL MEMBERS ,KATHLEEN KELLY, JAN HARNICK, GINA NASTANDE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, RYAN STENDELL, PLANNING, ERIC CEJA SUBJECT: COYOTES AND CONVERSATION OF NANCY DeLUNA AT PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Ms. DeLuna, In discussion about 6-foot fence that was brought up at the Planning Commission Hearing, you Stated it would be good to have the 6 -foot fences to keep out the coyotes I have lived in Palm Desert Country Club since 1984 and you can not keep out the coyotes. Fact #1. The coyotes have their dens in the White -Water Wash. They have been coming on to our golf courses almost every Thursday evening before trash day. They come in the spring and sometimes bring their pups. This year the HOA for Palm Desert put out a warning to the residents. (See attached #1 Article about the coyotes) Also I have included a search from googie (Attachment #2) , Coyotes can jump almost any fence. Fact #2 .1 have attached the grading plans for our area. This is just in my little area of the dead executive course between Oklahoma and Kentucky, bordered to the East by Tennessee. (Attachment #3 and 4) A suggested 6- foot fence around the perimeter of the project is shown on the plans. THAT BLOCKS US ALL OUT BETWEEN THE BUILDING PROJECT BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM: THE LOTS ALONG TENNESEE HAVE MANY OPENINGS AS THERE ARE NO FENCES BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE HOMES, r a Tip [+M am rn m R? - rvi -40C3 -n rt (WHICH ARE ALL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY). If a coyote enters that spacer we now have a problem because there is not much room between the homeowner's property and the fence belonging to the project. If confronted in this area, a coyote could be a danger. If you tried to scare or shoo it away it now has nowhere to go except an another homeowner's property. We recently had a coyote on our patio. He was not afraid at all and sat their watching my dog. We called neighbors to tell them to watch ❑ut for it. His mate was seen several homes down from ❑urs. 1 called Animal Control and they told me it would g❑ away on its own. At least when we yelled at it , it ran to the open space. I would not want to confront one in a closed in area with a 6- foot fence. HOW ❑O YOU SOLVE THIS PROBLEM? This is a problem through out our open space, I have just chosen our little area to make a paint. WE DO NOT WANT•ANY FENCES. Sincerely, Barbara Powers FIVelteleinft441 COYOTE SIGHTING We have received reports that a Coyote has been spotted inside Palm Desert Country Club Homeowner's Association. We urge you to take precautionary measures and not leave small pets outdoors. The coyote (Canis iatrans) is a member of the dog family. It resembles a small German shepherd with the exception of the long snout and bushy, black -tipped tail. Coyotes are extremely adaptable and resourceful, and can survive on whatever food Is available.They prey on rabbits, mice, birds and other small animals, as well as deer and occasionally bighorn sheep. In urban areas, coyotes are known to attack small cats and dogs, particularly pets allowed to roam free or left out overnight. A typical coyote weighs between 20 and 50 lbs.. and can easily outmatch a smaller pet. Coyotes are adaptable predators found in most open habitats, including city neighborhoods, open space, parks and trails. They are tolerant of human activities, and adapt and adjust rapidly to changes in their environment. People with pets should keep them on a leash when walking. While at home, do not allow pets to roam freely. Even pets in enclosed yards run the risk of predation. People should feed their pets inside In an effort to keep pet food from attracting coyotes and other wildlife. Remind children not to approach or feed any wildlife. While attacks on humans are extremely rare. people should still take precautions. Tips to Remember: Discouraging Coyotes Near Homes • Frighten coyotes with loud noises; use unnatural odors (such as ammonia) to clean trashcans. • Yell and throw things at coyotes whenever you see them near your home. • Cleanup food attractants such as dog food, garbage and spilled seed beneath birdfeeders. • Use yard lights with motion detectors — appearance of the sudden light may frighten coyotes away. Protecting Pets and Children • Keep pets in fenced areas or kennels; remember split rail fences and invisible fences will not keep your pet safe from predators. Pet kennels and runs should have a fully -enclosed roof. • Provide human supervision while outdoors, even in your own backyard. • Do not allow pets (or children) to run loose in areas where there is coyote activity. Keep pets on leash or leave the area when you see a coyote. Most urban areas have leash laws requiring dogs to be under control. Coyotes and foxes are thought to be responsible for many cat disappearances in residential neighborhoods. • Although rare, coyotes could potentially injure people. Teach your family not to approach wildlife and never feed wildlife. • Treat the presence of a coyote as an unfamiliar and potentially threatening dog. Coyote Encounters • • Rural coyotes are wary of humans and avoid people whenever possible. Urban coyotes seem to be more comfortable around humans. Overtly aggressive behavior toward people is not normal and should be reported. Never feed or attempt to "tame" a coyote. Do not turn your back or run from a coyote. If approached or followed by a coyote, make loud noises, yell and make yourself look big. If the coyote approaches to an uncomfortably close distance, throw rocks or other objects. 12/31/2017 Welcome To Palm Desert Country Club Association iJ.M4& AD!."41ry Z.sl°I1Lb 5Jyrr.l+I E.. WELCOME TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATION View the Events/News page for updates regarding Association New:, Palm Desert Country Ciub Asa;ociation was origtnafly known as Palm City Association and was incorporated in 1961. The clubhouse and adjoining structures were built along with 3 display homes. in 1977 the name was changed to Palm Desert Country Club Association. The "primary purpose for which the corporation was formed was to provide athletic, recreational and .Club facilities for the use of the residents" of the Association. There are now 1054 homes or lots built on two tracts of land that make up the total membership of Palm Desert Country Ckib Association. Over the years the community has built up around the original development bordered by Washington St., Hovley, and Fred Waring Drive. i http:11WWW.pdeca.com/ 1/1/2O18 picture of coyote jumping fence - Googie Search picture of coyote jumping fence i All Shopping Videos Images News More About 597,000 results (0.51 seconds) Images for coyote jumping fence More images for coyote jumping fence Compilation of Coyotes jumping fences - YouTube 0 baps//www.youtuhe.coin/watch9v=WD4p76uzse0 • Sep 21, 2014 • Uploaded by Wiener Newa Protect your pees. Coyotes can jump almost any fence. Coyote Uetenent helps _ h1tpy//amzn.to/2ekSggl Settings Tools Report images Coyote jumping a 5'-0" wall in Phoenix, Az. - YouTube ;;.1 https //www.yout114e.coin/watch/v=YCcuWQ3C0jk • Dec 3t 2012 • uploaded by ❑ cats n the dy Ph coyote:, are killing dogs and cats m the Phoenix Arizona metropolitan area. This is the first time 1 have . Coyote jumping fence at night,MOV - YouTube Gran littps://www.youtuhe.com/watch?veTIXyh3gmEkg Aug 9, 2011 -Uploaded by argytecoyote Coyote Jumping tenon at night. You should watch your pets. Coyotes can lump mast fences. Keep your pets safe from Coyotes n AdoptaPet.com Blog L: www. adaptapet.com/hlog/keep-your-pets-safe-from-coyotes/ • Sep 19, 2011 - (As you can see in this photo ) They can jump and get over a 6-71t fence barely touching It with their paws - we've seen it live, it tooks like they are levitating! Here's a video of a ,:oyote leaping Itke a cat onto a Eft wall http://www.youiube,comiwatch?v=a3atOR8Q2WE (the leap happens al the very end) How high a fence can coyotes jump? — Orange County Register Dierico https://www ocregister.com/2017/06/07/how-high-a-fence-can-coyotes-jump/ • Jun 7, 2017 - Here's how they might end up in your backyard. SCALING FENCES: When searching for food in neighborhoods, coyotes are known to scale perimeter walls and fences Coyotes can easily leap an 8-foul fence or wall. They have been spotted climbing ❑eer a 14•rent cyclone fence ❑CR•L-COY7gF- JUMP. How To Keep Your Pets Safe From Coyotes - Gizmodo Msortco https //gixmodo.com/how-tn-keep-your-pets-safe-from-coyotes-1586728445 • Jun 5, 2014 - Coyotes now live in every state but Hawaii and thrive around human civihzatian, eating our garbage and sometimes, even our pets Here's what yuu can .. kipping the fence with barbwue or a Cayole Roller will prevent them from climhii g over the top Any gates in the ... a coyote off. Photos. Din Hutcheson. 4 ?1Nwsbwk�w�'" Coyote Control FQA - DesertUSA L Mips:/1www.googie. co mfsearch?q=picture+of+coyote+jumping+fence&oq=picture+of+coyote+jumping«fence&aqs=chrome..69i57,12232j0j7&soumeld ... 1 /. 01110 4 c 43 x or r�- 0 3 i 2 u y '‚9 1 1 5 c -`. ' g nSt II Ig42. — * P oNirsra I Y iawaBrs amnia:Anil 1 a gel Q gnu ig {r xa v.AT/E )G 8�� / 1 - _ ▪ 1 gi _1▪ -; -- �' / - Lp —... l'' _ \ f__, y - ' 1 � , ``▪ 1 MATG1lDM! SIM SMUT 4 r-. !► r`" / EC// - / '-_ � 1 �L S $ / / ▪ -�- i �_ -�i_ .- '1' / ` r'; i - / 7' / / r" / , // --- _ / - / i R 4/, , a / r -.- ▪ - P . - - ' / / / / / I. ▪ •� // / • 4 / / rtt E�} l A I •▪ •••._ .• �/ \ r s ti a y �. k \ 1 y , R E CITY CLERK S OFFICE PALM DESERT. C,►; 2818 JAN 19 PH I: 00 P.D. Box 12140 Costa Mesa CA 92627 15 January 2018 Sabby Jonathan, Mayor Susan Marie Weber, Mayor Pro Tem Jan Harnick, Council Member Kathleen Kelly, Council Member Gina Nestande, Council Member Lauri Aylaian, City Manager Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert CA 92260 Dear Sirs: I am an owner of a single family residence on California Drive that borders on the 9-hole golf course for which a residential development plan has been ceaselessly progressing through various parts of the City of Palm Desert. It has been reported to me by another affected property owner -- who took his complaint about this development plan to a City of Palm Desert employee --that he was told that by that employee that he should propose a viable alternative. i have attached what I believe is an viable alternative. It is also a good alternative in that, if put to a vote, it would conclusively determine whether the affected property owners are serious about preventing residential development on subject golf course. Sincerely yours, Frederick P. Kent Atch (1) The "Do the Right Thing" Alternative (DoRight) to the "Grossly Inappropriate Proposal" (GIP) regarding residential development of the defunct Executive Golf Course (DEC) by the Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Recommendation: The City of Palm Desert (CPD) will: 1. Obtain ownership of DEC 2. Landscape the DEC property 3. Maintain the DEC property 4. Devise a municipal bond to cover these costs 5. Propose an allocation scheme to recover these costs as an added line item in the appropriate property tax bills G. Get the required approval from the affected property owners 7. Issue the municipal bond In s❑ doing CPD will also: 9. Acknowledge that the majority of owners of the affected properties have been and continue to be adamantly against the GIP 10. Acknowledge that the DoRight alternative not only is in accordance with the CPD General Plan regarding open space, but is also consistent with the surrounding area that current property owners bought into and that they rightfully expected to stay reasonably the same Elaboration: 1.1. It has been said that CPD was offered the DEC by PDCC at no charge. It is difficult to understand why such an offer would be refused. 2.1. One of the alternative landscapes to be considered should be desert-scape, with native plants, to keep maintenance costs (water, labor, etc.)lower 3.1. Estimated maintenance expenses must be made accurately in order to properly size the municipal bond 4.1. Terms of the proposed municipal bond (eg. size, term and interest rate) should be included in the materials provided t❑ current property ❑wners when they vote 5.1. The annual DEC expenses/bond paid interest expenses are to be totally recovered the added bond line item on the property taxes bills 6.1. The bond proposal needs to be put to vote with the margin of approval specified in the CPD charter or other governing documents 7.1. It is certain that the majority of the affected property owners have been opposed to the GIP since it was first proposed in 2014. What is not certain is whether these owners can and will approve of a tax added to their property tax bills. It is therefor imperative that an accurate estimate be made of the size of the added tax per property. Supporting Text: 1.1.1. If the DEC cannot be gifted to CPD, an unbiased appraisal should be arranged. That appraisal should reflect the fact that the property has been deteriorated substantially under PDCC ownership. A once viable business has been intentionally abandoned and the landscaping allowed to all die. They poor stewardship of the property they bought has certainly decreased its value. It could supported that the property is currently worth no more than 1/3 of their purchase costs (9 short course links abandoned divided by 27 total links purchased). Also the appraisal should not consider the use of the land for residential development. As has been proven by the PDCC proposal, residential structures could only be shoe -horned into that space. If the property had been intended for future for residential development, it would have had fairways sized like the rest of the area, with room for a central street with housing on both sides. 5.1.1. There is no doubt that the owners of property that directly borders the DEC would be the principle beneficiaries of the changes proposed in this DoRight alternative. But a case can also be made that other owners on the bigger course would also benefit to some extent and could share a part of the cost burden/tax line addition. 4.1.1. Pro -forma of bond details: In addition to the purchase price of the DEC by PDC, the bond would also have to fully cover the initial landscaping costs, annual maintenance costs, annual interest paid to bondholders, etc. The estimation of these costs, the sizing of the bond, etc. requires a full financial analysis. However, the following figures may help determine the feasibility of such an effort. A $1,000,000 bond issued for 30 years at 1.❑0% per year would require a semi-annual payment of $35,979 and a new (average) tax on the 188 properties of $192 on the two annual property tax bills. At 296 the payment would be $38,748 and $207 on the two property tax bills. The low interest rate is justified since municipal bond interest is exempt from California income tax and the bond would be well secured by the mandatory property tax payments. # # # January 24, 2018 To: City of Palm Desert City Council Sabby Jonathan, Mayor Susan Marie Weber, Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Kelly, Council Member Jan Harnik, Council Member Gina Nestande, Council Member From: Open Space Action Committee: Barbara Powers, Secretary Serena Illk , Director Sue Adamson, Director Cindy Stevenson, Director Subject: City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Meeting December 19, 2017, Staff Report: Planning Commission Resolution 2715, Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, 37242 REQUEST: Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council to rezone three parcels from Open Space (D8) to Mixed Residential (R-2) and approve Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242 for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres located on the former executive golf course at Palm Desert Country Club; and adopt. a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Open Space Action Committee is a group of your Palm Desert Country Club property owners working for the greater good of the whole PDCC Community. Our goal is to preserve the Open Space that comprises the Former PDCC Executive Course that has been in existence and zoned as Open Space for 57 years. We have on file 678 signed petitions of property owners within the Palm Desert Country Club Community who have signed a petition stating they are opposed to the Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course. That figure represents 43% of the of the total property owners within the PDCC Community and continues to increase, This is Significant'. The Open Space Action Committee submits the following for consideration by the City of Palm Desert City Council: A Tentative Tract Map is made for the purpose of showing the design and improvement of a proposed subdivision Any deviation from the project description, exhibits or conditions must be reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission for conformity and approval. Deviations and revisions may require approved changes to the map and/or further environmental review. Deviations and revisions without the above described approval will constitute a violation of map approval. The absence of Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241 and 37242 attached to the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715 dated December 19, 2017, were listed as document attachments. This is a deviation from the Planning Commission Approval Process therefore constitutes a violation of map approval. The Planning Commission shall receive all evidence and testimony, both oral and documentary, concerning the tentative tract maps. The Tentative Tract Maps mentioned above are non -compliant with the PDCC Proposed Development as it exists today, i.e. Pad Elevations, Structure Heights, Swimming Pool Elevations, Perimeter Wall Construction/Locations, Internal Vehicle Ingress/Egress, Easement Locations/and the Dedicated Land (5' Wide) to Existing Property Owners. The Initial Environmental Study dated October, 2017 is non -compliant with the PDCC Proposed Development as it exists today due to the revisions and deviations of the Tentative Tract Maps mentioned above, therefore, a new, complete Environmental Study should be completed. It is our understanding that Commissioner Lindsay Holt asked the Planning Commission Panel, "Whether they were going to make their decision based on the fact that they did not yet have the Tract Maps? Her concern was that if the Planning Commission approved the project recommending the zone change and sent the approval to the City Council without the Maps, then the developer could sell the land with the approved zone change. The new buyer would purchase the R2 property and could build something other than condos on the land. The Planning Commission DID NOT 'Tie' the land to the map." We feel the City of Palm Desert Planning Commission failed in its Fiduciary Power by rendering an approval of Planning Commission Resolution No.2715 in lieu of holding their approval under advisement pending the receipt and and review to the above mentioned Tentative Tract Maps. Additionally, we feel the City of Pam Desert Planning Commission failed in its Fiduciary Responsibility especially involving trust with regard to the relationship between the City and the property owners directly impacted by this development. We are asking the City of Palm Desert City Council not to schedule the PDCC Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course for Public Hearing until the City Council has called for a review of the Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241 and 37242 and a new and complete Environmental Study has been completed. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. We look forward to hearing from you on or before February 8, 2018. Open Space Action Committee Barbara Powers, Serena Ilik, Sue Adamson, Cindy Stevenson 42215 Washington St. Ste A Box 237 Palm Desert, Ca. 92211 openspaceaction.com openspaceaction@gmail.com cc: Matt T. Ward, Ward Law Group, PC. Lauri Aylaian, City Manager Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner July 25, 2017 To: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Eric Ceja, Palm Desert Planning Dept., Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development My name is Jack Forney, I reside at 76831 Kentucky Ave., Palm ❑esert. My property abuts the former 8th tee box of the closed Executive Course. First, 1 would like to thank Eric Ceja for his patience and assistance in helping me analyze the proposed project. Let me state I am opposed to any construction on the former Executive Course, but I am also a realist and believe the property will never be a golf course again. On May 23 I addressed this commission and provided a list of certain items in the Precise Application Plan Development Standards that I believe do not conform to the Palm Desert Standards for the proposed plan, as well as some proposed modification recommendations to be included in a revised application for the project. As 1 stated at the May 23, 2017 meeting the owners of property abutting the former Executive Course have been told we must `COMPROMISE". The most recent definitions of the word "COMPROMISE" is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. The 188 property owners abutting the former Executive Course have made significant concessions by being subjected to the blight conditions of the former Executive Course due to the lack of water and maintenance the past 4 years. \% a have lost green grass and the convenience of living on a golf course and most importantly a major financial loss of 10% of our property value as reported by the Riverside County Assessors Office; A property abutting a golf course would typically be appraised 10% higher than a similar property not on a golf course. Mr. McFadden and Palm Desert Holdings (listed owners) have not currently made any significant compromises on their application as originally proposed for this project. In a proper location this project would probably be a welcome addition to the area. This is not that area. This proposed project does not conform to the structures and character of the surrounding community. A good faith effort of compromise and responsible citizenship by Palm Desert Holdings to the 188 home owners abutting the former Executive Course would be a CASH REIMBURSEMENT equal to 10% of the assessed value of their property as shown on their 2017 tax bill. I have reviewed the proposed changes submitted by Mr. McFadden for today's meeting and I find none of my broad proposed recommendations have been included. To express my major individual concerns, I am providing 2 specific changes that will address these issues: PROBLEM: Proposed road is 16 feet from my rear property line. SOLUTION: Rotate units B8, B9, B10 and B11 90 degrees making the long side (96 feet) parallel with the edge of the fairway and the short side (58feet) perpendicular to the edge (Fairway is 210 feet wide). This will allow the units and road to be moved 30 feet south providing safety and less noise and pollution from the road. PROBLEM: View obstruction and non -compatibility of roof design. SOLUTION: Remove superfluous roof projections. Provide a 4/12 roof pitch for all units which will be compatible with roof design of surrounding property. Lower the pad elevations 12 to 18 inches. [ again request the project be returned to the applicant to correct the flaws in the Precise Development Plan I have outlined and provide a revised plan that includes the compromise suggestions I have made. ABRAHAM LINCOLN ONCE SAID "PUBLIC SENTIMENT IS EVERYTHING. WITH PUBLIC SENTIMENT YOU CAN'T FAIL; WITHOUT IT YOU CAN'T SUCCEED. THE ONLY WAY TO MEASURE PUBLIC SENTIMENT IS TO VOTE. Thank you for your consideration. C1tyo,Po1mCaen MAR I22018 wswdolOAsa ►tvunwwoo twrioundwiciewitzoifflaffe TO: City of Palm Desert City Council Sabby Jonathan, Mayor Susan Marie Weber, Mayor Pro Tem Kathleen Kelly, Council Member Jan Harnik, Council Member Gina Nestande, Council Member 810?, g i 1-r7q uasec1 wled Jo 410 March 12, 2018 Re: Zoning change PDCC I first came to the Desert in 1992 to perform an analysis on the Ahmanson family estate holdings in Palm Desert - fifty vacant acres at Fred Waring and the entire block on El Paseo. I secured commitments from Target Stores and Saks Fifth Avenue. My career background for over forty years has involved the planning and design of award winning large-scale mixed -use projects across the U. S. I began as a protegee to James Rouse when he embarked to create the New Town of Columbia, MD between Washington DC and Baltimore. I had previously started my career with the Shell Oil Company Land Group in Rockefeller Center. Subsequently I led all planning, design and development across the Country for Federated/Macy's Department Stores in Cincinnati as vice chairman. I recite this as evidence of a steeped background as a developer My wife Rosemarie and I chose to locate to Palm Desert for our retirement years for good reasons. The incredible natural beauty of the California Desert, its openness and absence of the congestion we left behind. We chose to retire here after a blessed career dedicated to better planning, design and inspired creation of better places to live, work, shop and recreate. * As traffic repeatedly stacked on Highway 111 causing waits through two signal changes it became clear roads were maxed out. I was struck by the irony...is paradise being threatened? My wife recalled a Joni Mitchell line she wrote awakening in Honolulu... "they paved paradise, and put up a parking lot!" The Palm Desert Country Club proposes to rezone thirty acres of existing open space/golf lands, and grant approval for 69 condominium dwelling units...effectively creating added real value of approximate $7,000,000. PDCC could simply choose to flip the 30 acres to a homebuilder without even investing in roadways, utilities, etc. The question the Council must weigh is the wisdom of this change. Is this desirable for the residents of the PDCC community, and to the City of Palm Desert? Immediate residents abutting the 30 acres appear totally opposed. It will seriously diminish their property value by approximately 10%, or near $35,000. per home - representing for many owners their approximate equity. The applicant pleads the 9-hole course has outlived its purpose and utility... becoming obsolete and therefore no longer viable. After years in the corporate world, I was recruited to a Boston investment team of young highly skilled Harvard and Stanford MBAs...they were advisors to Harvard, General Motors, AT&T and other large funds. Our charge was to invest one billion annually in prime commercial real estate. We assured clients these investments would perform...and to keep our clients out of ill-conceived deals. In the instance the PDCC applicant I am advised they acquired the 27- hole property and clubhouse under a bank owned bankruptcy proceeding at dramatically reduced pricing to get the property off the books. Therefore, the dollar investment basis on the 9-hole thirty acres is likely zero... no financial hardship appears to be involved. What should be involved is finding a use of the existing course that will better serve the applicant, residents, and the Palm Desert Community. A win - win -win scenario! The irony is "nine hole short courses" are just coming into vogue. Eighteen -hole play is off because golfers find it consuming almost a whole day. The problem appears to be one of...reverse incentive. Why would the owners even consider the trouble of marketing a nine -hole course when a zoning change to 69 dwellings yields some $7,000,000? I did some research and found Tiger Woods has formed a course design firm seeking unique properties suitable to Short Course Golf facilities. He is a believer in the need for Short Course Golf! What better place than Palm Desert California? The PDCC course was originally designed by Billie Bell, who notably designed Riviera, Bel Air, Torrey Pines, and Ojai Valley Inn. His design organization today is run by a Brian Bell, president TGR Design. www.tgrdesign.tigerwoods.com A Tiger Woods Signature Short Course can only work if the City gets behind and endorses the concept. The zoning process request needs to be put on hold until the concept is played out. The idea will not likely be well received by applicant. They will argue they tried to make the 9- hole work, and failed. If applicant pleads hardship, let him produce the evidence. Contact between applicant and TGR Design needs close monitoring to see that dealing are not queered by less than enthusiastic actions by applicant. They must come to realize a signature Tiger Woods Short Course can only enhance the entire PDCC operation...significantly! This designation could elevate play and business in the entire facility. We believe the responsible action by council would be to deny. �V\ ❑semarie Wilmot 43631 Tennessee Avenue Palm Desert, CA 92211 S bmitted respectfully, Ned an R nedwilmot@dcsr.com *James Rouse, the master planner and builder of the New Town of Columbia, MD, The Village of Cross Keys, Baltimore, The Baltimore Inner Harbor, Faneuil Hall/Quincy Market, Boston, South Street Seaport at Wall Street, and many other inspired projects throughout the U.S. including the Santa Monica Macy's Street Mall and Shops. I first appeared before this Council some 25 years ago after securing rights to the Howard Ahmanson properties at Fred Waring and Highway 111, and an entire block on El Paseo I had contracted to bring Target to 111, and Saks Fifth Avenue to El Paseo. Former Mayor Walt Snyder, along with Roy Wilson and Richard Kelly encouraged me and showed their support for both projects. After 11 years of planning, design, and entitlements were secured, large scale commercial financing across America closed down. Both projects went on hold for a couple of years. We could not close title and lost control of both properties. City of Palm Desert JAN 0 2 2018 Community Development January 2, 2018 TO: NANCY DeLUNA, PLANNING COMMITTEE, AND OTHER MEMBERS, MAYOR, SABBY JONATHAN, PRO TERM MAYOR ,SUSAN MARIE WEBER, COUNCIL MEMBERS ,KATHLEEN KELLY, JAN HARN{CK, GINA NASTANDE. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, RYAN STENDELL, PLANNING, ERIC CEJA SUBJECT; COYOTES AND CONVERSATION OF NANCY DeLUNA AT PLANNING COMMISSION Dear Ms. DeLuna, In discussion about 6-foot fence that was brought up at the Planning Commission Hearing, you Stated it would be good to have the 6 -foot fences to keep out the coyotes I have lived in Palm Desert Country. Club since 1984 and you can not keep out the coyotes. Fact #1 . The coyotes have their dens in the White -Water Wash. They have been coming on to our golf courses almost every Thursday evening before trash day. They come in the spring and sometimes bring their pups. This year the HOA for Palm Desert put out a warning to the residents. (See attached #1 Article about the coyotes) Also 1 have included a search from google (Attachment #2), Coyotes can jump almost any fence. Fact #2 .1 have attached the grading plans for our area. This is just in my little area of the dead executive course between Oklahoma and Kentucky, bordered to the East by Tennessee. (Attachment #3 and 4) A suggested 6- foot fence around the perimeter of the project is shown on the plans. THAT BLOCKS US ALL OUT BETWEEN THE BUILDING PROJECT BUT HERE IS THE PROBLEM: THE LOTS ALONG TENNESEE HAVE MANY OPENINGS AS THERE ARE NO FENCES BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE HOMES, (WHICH ARE ALL ON PRIVATE PROPERTY). If a coyote enters that space, we now have a problem because there is not much room between the homeowner's property and the fence belonging to the project. If confronted in this area, a coyote could be a danger. If you tried to scare or shoo it away it now has nowhere to go except on another homeowner's property. We recently had a coyote on our patio. He was not afraidat all and sat their watching my dog. We called neighbors to tell them to watch out for it. His mate was seen several homes down from ours. I called Animal Control and they told me it would go away on its own. At least when we yelled at it , ;t ran to the open space. I would not want to confront one in a closed in area with a 6- foot fence. HOW DO YOU SOLVE THIS PROBLEM? This is a problem through ❑ut our open space, I have just chosen our little area to make a paint. WE DO NOT WANT ANY FENCES. Sincerely, Barbara Powers COYOT SIGHTING We have received reports that a Coyote has been spotted inside Palm Desert Country Club Homeowner's Association. We urge you to take precautionary measures and not leave small pets outdoors. The coyote (Canis latrans) is a member of the dog family. It resembles a small German shepherd with the exception of the long snout and bushy, black -tipped tail. Coyotes are extremely adaptable and resourceful, and can survive on whatever food is available.They prey on rabbits, mice, birds and other small animals, as well as deer and occasionally bighorn sheep. In urban areas, coyotes are known to attack small cats and dogs, particularly pets allowed to roam free or left out overnight. A typical coyote weighs between 20 and SO lbs., and can easily outmatch a smaller pet. Coyotes are adaptable predators found in most open habitats, including city neighborhoods, open space, parks and trails. They are tolerant of human activities, and adapt and adjust rapidly to changes in their environment. People with pets should keep them on a leash when walking. While at home, do not allow pets to roam freely. Even pets in enclosed yards run the risk of predation. People should feed their pets inside in an effort to keep pet food from attracting coyotes and other wildlife. Remind children not to approach or feed any wildlife. While attacks on humans are extremely rare, people should still take precautions. Tips to Remember: Discouraging Coyotes Near Homes • Frighten coyotes with loud noises; use unnatural odors (such as ammonia) to dean trashcans. • Yell and throw things at coyotes whenever you see them near your home. • Cleanup food attractants such as dog food, garbage and spilled seed beneath birdfeeders. • Use yard lights with motion detectors — appearance of the sudden light may frighten coyotes away. ROACiiiimegtof AN. % Protecting Pets and Children • Keep pets in fenced areas or kennels; remember split rail fences and invisible fences will not keep your pet safe from predators. Pet kennels and runs should have a fully -enclosed roof. • Provide human supervision while outdoors, even in your own backyard. • Do not allow pets (or children) to run loose in areas where there is coyote activity. Keep pets on leash or leave the area when you see a coyote. Most urban areas have leash laws requiring dogs to be under control. Coyotes and foxes are thought to be responsible for many cat disappearances in residential neighborhoods. • Although rare, coyotes could potentially injure people. Teach your family not to approach wildlife and never feed wildlife. • Treat the presence of a coyote as an unfamiliar and potentially threatening dog. Coyote Encounters • Rural coyotes are wary of humans and avoid people whenever possible. Urban coyotes seem to be more comfortable around humans. • Overtly aggressive behavior toward people is not normal and should be reported. • Never feed or attempt to "tame" a coyote. • Do not turn your back or run from a coyote. • If approached or followed by a coyote, make loud noises, yell and make yourself look big. • If the coyote approaches to an uncomfortably close distance, throw rocks or other objects. 12131/2017 Welcome To Palm Desert Country Club Association tJrluJJi1.;r!'_:,rli: L'J....«, :.i1..i'.`J JF �J1rr.i.z'r J:a WELCOME TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB ASSOCIATION View the Events/News rage fQi- ia:updates regarding Association News Palm Desert Country Club Association was originally icnown as Palm City Association and was incorporated in 1%1. The clubhouse and adjoining structures were built along with 3 display homes. In 1977 the name was changed to Palm Desert Country Club Association. The "primary purpose for which the corporation was formed was to provide athletic, recreational and club facilities for the use of the residents" of the Association.. There are now 1054 homes or lots built on two tracts of land that make up the total membership of Palm. Desert Country Club Association. Over the years the community has built up around the original development bordered by Washington St., tiovley, and Fred Waring Drive. httoll/www.Txlcca.corn/ Sr 1?1/2018 picture of coyote Jumping fence - Googie Search picture of coyote jumping fence All Shopping Videos Images News More About 897,000 results (0.51 seconds) Images for coyote jumping fence More images for coyote jumping fence Compilation of Coyotes jumping fences - YOU Tube prronEel Settings Tools Report images https+/IWww.youlube com/watolt0v=WO4p76uzse0 • Sep 21, 2014- Uptor+ded by Wiener News F'rotec1 your pets. Coyotes can romp almost any fence.. Coyote Uelerrant help;, htlp://amzn tol2ekSggI . Coyote jumping a 6'-0" wall in Phoenix, Az. - YouTube G + d wirhttps://www.youtuhe.coin/watch7v=YCcuWQ3COik • Dec2 dy oy 1 s • filling deg by d cats the Pn Coyotes are killing dogs and cots in the t'noernx Arizona metropolitan area. this is the first time i have . Coyote jumping fence at night.MCV - YouTube I i t i hnos!//WWw.yOUtube.com/warch?v="fiXyh3gmEkg Aug 9, 2011 - Uploaded by argytecoyote Coyote Jumping tense at night. You should watch your pets. Coyotes can lump moat fences. Keep your pets safe from Coyotes » AdoptaPet.com Blog C www.adoptapet.camlbloglkeep-your-pets-safe-from-coyotes/ Sep 19, 2011 - (As you can see in this photo ) They can jump and get over a 6.7ft fence barely touching it with their paws - we've seen it live. It looks like they are levitating+ Here's a video of a coyote leaping Ike a cat onto a 6ft wall: hitp://www.youtube.com/watch7v=a3atUR8G2WE (the leap happens at the very end) How high a fence can coyotes jump? — Orange County Register G https://www.ocregister,cam/2017/06107/how•high-a-fence-can-coyotes-ump/ • Jun 7, 2017 - Here's how they might end up in your backyard. SCALING FENCES When searching for food in neighborhoods, coyotes are known to scale perimeter walls and fences Coyotes can easily leap an B•fout fence or wall. they have been ;potted di/tilling over a 14.root cyclone feaee. OCR-L-C:OriCE- JUMP. How To Keep Your Pets Safe From Coyotes - Gizmodo Dkdon https:/Igizmodo.com/how-to-keep-your-pets-safe-from-coyotes-1586728445 • - Jun 5, 2014 - Coyotes now live in every state but Hawaii and thrive around human civigxation, eating our garbage and sometimes, even our pets Heres what you can . •fupping the fence with barbwire or a Coyote Roller will prevent theirs from climbing ever the top. Any gates in the.. a coyote off. Photos. Dan Hutcheson *A ftglidikeipabweir Coyote Control FQA - DesertUSA D+a^ baps://www.google.comisearch?cppicture+of+coyote+jumping+fence&oq=picture+elf+coyote+jumping+fence&aqs=chrome..fi9157.12232j0j7&sourceid.. , 1/. I , " { x z 1 4 a F • • • r ti. 4. 9A'; ' \ v / :i \ • r \ •\\ g. r ,S \ \ r .\ ; �♦ \ .1 .♦,J, \ # r /__ r a /' g / / !/ 5 E N. / r�• ' _ - - �/// r- . / .' // r C _ _ I / /, / ▪ f /! n /' i� / / / / £ �- -_ - / e g / _ .-.I f// § k // 1 I '_ T -* P .f f \ r '� t li _ .�1_~1—ir i I1 �--. % s i .- ems• 1 - F ,1 , 'r 1 • stwiltmAt.ar di • �• 1 i Ti f 1 il- t tlri IIR UIrirt 1 March 12, 2013 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Community Development On February 28, 2018 our committee sent the following email to our contact Iist. As promised to those who responded, we are providing you a copy of each reply we have received to Barbara Powers From: Barbara Powers <onensnaceaction4gmail.com> Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 Subject: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: <undisclosed -recipients:;› Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Palm Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. if we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. We will post the public hearing dates when they are confirmed. Thanking you in advance for your time and response. Barbara Powers, Secretary Open Space Action Committee o nen snaceaction'gm ail.com Executive proposal 1:24 AM (1 hour ago) Barbara Powers <openspaceaction(gm a ii.com> to Barbara, Barbara Forwarded message From: Mark Cutting <acuttnedae .gmail.com> Date: Sun, Mar 11, 2018 at 6:10 PM Subject: Executive proposal To: opensoaceaction c(r,umail.com Barbara my main concern for this project is 1. The number of units proposed. The elevation of each unit some are now over 17' plus grading height. 2. Proposed perimeter walls have been proposed to be chain link, solid block walls, or combination Pilar and iron fencing. 3. They propose 51 % of open space which is not true. Their calculations include areas around units, and walk way area and. There are no true open space parks just fragmented spaces and draining ditches that are counted as open spaces. 4. Reduce the number of housing units and lower grading heights and building heights would guarantee a more favorable development of this property. Sent from my iPad Page 1 of 2 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction@gmail.com> To: "Barbara" <barbarapdcc@gmail.com>: "Barbara Powers" <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Tuesday, March 06. 2018 11:38 PM Subject: Fwd: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Forwarded message From: Sharon Laskin <glAskin@dc.r .com.> Date: Tue, Mar 6, 2018 at 6:27 PM Subject: RE: OpenspaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: Barbara Powers <o ensnaceaction( gmail.com> Dear Committee: Unfortunately, I cannot get past my feelings towards the developer. I hate the deceit and betrayal I am experiencing that I have towards them. Having purchased my home in the early 2000's there was a beautiful golf course then and no plans for redevelopment in the works. I, like many others, paid a premium to have this view. It was not only pretty, but quiet and private, especially during the sleeping hours. Our lovely neighborhood will be destroyed of these aspects. More people, more noise, less views, lower home values! It is clear that the developer had this "build -out" in mind at the time of purchase. This is evidenced by the closing of the executive course under the guise of lack of income very early on. We all know that too little time was given to warrant that statement. The developer has turned down every other proposed idea for the property. These ideas could increase their income but the developer wouldn't even listen. Not enough proof has been provided to me to feel "sorry" for them. I do not believe that people should live with a "loss" but there were other options that were ignored. That's what I can't get past. Since my backyard view of the mountains was always at an angle, I believe new condos would not change that by much. It is the quiet and privacy that are of most importance to me, as well as water drainage. Additionally, I certainly do not want a wail between our complexes; it would feel even more closed -in. A greedy developer and a city that will get more money. That's the bottom line and the heck with the people! Thank you for your efforts, Sharon Laskin 3/6/2018 Page 2 of 2 76974 California Drive From: Barbara Powers Imaiito:ooensoaceaction( }amaii.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9:53 AM To: undisclosed -recipients: Subject: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Palm Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. If we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. We will post the public hearing dates when they are confirmed. Thanking you in advance for your time and response. Barbara Powers, Secretary Open Space Action Committee ooensnaceaction(u7,amai l.c om 3/6/2018 Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Revie... Page 1 of 2 Google recommends using Chrome Try a tam secure browser wqh Gmail COMPOSE lnbox Starred Sent Mail Drafts (26) A!I sMa.I More Move to Inbox More NO THANKS YES 8 of 652 Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeupdate: We Need Your Review -Response V^ Janet Cooper c tr Hi Barbara, My name is Janet Cooper and { live at 77335 New Mexico Drive. My biggest concern is related to an o left at the very end of the cul-de-sac. Any time there is a major storm ail the rain water runs down to thi numerous occasions this does not happen as that drain is not cleaned out and water ends up flooding maintenance at the golf course, brought out a pump that I allowed them to plug into my outlet to drain i possibility of rain I get nervous. I called the City of Palm Desert and Michael Adkins from Code Compli: will interfere with the water flow and jeopardize my house even further unless proper drainage is install My only other concern if the development is approved would be fencing. I have wrought iron but with 3 a privacy fence. I want to thank you and the committee for all the time you have spent fighting this development. It is to Thank You Janet Cooper 7611_7110-R76P httris:!/mail.google.comlmail/u/0/ 3/6/2018 RE: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review-Respons... Page 1 of 1 6 Googte recommends using Chrome Try a fast secure browser wiih updates built tn Gmaii COMPOSE tnbox Starred Sent Mail Drafts (26) All Mail More No THANKS YES More 4 of 5 RE: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Timothy Laxarek to me 12'02 PM (4 hours ago) Barbara, The most important issues that I have: 1. Loss of view. My home was purchased for retirement and relaxation, now that may be taken away. 2. Lass of small community Feel. 3. Property value, what is the view, increased or decreased after project is completed. 4. Traffic congestion. 5. What will bulldersdo to preserve the integrity of current properties during construction. 6. Is there adequate access / easement for a hook and ladder truck between Tennessee and Kentucky Ave. 7. Proposed length of time to complete project. 8. Will homeowners be given additional 5 feet of land. 9. If project is given the OK as proposed, NO additional building. Thank you. Tim Lazarek owner, Kentucky Ave. From: Barbara Powers ‹openspaceaction{6lgmail.cam> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 9 53 AM To: undisclosed -recipients: Subiect: QnenSpaceActionCommitteeUodate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed https://mail.google.com/mail/ul0/ 3/4/2018 Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review-Respons... Page 1 of 1 fGoogle recommends using Chrome Try a fast, secure browser mei , Gmail COMPOSE Inbox(1) Starred Sent Mail Drafts (27) All Mail More NC THANKS YES MoR 3 of 6 Re:+OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Dana Hatzenbeiter tome 12 14 PM (4 hours ago) Hello Barbara... it is very important to us that we have the extra 5' out back and no tall block wall, a block stub wall with rod iron on top, pending our approval would be ok.. Sent from my iPhone On Feb 28, 2018, at 11:53 AM, Barbara Powers cooensnaceactionCoarnail.com> wrote: Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Palm Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. If we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. 01./ ...11 .._.., a6.. r...Y. l... r. ............6 ...................c.........1 v httns://mail.aoogle.com/mail/u/0/ 3/3/2018 Page 1 of 1 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction@gmail.com> To: "Barbara" <barbarapdcc@gmail.com>: "Barbara Powers" <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 4:32 PM Subject: Fwd: OpenSpaceActionCommitteetipdate: City Council Public Hearing I orwarded message From: Nancy Engelhardt rt?haviaii rr.cora7 Date: Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 12:21 PM Subject: Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: City Council Public Hearing To: Barbara Powers <ovensnaceaction( mail_com> I would gladly attend if I were on the mainland. I do so hope you are successful in getting 300 to preserve that beautiful open space that was deeded that it would be that way ALWAYS be part of the golf course, NOT to be developed. We have owned our home at Palm Desert Country Club since 1965. You are wonderful to continue to fight for what is right. Nancy Engelhardt 43049 Texas Avenue Palm Desert CA 92211 On Mar 2, 2018, at 11:13 PM, Barbara Powers <onensnaceaction i)it nail_com> wrote: Hello Neighbors! The City Council Public Hearing for the proposed PDCC Executive Course Zone Change has been scheduled for March 22, 2018 at 4:00 p.m. In the Council Chambers at Palm Desert City Hall. Notices of this hearing have been mailed to all 300 residents who are directly affected by the proposed Zone Change. We need all 300 of you to please attend this meeting and help us save our open space and quality of life. Open Space is a precious commodity and once built on it is lost forever. To repurpose the Executive Course to a development of 69 condos will erase 57 years of PDCC history, and without the history there is no future. Thank you for your continued support Barbara Powers, Secretary onensnaceactioniii mail_com onenspaceaction.com 3/3/2018 Page 1 of 1 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction©gmail.com> To: "Barbara Powers' <gourdpower[,7a msn.com>: "Barbara" <barbarapdcc a©7gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 11:05 AM Subject: Fwd: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Forwarded message From: <dixnalatolicom> Date: Sat, Mar 3, 2018 at 10:35 AM Subject: Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: onenspaceactionrd'naii_com I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE ROAD THAT WILL BE VERY CLOSE TO MY HOUSE CARS TRUCKS AND OTHER VEHICLES WILL BE WITHIN A FEW FEET OF MY LIVING ROOM AS WELL AS MY 2 BEDROOMS AND WILL CREATE NOISE AS WELL AS CAR LIGHTS. MY ABILITY TO GET A DECENT NIGHTS SLEEP WILL BE AFFECTED. 1 AM ALSO CONCERNED WITH DRAINAGE RETENTION BASINS THAT ARE PROPOSED THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT, I DON'T THINK THEY ARE VERY EFFECTIVE UNDER HEAVY RAIN CONDITIONS, AND CAN ATTRACT UNDESIRABLE BUGS. OUR VIEWS WILL BE ELIMINATED AND OVERALL TRAFFIC WILL INCREASE THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY CLUB. I AM ALSO CONCERNED THAT SOME UNITS COULD BE USED FOR UNAPPROVED SHORT TERM RENTAL. I BELIEVE THAT PROPERTY VALUES FOR THE CURRENT HOMES WILL BE AFFECTED IN A NEGATIVE WAY DUE TO THE OVER CROWDING SITUATION. 1 BELIEVE THE CITY COUNCIL SHOULD DISAPPROVE THIS PROJECT. ALBERT L. WOMACK 76806 KENTUCKY AVE PALM DESERT. CALIF. 92211 -----Original Message ---- From: Barbara Powers <ooensgaceactionCa7q_ mail.cam> To: undisclosed -recipients:; Sent: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 9:53 am Subject: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Palm Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. If we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. We will post the public hearing dates when they are confirmed. Thanking you in advance for your time and response. Barbara Powers, Secretary Open Space Action Committee ape nstaaceactione.amai1.com 3/3/2018 Page 1 of 1 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaeeaction@gmail.com> To: "Barbara" <barbarapdcc@gmail.com>; "Barbara Powers" <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 12:36 AM Subject: Fwd: OpenSpaceActionCommitteetJpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Forwarded message From: Home <reulrer4lidear > Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:48 PM Subject: Re: OpenSpaceActionComnitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: Barbara Powers <onensuaceaction a onail.rom> I want to organize my thoughts but off the top of my head Doesn't the city have a conflict of interest with Desert Willows? The owners haven't done a good job with the smaller project of "Desert scape on the 18 hole" but the city wants to give them a bigger project.?! This is a MAJOR slippery slope allowing contractors to buy up open space and not forcing them to continue using it as open space. A slippery slope Palm Springs rejected and Rancho Mirage rejected. There is nothing forcing the owners to not use the open space to make money as in agriculture (date groves, olive trees, citrus) More later this weekend Kitty Sent from my iPad On Feb 28, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Barbara Powers <opensoaceactian.ivarnait.corn> wrote: Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Palm Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. If we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. We will post the public hearing dates when they are confirmed. Thanking you in advance for your time and response. Barbara Powers, Secretary Open Space Action Committee anens-rc ac tsaneigmall.com 3/3/2018 Marilyni Page 1 of 1 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction@gmail.com> To: "Barbara" <barbarapdcc@gmail.com>; "Barbara Powers" <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2018 12:34 AM Subject: Fwd: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Forwarded message From: Home <reuher'adc.rr.com> Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 4:38 PM Subject: Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: Barbara Powers <openspaceaction(a7gmail.corn> First everyone needs to contact the county assessment office to have our taxes re assessed down. We have been living next to a blighted area for over 4 years which the city is not insisting the owners maintain. Second they are changing the zoning which by necessity will decrease our property value. 111 Peter Aldana Jun Christensen Assessor Treasurer Tax Collector 1 i htto://riversidetaxinfo.com/ Sent from my iPad On Feb 28, 2018, at 9:53 AM, Barbara Powers <openspaceaction(a gmaii.com> wrote: Paul Angu Auditor- Co Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Palm Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. If we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. We will post the public hearing dates when they are confirmed. Thanking you in advance for your time and response. Barbara Powers, Secretary Open Space Action Committee opensnaceaction@grnai i.com 3/3/2018 Page 1 of 1 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction@gmail.com> To: ‹undisclosed -recipients: Sent: Friday, March 02, 2018 12:52 PM Subject: Fwd: Property Values Forwarded message From: Barbara Powers <onensuaceaction(u maiLcom> Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 12:31 PM Subject: Fwd: Property Values To: Barbara Powers rQourdoowert'rtmsn_com>, Barbara <barbarandc a mznail.com> Forwarded message --------- From: Christine DeBona <c. .coma Date: Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 6:51 AM Subject: Property Values To: oaensoaceactionaemail.com Right now I can only envision property values failing. The mountain and grassy views that I so enjoyed will be gone. The quietness of the golf course will be gone. The occasional golfer on the Teebox front of my home quietly commenting on the beauty will not be there. Sent from my iPhone 3/2/2018 Page 1 of l From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction@gmail.com> To: "Barbara" <barbarapdcc@gmail.com>; "Barbara Powers" <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:02 AM Subject: Fwd: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Forwarded message From: Searlett Hu <scarlett.hu9Wamail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:40 PM Subject: Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: Barbara Powers <onenspaceaction()gmail.com> Hi Barbara Here are my questions: How would this development impact the property values of houses in PDCC? I think the developer should do a projection for all properties in the club. They can anchor at the current market values and do a projection of the values after the development. With this development as the precedence, what are the chances of more developments coming up in PDCC? What will the owner of the golf course or the developer do to the areas that they have not had plans for? Will they maintain the grass? Or will they come up with plans to build more ? What are their plans ? Hope this is clear. And thank you and all the committee members for the great efforts so far. Best regards, Scarlet[ I-Iu On Feb 28, 2018. at 9:53 AM, Barbara Powers <openspaceaction&a arnaiLcoii > wrote: Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Palm Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. if we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. We will post the public hearing dates when they are confirmed. Thanking you in advance for your time and response. Barbara Powers, Secretary Open Space Action Committee onensnaceactionaemai k com 3/1/2018 Page 1 of 1 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction@gmail.com> To: "Barbara" <barbarapdcc@gmail.com>; "Barbara Powers" <gourdpower a@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 2:00 AM Subject: Fwd: Executive course Forwarded message From: Carole Pateman <Iimcvustaflv(a email_com> Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 6:57 PM Subject: Executive course To: ovensoaceaction(a�email_com My biggest concern.. given the assumption that this happens, is that we have many miles of 30-35 year old pipes, carrying water gas etc.. adding the new piping to such old equipment is going to create problems and overloading.. in my humble opinion Patrman 3/1/2018 Page 1 of 1 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction©gmail.com> To: "Barbara" <barbarapdcc@gmail.com>; "Barbara Powers" ‹gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2018 1:54 AM Subject: Fwd: We don't want it!!! Forwarded message From: Pam & Chris Holmes <Ilk_holmes' i.verizon_ncl> Date: Wed, Feb ?8, 2018 at 5:31 FM Subject We don't want it!!! To: onensnaceaction a.email.com Sent from my iFhone 3/1/2018 December 6, 2017 Eric Ceja, Principle Planner, eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Reference: Palm Desert County Club — Executive Course Proposed Condo Development Subject: Formal Comments to Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP 16-280, TTM 37240, TTM 37241, TTM 37242 As owner and resident at 43305 Arizona Street (Lot 48) adjacent to site C of the proposed development, we have concerns about the impact to our southern view of the mountains in La Quinta. To minimize the impact and provide some compensation for the premium that we paid the golf course and mountain view, we suggest the following: 1. Drop proposed units C-10 and C-11 vertically a minimum of 16 inches. 2. Eliminate tree planting and high vegetation that would obstruct existing southerly mountain views throughout the proposed development, particularly trees and high vegetation between our residence south property line and the proposed walking path. Reference landscape plan L- 3. 3. Increase the proposed property transfer to adjacent property owners from 5 feet to a minimum 10 feet. Reference paragraph 4 of the McFadden Architects letter to the City dated 9/28/16. Sincerely, 1(0 Marsha & Stephen Pare 43305 Arizona Street Palm Desert, CA Cell: 714.726.2489 Marilyn'; Page 1 of 2 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction@gmail.com> To: 'Barbara" <barbarapdcc@gmail.com>; "Barbara Powers" <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 4:30 PM Attach: PDCC Ex Course Itr 12-6-17.pdf Subject: Fwd: FW: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Forwarded message From: Pare, Stephen <stenhen.varefa7aecorn.com> Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 3:56 PM Subject: FW: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: "ovensnaceaction(d gmail.com" <onensnraceaction(i7mail.com> As requested see the attached letter I sent to the City Planning Department concerning the PDCC Executive Course proposed development. This reflects our major concerns. From: Marsha Pare [mailto:mivoarepaol.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 3:27 PM To: Pare, Stephen Subject: Fwd: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Newest FYI Marsha Pare 714.726_2489 (Cell) From: Barbara Powers <onensoaceaction[i}amail.com> Date: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 Subject: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: <undisclosed -recipients:; Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Palm Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. If we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. We will post the public hearing dates when they are confirmed. 2/28/2018 Page 2 of 2 Thanking you in advance for your time and response. Barbara Powers, Secretary Open Space Action Committee onensnaceactionQi ntail_com 2/28/2018 Page 1 of 2 From: "Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction@gmail.com> To: "Barbara" <barbarapdec@gmail.com> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 2:47 PM Subject: Fwd: ❑penSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Forwarded message From: Cheri Grant -Simmons <theri3352a.p.rnail.com> Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 1:06 PM Subject: Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: S Squires<Onen_saaceactionQumail.com> Hello Committee! First of all, thank you for all your hard work and effort on the Palm Desert Country Club Subdivision and Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course. Our concerns are follows: Road noise ie traffic in our Master Bedroom. The proposed road is running across the entire backside of our house. Due to the proximity of the property line and proposed fence design, we will hear every car that runs down the street while we are "trying" to sleep. According to the Plot map our home will be subjected to the parking lot noise as well. The proposed design of the homes does not blend in with the existing neighborhood. This project is being "shoehorned" into a small space so there will be a high density of people and cars! There will be an increase burden on the utilities required for homeownership. Water, gas and electricity. The Palm Desert City Council priority should be the full time residents! If you should need additional information, please feel free to call us. Best regards, Fredric Simmons Cherlyn Grant -Simmons (760) 772_1650 On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:39 AM, fred simmons <fredodkidstQa inmail_com> wrote: - --- Forwarded message From: Barbara Powers <onensoaceactionile.QmaiLcam> Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:53 AM Subject: OpenSpaceActionCommittee[]plate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Palm Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. If we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. We will post the public hearing dates when they are confirmed. Thanking you in advance for your time and response. Barbara Powers, Secretary Open Space Action Committee onensoaceactiongmaii.com, 2/28/2018 Page 1 of 1 From: 'Barbara Powers" <openspaceaction@gmail.com> To: "Barbara" <barbarapdcc@gmail-comma Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2018 11:38 AM Subject: Fwd: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed Forwarded message From: Conrad.Mariscal <conrad.mariscaleii?iLcom> Date: Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:33 AM Subject: Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: We Need Your Review -Response Needed To: Barbara Powers <orcensrlaceactionastmaiLcom> Barbara, It would appear that most of those on the planning commission are in favor of the proposed development but I wonder if they have considered what the current home owners will be dealing with during the construction period. The distance from the rear of my property on California Dr. to the rear of the property directly across from me on Kentucky is ninety (90) yards and in that area will be any number of land -moving equipment, skip jacks to load the numerous dump trucks needed to haul away the sand being removed. The noise and din/dust, trucks coming and going will be a nightmare not to mention all of the construction personal roaming the area and where will they be parking their personal vehicles. Once that part is completed we then need to be subjected to the utilities and streets that will go in. More disruption to and in our life! Once infrastructure is completed we will see more trucks bring in building material along with more construction personal in that small area (and their vehicles). When someone purchases a home in a new development, they expect to have construction of additional homes BUT the infrastructure is already in place, (the utilities,streets, curbs & gutters building pads have all been developed). Considering the length of time for all of this to come to completion and the small area all of this will take place in, what we will be asked to endure is madness. Also how many home owners really want a walking path feet away from their rear patios. Regards, Conrad Mariscal Broker Associate, CRS, GRI, SRES ti ►_Jew La Quinta, CA Ca1BRE Lic.# 01238902 cornrad_rnariscal aizntaiLcorn (7601 333-9070 eacevtionaldeserthomes.co m Referrals are appreciated On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 9:53 AM, Barbara Powers <ovensvaceaction( aail.com> wrote: Hello Neighbors! The Proposed PDCC Development of the Executive Course, which began October 2013 is slowly approaching the final public hearings before the Palm Desert Planning Commission and Pahn Desert City Council tentatively scheduled for March 2018. If we could have a few minutes of your time our committee would like to know what is the most important to you now with regard to the proposed development. Your response would be greatly appreciated. We will post the public hearing dates when they are confirmed. Thanking you in advance for your time and response. Barbara Powers, Secretary Open Space Action Committee ovensvaceactiorta maiLrnm 2/28/2018 March 10, 2018 City of Palm Desert Planning Commission: Commissioner Nancy De Luna Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chairman Ron Gregory Chairman Joseph Pradetto My name is Jack Forney, I own and reside at 76831 Kentucky Ave. (Lot 199 Tract 4871), Palm Desert. My home abuts the 8' tee box of the closed Executive Course, which was dosed for the unsubstantiated claim of $200,000.00 annual revenue Toss. Closing the course and deliberate elimination of proper water and maintenance created a condition of visual blight, dust, dirt and a 10% loss of properly value to the 188 property owners abutting the course as reported by the Riverside Country Assessors Office " Properties abutting a golf course are typically appraised 10% higher than a similar property not abutting a golf course. PDCC is a community of single family homes primarily owned and occupied by senior citizens who purchased their homes for the mountain views and open space of the golf course for their "Golden Years". We have been told we must compromise and our generation should be willing to accept change. The current proposed road for Tract 37241(Section B) Oregon Drive is located 16 feet from my rear property line. I have previously offered orally and in writing a compromise solution: Rotate Units B8, B9, BI0 and Bi 1, 90 degrees as currently proposed (see attachments). The long side of the structures (96 feet) is perpendicular to the existing property lines, the 90 degrees proposal would make the long side (96 feet) parallel with existing property lines and allow the units and the road to be moved 30 feet south therefore improving safety and reducing road noise and pollution to adjacent properties (proposed sketch attached), Additionally this movement might eliminate one or both of the retaining walls proposed for the north side of the area from lot 203 to lot 191, Tract 4871. The above mentioned retaining walls if left as proposed would create a 4 wall perimeter behind my house!! My permanent fencing on my property line, a chain link fence perimeter wall and 2 retaining walls. This inlili project located between two rows of single family homes is unique to the City of Palm Desert and not consistent with the Precise Plan Application Development Standards under Article 5 of the Plan. A. Access and circulation standards: Only one way in and out? B. Site Planning shall occur that minimizes obstruction of scenic views of adjacent properties: Height of proposed units 18 feet, roof top ale and superfluous dormers? C. Site Planning shall be compatible with existing terrain. Rolling Hills versus multiple Retention Basins? D. Site Planning shall occur in a manner that does not expose unattractive areas or activities to the determent of existing properties. Multiple 30 inch high Retaining Walls, Pickle Ball Courts, Pool Areas. Road Location and Walking Paths, etc.? E. Tree selection should be carefully considered as to Family Type, maximum height and spread or canopy. No landscape plan presented, No 30 feet to 40 feet tail trees of Acacia Family. Additionally this project does not conform to the Revised City of Palm Desert General Plan. Discourage the construction of New Residential Neighborhoods that are characterized by cul-de-sacs, sound walls, long block lengths, single building and housing types and lack of access to goods and service. Preserve and enhance the character of existing Residential Neighborhoods. Support the conversion of struggling golf courses into new complimentary uses. The City will consider uses such as: ▪ Active Recreational Space . Natural Habitant Restoration . Passive Open Space and Trails • Community scale agriculture . Neighborhoods supportive of commercial and service uses • High quality neighborhoods Require new developments to comply with requirements of the CVMSHCP. Limit grading and vegetation removal of new development activities to the minimum extent necessary to reduce erosion and sedimentation. Mr. McFadden has stated in the application for Change of Zone and Development Plan "50 percent of the proposed project will be Open Space"! Mr. McFadden fails to state that approximately 10 percent of that Open Space is covered by an agreement with Palm Desert Villas on Green that prohibits construction on the property (Document No. 2007-0338228 dated 05/23/2007). The additional area of Open Space in Tract 37240 Section A, Tract 37241 Section B and Tract 37242 Section C includes walking paths, recreational facilities, parking spaces, roads, cul-de-sacs and multiple retention basins which are necessitated by grading for level pads, concrete slabs, structures, asphalt roads and vehicle parking spaces. This is not the green grass and open space that surrounding property owners expected when they purchased their golf course abutting homes. I sincerely request that the Planning Commission revise their decision to approve a Change of Zone for this project and submit to the City Council their recommendation to deny this project. Abraham Lincoln once said, "Public Sentiment is everything. With Public Sentiment you can not fail. Without it you cannot succeed. The only way to measure Public Sentiment is to VOTE", Allow the 188 affected property owners abutting the Executive Course to VOTE as was allowed the owners abutting the former PDCC Driving Range that provided the area now occupied by the Horton Homes. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jack L. Forney cc: Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City, of Palm Desert Community Development Attachments: Road Relocation DRAWING 1 & 2 • • • • Lel 0\ 1— • • W • • W LL • ■ CO • • •• • • 0\ W w U- co • • • • • • W • LL • z • 0 C7 • W EL' • 0 • • • • ■ • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • ■ •• • • • • • • W co 0 a. N a Z m 4 z O 0 w J 0 W • a -I • ❑aWuo co • wz�aoi •or»0. Z❑ ■ • • • • kCo N o► w 00 W a, ,-� CO o N I x L---._—_ FF: 695.3a±) 0 o CD Cs 0 w .. t] k 4/1 v r p I f y!yt q. 4 • W 0 j$��I ;� .z — - J i # , �1 EX. FF: 894.20+ • • 1. .I • k Serena 11lk 76971 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 December 19, 2017 Planning Commission: Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chair, Commissioner Joseph Pradetto Chair, Commissioner Nancy DeLuna Staff: Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner One of the most compelling reasons to stop the proposed development of the former PDCC executive course is that no matter how well designed this in -building of our neighborhood is, it is in serious conflict with our existing community. Such development would destroy valuable open space and our residents quality of life for the sole purpose of enriching the PDCC ownership. To approve a development based on the determination that it may (temporarily) resolve a problem area and assume there are no other alternatives, would be a major policy error. There has to be a better way than further destroying lifestyles and property values of concerned residents and property owners. 188 property owners directly affected by this development may seem a small number, but we deserve to have the city protect our remaining quality of life which has already been degraded by the actions of PDCC ownership over the past 4 years. Many of us are seniors living on fixed incomes, but we should not be overlooked in favor of the avarice which is proposing development. We are citizens of the City of Pi in, Desert and our interests should be protected by our City Officials! I will now read a quote from an article published in the Desert Sun on May 2, 2015 written by Sherry Barkas. The statements were made by Lauri Aylaian, then the city's community development director and currently the Palm Desert City manager. (Attached article, page 3,) Begin quote: "In my opinion, the likelihood of a successful rezone depends almost entirely upon the response of the neighbors," Aylaian said. The city doesn't stand to gain much from the development of 65 homes or timeshares, she said. With about 1400 timeshares in Palm Desert already, PD Investments' development would be less than a 5 percent increase. The city receives only a small portion of property taxes on new residential development, which would essentially offset the cost of providing services to the new units, Aylaian said. " Therefore, the city's primary concern will be with protecting the interests of the residents who are most directly impacted, to the extent that is within our authority to do so" End quote. 1 bring to this hearing a notebook of 678 signed petitions by property owners within the Palm Desert Country Club community ( this is obviously more than just those homeowners directly adjacent to the destroyed executive course), stating they are opposed to the proposed development. I would suggest that this is a significant 'response from the neighbors'! Thank you for your time and consideration. Serena Iilk Attachment: Desert Sun article published May 2, 2015 Golf course's future splits Palm Desert community QSherry Barkas, The Desert Sun 9:03 a m. PDT May 2, 2015 Buy Photo Fred Simmons, left, and Charlie Ash are among Palm Desert Country Club residents whose homes are along the nine -hole "executive" course that golf PD Investments wants to permanently close to build up to 65 timeshare condos on the 30 acres. Many of the homeowners are opposed to the development but golf course owners say it's a matter of economics. Buy Photo 50 CONNECTTWEET 1 LINKEDIN 6 COMMENTEMAILMORE Standing at her patio door, Barbara Powers looks out over the fairway of the Palm Desert Country Club's shuttered nine -hole golf course. Her view of turf ----- now faded to brown, with some patches of green — is more inviting, she says, than a row of timeshare condos being proposed for the land. "We would be directly looking at a parking lot. There would be condos all behind us," said Powers, a Palm Desert Country Club resident whose home is one of 179 that line the smaller of two golf courses. "I don't want anything out there. I don't even care if this stays open space like this all my life." Course owners say it's a matter of economics: While the 18-hole championship course has done well since PD Investments bought the club out of bankruptcy three years ago, the par 3, nine -hole executive course is a financial drain. "It was costing $300,000 (per year) to maintain with a revenue of $80,000," said Wilf Weinkauf, general manager and one of about half -a -dozen partners in PD Investments. The course was closed nearly a year ago and the debate over its future has been ongoing. Weinkauf said they've "tried everything" to make the course appealing, including cutting green fees in half to $25. He said he also reached out to a nonprofit youth group, but said it couldn't afford the rate. "No one wants to play the course," Weinkauf said. "We're not going to sit around and wait for this to drag us under." He envisions between 60 and 65 single -story timeshare units built on the 30 acres. Photo Barbara and Chuck Powers' Palm Desert Country Club home is one of 179 along the nine -hole "executive" golf course that owners are looking to permanently close and develop into timeshares. Powers said she would rather look out at the open space than a row of condos. "We will leave at least 45 percent in green space, so it's very, very low development," said Weinkauf, who also owns a home along the executive course. Weinkauf said he has tried to come up with a development that wouldn't disrupt anyone's view of the Santa Rosa mountains but would instead boost property values. But Powers and some of her neighbors, who gathered at her home last weekend, disagree. They believe such a development will bring property values lower than the open space. Plus, they say, they bought their homes specifically because they were on a golf course. Bob Brennan, who has been in the golf business for many years, said not enough has been done to market the nine -hole course and draw players from outside the home owners association or the city. "The senior population is growing and this is a great walking course," he said. Weinkauf said he understands the opposition. He said he has tried to be upfront with the residents, and formed an eight -member committee that includes himself, another staff member and residents. But there are many hurdles yet to clear, not the least of which is getting a zone change approved by City Hall. The golf course, currently zoned as open space, would have to be rezoned for whatever the owners propose to develop, said Lauri Aylaian, the city's community development director. "In my opinion, the likelihood of a successful rezone depends almost entirely upon the response of neighbors," Aylaian said. The city doesn't stand to gain much from the development of 65 homes or timeshares, she said. With about 1,400 timeshares in Palm Desert already, PD Investments' development would be less than a 5 percent increase. The city receives only a small portion of property taxes on new residential development, which would essentially offset the cost of providing services to the new units, Aylaian said. "Therefore, the city's primary concern will be with protecting the interests of the residents who are most directly impacted, to the extent that it is within our authority to do so. One thing that we cannot do is force the owners to continue to operate the golf course if they don't find it profitable ... or if they simply don't want to," Aylaian said. Powers has begun circulating a petition among homeowners. Those who sign are also asked if they have any suggested alternatives for the land use. "So far, all have said, 'No buildings'," Powers said, but haven't offered any other suggestions_ The near 60-year-old Palm Desert Country Club was the valley's first HOA community. The two golf courses have always been privately owned and property owners don't pay an assessment or any other type of fee that contributes to golf course maintenance. Nor do they receive discounted green fees. The course has changed hands several times over the years. Powers said there have been six owners since she and her husband bought their home in 1984. Homeowner Jack Forney said he's open to compromise. "Maybe a six -hole golf course and half the number of homes they want to build," he said. Desert Sun reporter Sherry Barkas covers the cities of La Quinta, Indian Wells, Rancho Mirage and Palm Desert. She can be reached at sherry.barkas@thedesertsun.com or (760) 778-4694. Follow her on Twitter Raymond & Kathryn Culver 43505 Oregon Cir Pa1.03_Desert, CA.9.2211_ City of Palm Desert Architectural Committee Zoning Committee Planning Committee City Council December 16, 2017 RE: PDCC Executive Course To Whom It May Concern We object to the proposed rezoning of PDCC Executive Course from OS to R-2 for the following reasons: ') No one in PDCC bought next to speculative land. In 1974 when John & Virginia Culver purchased this house they did so because it was on a cul de sac, so road expansions would not effect them, and on a golf course. since they knew there would be no construction immediately behind them. Most, if not all, of the 300 effected homeowners paid extra in the purchase price of their homes and understood their property taxes would reflect that they did not buy next to land that would be developed as anything but open space. Treating the property and Toss of views to the homeowners as if we should have expected the possibility of the land being developed after 40+ years of it being open space is unreasonable. 2) Zoning changes are either a natural progression or require extraordinary reasons behind them. These reasons include: City's need for Revenue Increase Property Value Shortage of Housing Shortage of Land for Development Repurposing an Abandoned Property This is not a natural progression zoning change. City has no need for this revenue According to public records Palm Desert is running a considerable surplus. But the city is beginning to have a shortage of open space. The property value of property next to zoned open space is considerably more than next to zoned R-2 which could allow for any kind of future development. There are no shortage of condominiums in Palm Desert or the valley, a current search of Trulia shows the number of 538 for sale. There is no shortage of speculative land. A simple drive around shows numerous lots for sale and even more that have been developed over the last 4 years that the golf course owners missed out on. The property is NOT abandoned. We know who the owner is because they are making this petition. The owner has the property patrolled They do repairs to water sprinklers, and do minimum maintenance. So it is not actually abandoned in the true sense of the term. The course owners purchased a 27 hole golf course with a newly renovated club house While they maintain in good condition the clubhouse and 18 of the 27 holes. they choose to maintain in a blighted condition the 9 hole course. The analogy of someone killing their parents and then pleading mercy because they are an orphan comes to mind. So NO obvious extraordinary circumstances exists to justify the zone change. As stated by a member in the Architectural Committee "A project like this has NEVER been done here." Many homeowners translate that as "this is an experiment." An experiment is not an extraordinary reason and should not be sufficient reason for reducing the value of approx 300 homes in favor of 69 condos. 3) This has created an unnecessary division in the PDCC community and will create an even bigger division. The golf course has been the only thing that makes PDCC a group. Previous owners of the golf course always understood this and respected it. These owners have riot. They have divided people with a golf course view from people without. Divided the 18 hole home owners from the 9 hole home owners. HOA members against non-HOA members, in fact this project is even pitting HOA members interests against each other. Making promises regarding the 18 hole if the HOA abandons the HOA members on the 9 hole. The course owners have used the City of Palm Desert as a club to beat the home owners over the head. instead of resolving the issues within the community as soon as they heard "no" they went to the city. There has been no legitimate attempt to address our concerns. They have repeatedly made promises they have reneged. If the project proceeds it will only create bigger divides. It will not bring us together as a community. If you remove the golf course we are on, we will not be part of PDCC. What will we be? Will it also change our property tax designation of PDCC zone 13? 4) Palm Desert Country Club and in particular the Executive Course have been the victim of shortsightedness for decades. Most of the people on the Executive Course are not part of the Home Owners Assoc. This is because when the expansion was proposed the HOA did not want the "new people" using the pool. Short Sighted. When the last owner made all the renovations he did not anticipate the housing bubble. Short Sighted. When Palm Desert could have taken over PDCC and made it the city's golf course they only saw "free" money for building on undeveloped land. Short Sighted. Changing the zoning on a golf course simply because the owner sees a way to make "easy money" is incredible short sighted. One Final point. There is a dog leg on Hovely and Kansas. After numerous cars crashing into the home on that corner the city finally had the house removed. This project creates a similar situation with the proposed placement of the roads. There is a house on California and Kentucky with a young family. The proposed project puts a road directly behind them. I'm sure the home owners had not expected to be surrounded by roads on three sides but in addition this new roadway will be an access road to and from party condominiums while their children are playing in their backyard. PLEASE DO NOT BE SHORT SIGHTED ON THE POTENTIAL TRAGEDY. Refuse the project or at least insist the road be removed or buy out this house. This is a water shed decision with potential affects for the entire valley. It should not be taken lightly. The valley is a vacation destination for golfing but if you set the precedent that a developer can buy up a smaller golf course, let it go to seed, cry poverty and then turn it into speculative land, the valley will not be a golf Mecca in the future. Sincerely, Raymond Culver Kathryn Culver December 19, 2017 Good Evening Madam Chairman, Commissioners and Staff My name is Jack L Forney, I live at 76831 Kentucky Ave., Palm Desert, Ca. Initially let me state that I am opposed to any construction on the Former Executive Course. Open Space Development is Open Space lost forever. On December 11 th I deposited with the Planning Department a written statement of my concerns and compromise suggestions for the Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course for each Commissioner and Staff. In the interest of time and redundancy I will summarize the main points of the statement. I am not an Architect, Engineer or Contractor therefore I can't comment on the structural integrity of the Proposed Units, but as an interested owner (my home abutts the former course) I believe the proposed project could be made more community friendly by some compromise adjustments. PDCC is a community of single family homes primarily occupied by retired senior citizens who purchased their homes for the majestic mountain views and the open area of the golf course for their golden years. They take pride in the community, maintain their property, respect their neighbors and are an asset to the City of Palm Desert. This project as 1 pointed out in my written statement should be revised to insure compliance with Article 5 of the Project Application Development Plan. Compromises should be made to protect, views, minimize noise and pollution, provide privacy and security for the surrounding residents. I believe my written suggestions for the Overall Proposed Plan for unit location, height, elevation, walls, fences and landscaping would help achieve these objectives. On a personal basis the proposed road is 16' firom my rear property line. Attached are sketches showing the proposed and requested 90 degree relocation of Units B8, B9, B 10 and B 11 to allow the units and the road to be moved 30' or more feet toward the south property line. Sheet 1 is the now proposed location and sheet 2 is the desired requested location. The former owners of Palm Desert CC in applying for a change of zone to allow construction on the former driving range and other areas of the course, provided several amenities: ie. automated sprinkler system, new club house with modern kitchen, dining room, bar and pro shop as well as a new water line, covered golf cart parking, practice facilities, putting green, facility for maintenance equipment and most importantly the Right to Vote on the development by adjacent property owners. This Quid -Pro -Quo offering was met with approval by the club members, adjacent property owners and the community resulting in a change of zone and construction of the "Horton Homes" at Palm Desert CC. Mr. McFadden thus far has not made any significant changes to the original design of the project and Palm Desert Holdings, the current owner of the project has provided a Quid -Pro -Quo that includes, Dust, Dirt, Visual Blight, Pollution, the loss of property value to the 188 home owners abutting the Former Executive Course and no opportunity to play 9 holes of golf of this 27 hole course.. The construction of the project will provide additional problems for the area. I believe some cash compensation to the property owners who have suffered 4 years is appropriate from the 6 to 8 million dollar profit that the course owners will achieve from this project while still owning the 18 hole course and club house. In closing as i have previously quoted Abraham Lincoln -Who once said "Public Sentiment is everything, with Public Sentiment you can't fail, without it you can't succeed. The only way to measure Public Sentiment is to Vote." Let the surrounding affected property owners vote on this project as was allowed the affected owners prior to a change of zone and construction of the Horton Homes. Thank you for you time and consideration. 1 _y , r—' I I I-- L�, 11--' i 1 IU- m e6421411 1 i 7 IrseMO' I f�. m eaa.7O 1, 11 CEL 1!, M..rw1, I [�1. *s: LA..aasy i I i (11 m deme+) I !Q rr. euaeal F I sr: eoasax), III i � �: 1 LOT ma 1 I I LOT 1M I i 1 Lwr ,.e 1 I 1 LOT IV 1 1 1 IDT fee 1 I I LOT 110 LOT LIN 1 j 1 ear I9a 1 , I GOT Ile I x .I — __. 12 11.2 1 g3 Ie Y-- �•I j—L '� ..._ !1 1 errrsr 1 r---1 I 1 l—y I 1 F` I—�.-1 urns am.= =J II 1d1 ear as I--- ' 'I 1 I i ,I I y I 1 1 I Ler p I,1 RIOT n: sea.Tox1 f, I — wr . , — - I i I �evr s1 . rs: aq.'Ot) I far s� I I I 1 • m we.Tosi we c I ur x 1 ,' I I tn. >tr: srs.aesl I 11I1s[ Pi, sT�.Te:l I` I' I EIQSTLYG LOT31 : I �, m see.Toa1 1 ' I,._ �: �..r�1 1 r i¢. rn ea , wa j I on. m I I; ! I,l, l l III 11 TR: 4871 111 II , 1 1 I—f 1 N3.7e21 1 — I y I� ICALS FIRME:i141%17 rT1 i.• Ills . �111Sep1.1.1w =.Aw.. K Y 161E— DRAWING #-1 OTT OP PALIA PRELIMINARY 6R TRACT NO. 77- MO PALM Pin. OK NAY .nf i. 200 199 198 197 A 46' B8 SECTION B PDCC PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT FORMER EXECUTIVE COURSE OREGON DRIVE 96' NOT TO SCALE REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY 196 195 194 90 DEGREE RELOCATE❑ UNITS B9 POOL B 46' IE- B10 B 11 96' DRAWING #-2 December 11, 2017 To: City of Palm Desert PIanning Commission Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto Chair Nancy DeLuna Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, Community Development Department Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Proposed Development of the PDCC Former Executive Course Madam Chairwoman, members of the Planning Commission and staff My name is Jack L. Forney, I own and reside at 76831 Kentucky Ave, Palm Desert, Ca, which abutts the former 8u' tee box of the closed Executive Course of the Palm Desert CC. Let me state that I am opposed to any construction on the Former Executive Course! Development of open space is open space lost forever, however I am a realist and believe that the property will never be a golf course again and will not be open space forever! Property owners have rights to utilize their property within limits of established zoning laws. This property development infringes on some rights of existing home owners abutting the proposed development ie., noise, traffic, view and air pollution. An equitable way to minimize these problems is to compromise. A recent definition of the word COMPROMISE is "A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. Existing home owners have made numerous suggestions for utilization of the property and all have been met with the same response "The golf course is closed". This infill project is unique in it's application to build condominiums down the middle of an area 95% comprised of single family homes. A change of zone to allow development of this project as currently proposed will do irreparable harm to the 188 owners abutting these former fairways. They have already suffered 4 years of dust, dirt and visual blight due to the lack of proper water and maintenance of the property. They have lost green grass and the convenience of living on a golf course and most importantly the loss of 1 O% of their property value as reported by the Riverside County Assessor's Office: "A property abutting a golf course is typically appraised 10% higher than a similar property not on a golf course". The applicant has shown total disregard for the surrounding property and their owners. have reviewed the minutes of the March 14, 2017 Architectural Review Commission meeting and the summary of the minimal changes made. Compliance with Article 5 of the City of Palm Desert Precise Application Plan Development Standards should be addressed as follows: A. Site Access and Circulation Standards: Single road in and out of the project does not appear to meet this standard. B. Site planning shall occur that minimizes obstruction of scenic views of adjacent properties: 15' to 18' planned structures does not minimize obstruction of scenic views of surrounding properties. C. Site planning shall be compatible with existing terrain: Gentle sloping area as opposed to current hilly conditions in some areas. D. Site planning shall occur in a manner that does not expose unattractive areas or activities to the detriment of adjacent properties. Swimming pools, pickle ball courts, 30" high walls to screen headlight intrusion does not meet this criteria. E. Tree selection should be carefully considered as to family type, maximum height and spread of canopy: Messy trees of the Acacia Family as proposed grow to 30' to 40' in height with similar size canopies. In an effort to provide compromise suggestions that can be applicable to the entire project on these 200' plus wide fairways, I have offered in writing and oral presentations to the Architectural Review Commission on May 23, 2017 as follows: A. No structure, portion thereof or recreational facility shall be closer than 80'from the closest adjacent property line. B. No structure or appurtenance thereon shall exceed 10' above the elevation of the nearest adjacent property line and a distance of 100' in each direction along said property lines. Relocating air conditioning units and the surrounding screen fence to the ground would help. C. All roadways shall be a minimum of 60' from existing property lines. The currently proposed roadway is 16' from my rear property line. D. All roadways shall be a minimum of 3' below the elevation of adjacent property lines. This will eliminate the need for 30" segmented walls. E. All exterior fencing should be constructed of material selected by adjacent property owners from 3 choices; Stucco block wall with wrought iron on top Solid stucco block wall Wrought iron For consistency no Tess than 3 adjoining properties (180') shall be of the same construction type. F. No exterior fencing shall be permitted 1' away from existing permanent property line fencing. No double fence line where existing permanent fence is in place. G. Maximum height of mature trees shall be 30' and canopy diameter 30'. Trees shall be located 100' from structures, other trees or property lines. H. All landscaped areas shall be a minimum of 50% green grass. In discussion with planning staff and review of the minutes of the May 23, 2017 meeting, none of my suggested compromises were included. Therefore at the July 25, 2017 meeting of Architectural Review Commission Meeting i again offered written and oral presentations specific to my home and those of my immediate neighbors that could be applicable to other locations in the development where the proposed roadway is 16' or less from existing property lines. PROBLEM: Proposed roadway is 16' from my rear property line. SOLUTION: Rotate the structures for units B8, B9, B10 and Bil 90 degrees making the long side (96') parallel with the edge of the former fairway and the short side (58') perpendicular to the edge of the fairway (fairway at the location is 210' wide) this will allow the structures and the proposed roadway to move 30' or more toward the south property line of the fairway providing safety, less noise and pollution from the roadway. PROBLEM: View obstruction and non -compatibility of proposed roof design. SOLUTION: Remove superfluous roof projections ie. dormers, air conditioning units and screening, provide for 4112 pitch or flat roof for all structures which will be compatible with the roof design of existing surrounding properties. Lower pad elevations 12 to 18 inches. Mr. McFadden and Palm Desert Holdings(listed owner) have not made any significant compromises on their application as originally proposed for this project. This project as currently proposed does not conform to the structures or character of the surrounding community. A good faith effort of compromise and good citizenship by Palm Desert Holdings and a quid -pro -quo offering to the 188 homeowners abutting the former executive course for their suffering and loss of property value would be a cash reimbursement equal to 10% of the assessed value as shown on their 2017 tax bill. This would be less expensive than the amenities provided by the former owners in exchange for the change of zone that allowed construction of the Horton Homes. 1 request this project be returned to the applicant to correct the flaws in the precise development plan I have outlined and provide a revised plan that includes the compromise suggestions I have made. Abraham Lincoln once said, "Public sentiment is everything, with public sentiment you can't fail, without it you can't succeed. The only way to measure public sentiment is to VOTE". Let the surrounding affected property owners vote on this development as was allowed prior to the construction of the Horton Homes at Palm Desert Country Club. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jack L. Forney 76831 Kentucky Ave. Palm Desert, California 760-345-8598 Ceja, Eric To: Subject: Stendell, Ryan RE: Building Palm Desert CC From: alfred gignac <alfredgignac59 @ vahoo.com> Date: January 3, 2018 at 4:47:44 AM PST To: "Stendell, Ryan"<rstendell@citvofpalmdesert.org> Subject: Building Palm Desert CC YOU WANT A FIGHT, HERE IT IS. My name is Alfred Gignac. I live at 76820 Kentucky Palm Desert 92211. I am a former Marine. The owner of PDCC has in his employment illegal immigrants, taking care of his golf course.l will take this information out of state. The communist state of California does not care, but national news, feds and ice will. I will make Palm Desert an example of what you can not get away with in this country. - AMERICA FIRST alfred gignac 1 Ceja, Eric From: Dianna T rdianna.t@palmdesertgolf.rom> Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2018 9:47 AM To: Marilyn Forney Cc: Ceja, Eric Subject: RE: Perimeter walls Hi Jack and Marilyn, Following is a response to your letter. We hope this helps clarify things, Wilf In response to the comments dated 02-10-18 from MIM Forney, In response to the perimeter wall being removed, if the Planning Commission and Council deemed this to be advantageous other than where it is required to accommodate grading changes I would concur that a maximum 6" wall cap (or curb) above highest adjacent grade would be ideal. This would keep the majority of the Sites open to the vistas, landscaped perimeters and available site lines. During our initial conversations with Planning and Public Works we had been directed to provide a perimeter concept as an access controlled and GATED community. The gated vehicle access was eliminated fairly early on and the neighborhood access was granted to the interior path from the West most parcel to the Clubhouse. This was believed to be a benefit to the neighborhood and contributed to the sense of open space. The only areas needing solid walls may be at the Entry choke points but only for 2 to 3 lot widths max. We have further refined the direction of the "proposed" perimeter fencing / landscape design to allow for as much sharing of space as possible. This is going to be a great benefit for both existing (and new) homeowners to share. Our preferred design (if perimeter enclosure is required) is to have as much open fencing as possible with masonry knee -walls (and fencing above) with consistently spaced pilasters to provide continuity in the design. Honestly even at the entry points, the solid masonry walls are not as much a necessity in my opinion but have been offered as a response to perceived objection. The landscaped and maintained entry points will be a considerable enhancement to what is there now. We have previously added interior site walls adjacent to the roads to eliminate glaring headlights, readdressed some road alignments and set the view corridors within our project internally as much as possible. Where we have units that face the rear yards of the perimeter existing homes we have placed view walls close to the proposed residences to maintain privacy concerns for both new and existing homeowners. No one is staring into each other's windows. Specifically regarding the comments many of them are misinterpretations of what has been illustrated. From: Marilyn Forney [mailto:Feathr7@dc.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 3:19 AM To: Dianna T Subject: Perimeter walls Dianna Per your web site it states,"forward any questions or comments regarding the Proposed Development Project PDCC Executive Course". I have attached a copy of comments and concerns with the proposed Perimeter Walls of Section B. 1 Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Marilyn Forney 76831 Kentucky Ave. Palm Desert, Ca. Section B Lot 199 February 10. 2018 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Subject: PDCC Proposed Development Executive Course According to the December 19, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes the Tract Maps have been returned to the applicant for total review and corrections. We are submitting a concern we have that we hope will be corrected during the review period. Perimeter Walls: December 19. 2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing Commissioner Greenwood inquired why a wall is being installed. Was the wall wanted by the developer or the residents? MR. McFADDEN said City staff pointed out to them that there are substandard lots so it was his idea to have a wall along with the five-foot giveaway. Commissioner Greenwood wondered if a wall was necessary. MR. McFADDEN remarked if the Planning Commission wants the wall removed, they will remove the wall. Please consider the following: 1. Directly below the five -foot giveaway to existing property owners Section B 2. Starting at lot #203 to lot #192 estimated lot size 60' affects 11 lots 3. 15' Wall appears to be a solid wall estimated to be 660 feet long 4. 2nd Wall directly below the lc' wall appears to be a solid wall with an estimated horizontal break of 30 ft at lot #198 estimated to be 630 feet long. This is not a screening wall 5. Lot #200, #199, 198 and 197 have fencing/permanent block walls on their adjacent property lines for total of 240 feet, 3 walls would prevail. 6. These 2 proposed walls have to be a Architectural Error. 7. The original development design had no perimeter walls. 8. The current perimeter wall design/concept is not professionally logical, is questionable or unrealistic according to the December 19, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes. The Perimeter Wall situation needs to be totally reevaluated. 9. WE ARE ASKING: 10. RELIEF FROM ANY PERIMETER WALLS ADJACENT TO EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS AS IN THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN. 11. OR RELIEF FROM 2 PROPOSED WALLS AND OR ANY PERIMETER WALL WHERE EXISTING PERMANENT FENCINGIBLOCK WALLS EXIST ON ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES. 12. OR 1 PERIMETER WALL NO CLOSER THAN FIFTEEN (15) FEET TO PROPERTY LINE; AND PROVIDED THAT THE AREA BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE PROPERTY LINE IS LANDSCAPED AND MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND DRAINAGE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA I5 INCLUDED. 2 Conclusion: With the current design concept, of 24' wide access roadway, roundabout, 6ft perimeter walls, retention basins filled with decomposed granite, 8' wide cart path, 4' walking path, driveways, parking spaces, commercial stepping stones/pavers, structures of lath and plaster, screening walls, headlight walls, patios, swimming pools, pickle ball court and etc. this project has become a design of unbreathable concrete products crammed into a cluster design in area to small for it's design any substance that people introduce into the atmosphere that has damaging effects on living things and the environment is considered air pollution... and where is the 50% open space? Please pass our concern on to the APPLICANT. Thank you for your time and consideration. Marilyn Forney 76831 Kentucky Ave. Palm Desert, Ca. Section B Lot 199 February 10, 2018 3 Ceja. Eric From: Marilyn Forney <Feathr7@dc.rr.com> Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2018 3:07 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: Perimeter Walls February 10. 2018 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Subject: PDCC Proposed Development Executive Course According to the December 19, 2017 Planning Commission Minutes the Tract Maps have been returned to the applicant for total review and corrections. We are submitting a concern we have that we hope will be corrected during the review period. Perimeter Walls: December 19. 2017 Planning Commission Public Hearing Commissioner Greenwood inquired why a wall is being installed. Was the wall wanted by the developer or the residents? MR. McFADDEN said City staff pointed out to them that there are substandard lots so it was his idea to have a wall along with the five-foot giveawa►'. Commissioner Greenwood wondered if a wall was necessary. MR. McFADDEN remarked if the Planning Commission wants the wall removed, they will remove the wall. Please consider the following: 1. Directly below the five -foot giveaway to existing property owners Section B 2. Starting at lot #203 to lot #192 estimated lot size 60' affects 11 lots 3. 1st Wall appears to be a solid wall estimated to be 660 feet long 4. 2nd Wall directly below the Pt wall appears to be a solid wall with an estimated horizontal break of 30 ft at lot #198 estimated to be 630 feet long. This is not a screening wall 5. Lot #200, #199, 198 and 197 have fencing/permanent block walls on their adjacent property lines for total of 240 feet, 3 walls would prevail. 6. These 2 proposed walls have to be a Architectural Error. 7. The original development design had no perimeter walls. 8. The current perimeter wall design/concept is not professionally logical, is questionable or unrealistic according to the December 19, 2018 Planning Commission Minutes. The Perimeter Wall situation needs to be totally reevaluated. 9. WE ARE ASKING: 10. RELIEF FROM ANY PERIMETER WALLS ADJACENT TO EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS AS IN THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT DESIGN. i 11. OR RELIEF FROM 2 PROPOSED WALLS AND OR ANY PERIMETER WALL WHERE EXISTING PERMANENT FENCINGBLOCK WALLS EXIST ON ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES. 12. OR 1 PERIMETER WALL NO CLOSER THAN FIFTEEN (15) FEET TO PROPERTY LINE; AND PROVIDED THAT THE AREA BETWEEN THE WALL AND THE PROPERTY LINE IS LANDSCAPED AN❑ MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY ❑WNER AND DRAINAGE APPROPRIATE FOR THE AREA IS INCLUDED. Conclusion: With the current design concept, of 24' wide access roadway, roundabout, 6ft perimeter walls, retention basins filled with decomposed granite, 8' wide cart path, 4' walking path, driveways, parking spaces, commercial stepping stones/pavers, structures of lath and plaster, screening walls, headlight walls, patios, swimming pools, pickle ball court and etc. this project has become a design of unbreathable concrete products crammed into a cluster design in area to small for it's design any substance that people introduce into the atmosphere that has damaging effects on living things and the environment is considered air pollution... NI here i5 the 50(4 open space? Please pass our concern on to the APPLICANT. Thank you for your time and consideration. Marilyn Forney 76831 Kentucky Ave. Palm Desert, Ca. Section B Lot 199 February 10, 2018 2 PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB: Owners of PDCC, claim that water costs and labor costs have rendered the 9-hole course unfit as a business and' have requesteda rezoning of the 9-hole course area to builhf condos. If a zoning change is approved, many home owners fronting this 9-hole golf course would be impacted and disenfranchised_ Why do we have zoning? to protect our investments. to bring peace of mind to those who invest in real property in Palm Desert. What is the purpose of a zoning.board? The primary purpose of zoning is to segregate uses that are thought to be incompatible. to practice, zoning also is used to prevent new development from interfering with existing uses and/or to preserve the "character" of a community. If Council members support a change in zone to help an out -tide owner who purchased a country clu h. in Palm Desert fully knowing how difficult it is to make any country club viable in this market, they should be held accountable at the next election. Businesses have the responsibility to conduct a thorough due diligence before purchasing any business. 1later-they find they made abaci business decision, _it is nv't the-Ci;ty's responsibility to bail them out with a re -zone decision that would harm residents! How can thisCity justify protecting an outside businesswhile-disenfranchising Palm Desert residents. Residents, whom manyare retired — whom many purchased these affordable homes on: a fairway -as much•as thirty.or forty yearsago to enjoy their later years and retirement. Now this Council is going to pull the rug out from under these homeowners and disenfranchise their investments to bail out a single business? If the owners of PDCC want to built condos, there is plenty of mom within the Paim Desert' city limits to.do so. Maybe they could offer a free membership at PDCC`s: nine -hole Golf courseto all those who purchase one of their condos or homes! Maybe weshouldask this counclif they believe it is a responsible City,position to re -zone a country club when it impacts and disenlranc'hises i BO reslderits? This is a no .trainer --sorry golf course business —.Phis City is not responsible for bailing out your business decision to purchase Palm Desert Country Club especially when you didn't even try to -properly market your'9hole.goff.course. `Prome'ftattar7 frrralata:Failtsr7@dur c Sent: Saturday, Match 22, 2014 7;09 AM To: AtR J Subject ►assessed values of property Dear Mr. Ward: In a Golf Course Community: _ . Are houses abutting the gott~ COUTSe appraised e.g.[taxed)at a tither, tower or the samethan similar -properties in the communitynot abutting the golf course7 If a differential exists, What would thepercentage be? Maril'yu Forney 76831•Kentuckv \ve. Palm Desert, Ca. 92211. --- Origtnal Message From:•fsCR llaperirr.onthlead 'FeathrT Sara: Monday, M arth 24, 2014 3:O9 PM Subject RE Assosaed vahtes•cd i T pa ty Good afternoon. 1 cilstussedyour Inqufrywkti t I appratsot.staff In OW desertffur rand the percentage would be 1D%. genasaily speaking. For examplE if.a home on -a gob course lot suit, ftwbrsld allow -for 35% of the marketvaluejsates priceta be aitocated Mite land 1175 ppo}, ff the same home on a non -gaff course tot sokl,.25% of the marketvalue/safes.pticeucuftf irealleadeclm ohs:Ian cf. =XI; Thank yaw ►ar you r inquvy. -.Victoria 0542 Public Serviae•Divirk n Asses or -County Clerk -Record -Er Riverside County Ceja, Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 8:52 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendetl, Ryan Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Good morning Eric, We received the message below over the weekend from a resident regarding PDCC. Thanks very much for any assistance/information that Planning can provide to Mr. Herrell. David David Hermann Public information Officer Ph: 760.776.6411 Direct: 761776.6380 1h errnann@cityofpal mdesert. org From: webmaster@ city©ffpalmdesert.org[maiito:webmasterCa�citvofnalmdesert.orq] Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 2:10 PM To: Information Mail Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact LJs Date & Time: 12/17/2017 7:09 PM Response K: 778 Submitter ID: 7884 IP address: 67.49.94.162 Time to complete: 11 min. , 3 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Michael Last Name Herrell Email Address Jamiacomo@vahoo.com Phone Number 760-777-0274 Address 76946 Kentucky Ave Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 IE l am a: (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: Planning, 1 am a resident negatively affected by the proposed development of 69 Condo's at Palm Desert Country Club Zone Change.' Just received from you a 165 page document to review last Friday December 15th @5pm.l am requesting a second meeting with the planning commission so we can thoroughly and accurately review this document. Please advise tome ASAP . Thank You, Mike Herrell Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System'". Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 1-25-2016 RE: RETENTION PONDS/DETENTION AREAS 1 posted all the grading plans on a large board and counted 39 retention areas on PDCC plans. I wanted you to know there are many more negative comments on the Internet. I have enclosed Several of the articles. Has PDCC FILED THE BMP REPORT, we don't know. The two major items, negative about these areas are: 1. Children are drawn to these areas like a magnet. Very dangerous health wise for them to play in and around these areas if not fenced in. 2. Health hazards where animal feces and other debris remain in the area. 3. Mosquitoes and other insects. 4. Of course we do not want any building on the Executive Golf Course but to have any of these Fenced it would be horrible to view. 5. In speaking with Eric Ceja, the water in these areas would not be pumped into the street And CVW will not let them discharge in the sewer system. They must just drain in Place. The current owner doesn't even take care of the weeds and other items now , even When Code is contacted. Why would you think it would be any different for them to follow the laws on the books and keep the area clean and safe. 6.We rarely get rain but in the past two years we have had our share. If any of these Areas would flood on to neighbors property there is no insurance from the owners, Or HOA when it is released to them and unless the home owner has flood insurance they are not covered. I know our side of Kentucky near Tennessee has had it's share In flooding during these rains. One household claimed they had $7000. In damage. 50 THESE ARE OBJECTIONS........OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE (Secretary, Barb Powers) Ceja, Eric From: Lisa Theodoratus <lisatheo@msn.com> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:58 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Jonathan, cabby; Harnik, Jan; Kelly, Kathleen; Weber, Susan Marie; Nestande, Gina Subject: RE: Theodoratus - Formal request to treat resolution 2715 as a 1st reading on December 9 Hi Eric Thank you for sending these, they had not previously been provided to me. One has the building marked as B-12 which I will assume is C-12. That section also is noted "resident site improvement encroach onto condo units". I had my property professionally surveyed about 15 years ago and know that my walls do not encroach outside of my property. Unless they are talking about overgrowth of my oleander hedge this statement is incorrect. Pertaining to this section unit C-12 is shown as a maximum building height of 10 feet on the site plan . is this correct? On the other section the pool building is also shown as 10 feet high. On page 6 of the report the pool buildings height is shown as 15 feet 6 inches. If the actual height of the building is not 10 feet then the cross sections are incorrect, deceptive, and do not reflect the reality of the proposal to the planning commission. The site section that is still missing is the cross section to unit C-4 from my backyard which is one of the two I requested many month ago. That unit is much closer to my home and appears to be elevated on the site plan I am looking at which will block my mountain views. noticed that a letter from the Palm Desert Country Club Association dated November 3, 2017 is included in the planning documents. PDCCA has not formally asked the opinion of impacted home owners on this project prior to sending the letter nor has the PDCCA polled or carried out a special ballot measure on this project. The PDCCA board has, I believe entered into a contract with the developer detrimental to some members of PDCCA and benefiting other members without the knowledge or consent of the PDCCA members. The PDCCA board of directors has no right to speak for members without their consent and has I believe misrepresented the association and their fiduciary duty to protect all of their members. As you know I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow and request that this update be sent to the planning commission for review. I do believe that many affected homeowners have yet to see the documents released at 5pm Friday for Tuesdays meeting much less respond. Given that this meeting should be treated as a first reading to give everyone the chance to absorb the gravity on the lives of those affected. Sincerely, Lisa Theodoratus 77040 Utah Circle Frorn: eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org [ma i Ito:eceja @cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:05 PM To: lisatheo@msn.com; rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org Cc: jharnik@cityofpalmdesert.org; sjonathan@cityofpalmdesert.org; kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org; sweber@cityofpalmdesert.org; gnestande@cityofpalmdesert.org Subject: RE: Theodoratus - Formal request for treat resolution 2715 as a lst reading on December 9 Hi Lisa, 1 Thank you for your email. As we discussed, your correspondence will be provided to the Planning Commissioners at their meeting tomorrow. In regards to your particularly question, attached are "sections" that show the grading and elevations for the rear of your property. Please contact me with any other questions. Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.061) Direct: 760.776.6384 ece)o@ci tyafpalmdesert .org From: Lisa Theodoratus fmailto:lisatheoCamsn.com] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:22 AM To: Ceja, Eric; Stendell, Ryan Cc: Harnik, Jan; Jonathan,' Sabby; Kelly, Kathleen; Weber, Susan Marie; Nestande, Gina Subject: Theodoratus - Formal request for treat resolution 2715 as a lst reading on December 9 Hi Eric I am making a forma! request that the planning commission treat resolution 2715 (Palm Desert Country Club) as a first reading at the December 18, 2017 meeting. The document was only made available Friday December 15 at approximately 5 PM. My reason for this is that the affected residents of Palm Desert Country Club have not been given a reasonable amount time to read the 165 page document, much less determine their own opinion of the document and notify the City of Palm Desert in writing of potential personal damages. Many months ago when we spoke at length at the planning counter I requested that you obtain an additional elevation for my property as "H P552" strategically misses the dwelling (C-4) closest to my home which I believe will block my view of the mountains. I also requested an elevation to unit C-12 which will also potentially block my mountain view and for relief of the walking path and retaining wall which is currently only 2 feet from my property line. l have currently not received the requested information from you. There are many issues that I plan to address later on the staff report, one of which is that my property value will decrease if this project is allowed to proceed. I plan on having a appraisal of my property both currently and if the proposed building are built and believe that my personal damages will exceed $20,000. I am also making this claim for Christine Sampson 43400 Tennessee Avenue aged 92 who is currently in the hospital and unable to respond for herself. If each of the 290 affected homeowners has a property value loss of $5,000 which I believe is a very low estimate for many this amounts to 1.5 million in loss to homeowners of Palm Desert Country Club many living off of a small social security check. Please reply to this message today as otherwise 1 will need to stay up all night tonight preparing a full response as I am working until 5pm today and also tomorrow! Kind Regards, Lisa Theodoratus, Owner The Cruise Experience 415 457.7186 Lisa C' TheC ru ise E x aerie nce. corrm 2 Ceja, Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 5:51 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: FW• City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Hi Eric, We received the message below today from a resident regarding Palm Desert Country Club and the proposed development of the former executive course there. I am forwarding for your information/follow up as appropriate. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760,776.641 1 Direct: 760,776.6380 d h ermarr n@ c i tyofpol m dese rt . org From: webmaster@cityoraalmdesert.org(mailto:webmaster@citvofoalmdesert.orgj Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 5:21 PM To: Information Mail Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 12/18/2017 5:21 PM Response k: 782 Submitter ID: 9886 IP address: 67.49.64.58 Time to complete: 18 min. , 27 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Mary Suzanne Last Name Tracy Email Address mstretd@me.com Phone Number 17603453746 Address 77-020 Utah Circle Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 1 am a: (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: Palm Desert City Council Members: Palm Desert Planning Commission; Dear Sirs and Madams: I have rived at 77-020 Utah Circle, Palm Desert, California, 92211, since 1970. I was part of a small group who objected to the first development which occurred in the early 2000s. We lost on that issue and were told that the remaining land would be zoned Open Space in perpetuity. I understand that even though the land became Open Space, it was not in perpetuity. What a disappointment to find that the people we voted to represent us do not care about our interests. I am now facing further development in this area. I hope the City Council and the Planning Commission will vote against this development. My issues include: loss of privacy, Tight pollution, noise pollution, and Toss of view. There are many other reasons to object to the development and I am sure you have heard them all. Please do NOT condone this development. I decided to stay here in retirement because I thought this was a wonderful place to retire. 1 also thought Palm Desert had great leadership. But my opinion is changing when I see that the Council and Planning Commission do not care about what happens to its residents. Please consider what you are doing to some of the people who voted you into your position. 1 hope to be able to say in the future that the Palm Desert City Council members really do care about their citizens. Sincerely, Suzanne Tracy 77-020 Utah Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 Thank you, City of Palm Desert This Is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System'. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 RESIDENTS OF PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB EXECUTIVE COURSE, OBJECTTO ANY BUILDING ON THE COURSE. ANY BUILDING WILL DESTROY OUR WILD LIFE REFUSE AREA FOR THE GEESE AND MANY OTHER BIRDS AND ANIMALS. MONEY PAI❑ FOR MITIGATING CIRCUMTANCES CAN NEVER REPLACE AN AREA FOR OUR WILD LIFE. EVEN WHEN IT WAS A GOLF COURSE , THE WILD LIFE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR OVER SOYEARS, PLEASE DO NOT DESTROY THIS BEAUATIFUL , PEACEFUL AREA FOR GREED AND PROFIT. 11-6-2017 Ryan Stendell, Director Community Development City Of Palm Desert Re: Palm Desert Country Club,. 69 Condo Request fora Zone Change & Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. We are submitting the enclosed Power Point Presentation to show that there 'issignificant wild life.on the executive golf course. No amount of moneydonated.to any group could replace our Wild life. The building proposal would greatly affect the wild life habitat. This power point takes a few minutes to load. Also attached is page 7 dated September 2, 2016;lnitial Study Mitigated Negative. Declaration. The box checked states it all.; Also attached is the most rec Int picture taken 11-2-2017, GEESE HAVE RETURNED. The tree swallows<were spotted.on 11-1-2017. WE ASK THAT THIS BE A MAJOR ISSUE IN DENYING A ZONE CHANGE. PLEASE PASS ALONG TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Sincerely, Barbara: Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 760-777-006 gourdpower@msn.com Palm Desert Country auk Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 20 l6fPage DfM1NKC ON: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: 1 find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION wilt be prepared. 1 find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. [� I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. 7 I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant ealess mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed protect could have a significant effect on the environment, because ail poientiaily significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier OR or REGATI VE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date City of Palm Desert Printed Name City of Palm Desert For Environmental Checklist and Discussion: The following checklist evaluates the proposed project's potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist. a discus ion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the project's potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. t m o- 11-6-207 Planning Commission Members: RE: PALM DESERT;COU,NTRW.CLUB APPL1CATIONS FOR A ZONE CHANGE AND BUILDING 69 CONOOS. I know it is early for you to be studing the applications for a zone change, etc. but this is a very sensitive protect and'will affect the lives of, all of usliving hi Pain Desert Country Club, especially. the 188 home owners that rive an the closed executive course. Please find a copy of a letter written to Ryan Stendell, including the power point presentation, regarding all of our wild life on the late golf course. We are looking forward to providing.your:more.information:from,our homeowners. Sincerely, Barbara Powers 76918 Kentucky[ Ave Palm Desert, CA 922I1- 760 777-0065 gourdpower@msn.com 11f 1212011 ti Remy 1 v ® Delete Junk I v ••• RE: PDCC Ex.course r ten eli af'pa d o ' R � Mon 2/1/2016, 8:42 AM You v ryanstye rsdel Icitypd RE Ppc Eccourse n°14(19 . 5 7`di b ^�y t I'rn'not sure;.) know they did several locations but our traffic folks will review the dots when they are presented. If they are insufficient we will make that comment. Ryan Mendell' Director of Community Development Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6386 .rs to n rdeli @ cilvof a o f m ri ese rho rq omissiminamftummear.m....impmemrtir.ft- IrroT�m Barbilra powers[r~iaiital:gourdpawer rr9rr.caft`r3 Sent: Monday, February 01, 2016 8:28 AM To: Stendell, Ryan Subject: RE: PDCC Ex.oaurse. Thanks. If they were the ones doing the traffic study the measuringperiod was sure not verylong. Like on( 'i9x�t>��73Axb. Sent from my Verizon Wheless 4G LTEsmariphone ----- Original message From: rstendell@eity_ofpalmdesert.org eityQfpalrndesert.org Date: 02/01/2016 8:20 AM (GMT-OS:00) To: eourdpowcrrmsn.eora Subject RE: PDCC Ex.course Thanks, I would assume•they are putting their, documents together fora submittal. • Ori Dec 15, 2017, at 9:45 PM, Torn Walton-<twaltcname.com> wrote: Barbara, •so problem using my name. What is sight is,r}ght, what is fafr is fair. What 1 have -come to understand about this city is they are way in over their heads with respect to properly managing DW. And lam totally appalled that this City would even•consider.disentranchising.18O residents to. supert a greedy foreign developer. Total .tlo1 sertse. Ceja, Eric From: Stendell, Ryan Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:38 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: O'Reilly, Monica Subject: FW: PDCC EXECUTIVE COURSE Ryan Stendell Director of Community Development Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776,6386 rstendeli @cityofpaimdesert.org From: Home jmaiito:rculver@dc.rr.com] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:16 AM To: CityhallMail; Stendell, Ryan; Planning Subject: PDCC EXECUTIVE COURSE Raymond & Kathryn Culver 43505 Oregon Cir Palm Desert, CA. 92211 City of Palm Desert Architectural Committee Zoning Committee Planning Committee City Council December 16, 2017 RE: PDCC Executive Course To Whom It May Concern We object to the proposed rezoning of PDCC Executive Course from OS to R-2 for the following reasons: I) No one in PDCC bought next to speculative land. In 1974 when John & Virginia Culver purchased this house they did so because it was on a cul de sac, so road expansions would not effect them, and on a golf course. since they knew there would be no construction immediately behind them. Most, if not all, of the 300 effected homeowners paid extra in the purchase price of their homes and understood their property taxes would reflect that they did not buy next to land that would be developed as anything but open space. Treating the property and loss of views to the homeowners as if we should have expected the possibility of the land being developed after 40+ years of it being open space is unreasonable. 2) Zoning changes are either a natural progression or require extraordinary reasons behind them. These reasons include: City's need for Revenue Increase Property Value Shortage of Housing Shortage of Land for Development Repurposing an Abandoned Property This is not a natural progression zoning change. City has no need for this revenue According to public records Palm Desert is running a considerable surplus. But the city is beginning to have a shortage of open space. The property value of property next to zoned open space is considerably more than next to zoned R-2 which could allow for any kind of future development. There are no shortage of condominiums in Palm Desert or the valley, a current search of Trulia shows the number of 538 for sale. There is no shortage of speculative land. A simple drive around shows numerous lots for sale and even more that have been developed over the last 4 years that the golf course owners missed out on. The property is NOT abandoned. We know who the owner is because they are making this petition. The owner has the property patrolled They do repairs to water sprinklers, and do minimum maintenance. So it is not actually abandoned in the tote sense of the term. The course owners purchased a 27 hole golf course with a newly renovated club house While they maintain in good condition the clubhouse and 18 of the 27 holes. they choose to maintain in a blighted condition the 9 hole course. The analogy of someone killing their parents and then pleading mercy because they are an orphan comes to mind. So NO obvious extraordinary circumstances exists to justify the zone change. As stated by a member in the Architectural Committee "A project like this has NEVER been done here." Many homeowners translate that as "this is an experiment." An experiment is not an extraordinary reason and should not be sufficient reason for reducing the value of approx 300 homes in favor of 69 condos. 3) This has created an unnecessary division in the PDCC community and will create an even bigger division. The golf course has been the only thing that makes PDCC a group. Previous owners of the golf course always understood this and respected it. These owners have not. They have divided people.with a golf course view from people without. Divided the 18 hole home owners from the 9 hole home owners. HOA members against non-HOA members, in fact this project is even pitting HOA members interests against each other. Making promises regarding the 18 hole if the HOA abandons the HOA members on the 9 hole. 2 The course owners have used the City of Palm Desert as a club to beat the home owners over the head. Instead of resolving the issues within the community as soon as they heard "no" they went to the city. There has been no legitimate attempt to address our concerns. They have repeatedly made promises they have reneged. If the project proceeds it will only create bigger divides. It will not bring us together as a community. If you remove the golf course we are on, we will not be part of PDCC. What will we be? Will it also change our property tax designation of PDCC zone 13? 4) Palm Desert Country CIub and in particular the Executive Course have been the victim of shortsightedness for decades. Most of the people.on the Executive Course are not part of the Home Owners Assoc. This is because when the expansion was proposed the HOA did not want the "new people" using the pool. Short Sighted. When the last owner made all the renovations he did not anticipate the housing bubble. Short Sighted. When Palm Desert could have taken over PDCC and made it the city's golf course they only saw "free" money for building on undeveloped land. Short Sighted. Changing the zoning on a golf course simply because the owner sees a way to make "easy money" is incredible short sighted. One Final point. There is a dog leg on Hovely and Kansas. After numerous cars crashing into the home on that corner the city finally had the house removed. This project creates a similar situation with the proposed placement of the roads. There is a house on California and Kentucky with a young family. The proposed project puts a road directly behind them. I'm sure the home owners had not expected to be surrounded by roads on three sides but in addition this new roadway will be an access road to and from party condominiums while their children are playing in their backyard. PLEASE DO NOT BE SHORT SIGHTED ON THE POTENTIAL TRAGEDY. Refuse the project or at least insist the road be removed or buy out this house. This is a water shed decision with potential affects for the entire valley. It should not be taken lightly. The valley is a vacation destination for golfing but if you set the precedent that a developer can buy up a smaller golf course, let it go to seed, cry poverty and then turn it into speculative land, the valley will not be a golf Mecca in the future. Sincerely, Raymond Culver Kathryn Culver 3 Ceja, Eric From: Jack Fleming aflemingjamf@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday. December 16, 2017 11:14 AM To: Barbara Powers; Ceja, Eric; CityhallMail Subject: [SPAM] - Re: OpenSpaceAction Committee: Planning Commission Public Hearing/Agenda Item Barbara, I would love to be there. But it is extremely apparent that the City has no intentions of hearing our concerns. They need the $$$ in their pockets and are not concerned about the citizens in the PDCC area. Even though property values for us will go down. Sadly we dont have the $$ to file a lawsuit. So this way they win. Good luck but it is useless to waste more time on an uncaring City. But we will remember this at election time for sure. On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Barbara Powers <openspaceaction@en}ail.com> wrote: Just a reminder about the Plannin_ Commission Public Hearing for the Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course. Si nulI :ill II .1 (101% rl Please attend this hearing and help us fight to save our Open Space and our quality of life. CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2017 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED 14ARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CA 92261E Listed Agenda Item for Hearing: C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to rezone three parcels from Open Space (OS) to Mixed Residential (R-2) and approve Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242 for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres located on the former executive golf course at Palm Desert Country Club; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the Califomia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, & 37242 (McFadden Architects, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715, recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, & 37242 Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715, recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, & 37242. Action: X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART . 2 Ceja. Eric From: Barbara powers <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 7:31 PM To: Stendeil, Ryan; Ceja, Eric; Sabby Jonathan Subject: STAFF REPORT AND DECEMBER 19, 2017 PLANNING MEETING. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU POSTPONE THIS MEETING/ OR SCHEDULE IT AT A LATER DATE. For one solid week we were trying to get a report and only last night at 5pm was the report available. 165 pages is a lot to consume. There are many errors and I am only on the first few pages. It is also a very bad time to schedule this meeting as probably half of our residents are gone for the holiday. I have been getting many emails that state they can't come because they are out of town. Hopefully they are sending you their objections. EVEN IF YOU READ IT ASK FOR A 15T READING AND GIVE US TIME TO CHECK THE REPORT OUT AND SCHEDULE AN OTHER MEETING. Barb Powers, Secretary for Open Space. Barbara Powers 1 Ceja, Eric From: Ruth DeGeorge <randde767@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:39 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: PDCC former executive golf course Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert: My name is Ruth DeGeorge and I am a homeowner on California Drive in Palm Desert Country. I am concerned that the proposed project for the above project will mean increased traffic on California Drive resulting in delays at Fred Waring intersection. California Dr. bisects our whole community resulting in non residents using it as a shortcut to get from Fred Waring to Washington 5t. In addition, we have homeowner traffic from Kentucky Ave., Oklahoma Avenue, Tennessee Ave., Virginia Street and Florida who need to travel onto California to get access to Fred Waring. Also the residents of the gated Oasis Country Club have a gate from their club onto Virginia in PDCC to travel to Fred Waring. The addition of 69 Condominium units each with a two -car garage in this western area of our community will mean increased noise for our community and delays at the traffic light at Fred Waring. I understand a traffic study was made but for how long? With all due respect, I would like to know how many days , what days of the week and what month was the study conducted and what criteria was used to the conclusion that would be no significant impact on the increased traffic in our community. Your answer to these questions would be appreciated. Ruth DeGeorge Ceja, Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:32 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Good morning, Eric. We received the message below yesterday afternoon from a resident regarding development of the former Palm Desert Country Club executive course. Thanks very much for any information that Planning can provide to Mr. Harrod. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760.776.6411 Direct: 760.776.6380 dhermann@cityofpaiandesert.org From: yvebmaster@cityof pa l mdese rt. o rq [rn a i lto : webmasteracitvof pal mdesert.orq] Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:08 PM To: Information Mali Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 12/14/2017 3:07 PM Response #: 775 5ubmitter ID: 7876 IP address: 47.158.94.119 Time to complete; 23 min. , 48 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Larry Last Name Harrod Email Address harrodlarry@gmail.com Phone Number 7606363065 Address 76848 Kentucky Ave Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 1 1 am a: (0) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: 76848 Kentucky Ave I am contacting you concerning the proposed condo project on the old Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course. When 1 bought this home over 20 years ago one of the primary reasons was the golf course off the back yard and the views it provided. If condos are to be built on this property I would expect the developer to construct at least a 6 foot block sound barrier wall between their street and condos and my back yard/ 1 certainly do not want to view a street and condos from my back patio. I also understand that the condos will be time shares, making traffic and noise on weekends unpleasant. Thank you for your consideration Larry Harrod Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management SystemTM. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 December 17, 2017 lri-k\ e City) of Palm Desert DEC 18. 2017 Community Development To: CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION RE: Palm Desert Country Club Proposed Development -Former Executive Golf Course From: Sharon Laskin, 76974 California Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 1, like many others, are against this new condo project. I read someone reference this condo project as a "change"....and went on to say that "people have a hard time with change." I resent the fact that this was so trivialized. One cannot call this a mere change...and to get used to it! We are not talking about new stop signs, new speed bumps, etc. We are talking about our Lives! Gone will be the days we can open our windows that currently face the course and hearing silence at night and birds in the morning. Instead we will listen to the cars driving by, leaving dust and dirt in their trail, the car's beeping for entry (or exiting), ear alarms, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Yikes! How can one call this a mere change??!! I can guarantee that not one of us would purchase a home preferring to be surrounded by these noises. As a realtor, I predict our homes will suffer discounted prices being purchased only by those who cannot afford homes with the nicer, quieter environments. We are collateral damage. Why should all of us suffer at the hands of a developer only looking out for his own personal interests? Why were other options for this open land that were suggested to the developer by the homeowners not even considered? This is an insensitive move by a developer who is just plain greedy. Why has this been allowed to go on for so long? Why doesn't the city understand our viewpoint? I guess money is the issue here, not our happiness. City of Palm Desert DEC 15 2017 Community Development aEC E BE A 2 17 TO: THE CITY.GF PALM DESERT, PLANNING COMMISSION 017 MY -NAME IS CLUCK -POWERS . i. RESIDE ON KENTUCKY AVE IN_ PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB. I PURCHASED OUR HOME IN 1983 AND MOVED HERE PERMAN ENTELV 1 N:1992. HAD 30 YEARS 1N 'LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN 4 RETIRED. IN 1992 THERE .WERE 14 RETIRED -LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT LIVEU'WITHIN OUR STREETS.. THAT IS NO --LONGER TH CASE. T #ERE ARE A FEW OF LEFT. SINCE 1992 OUR THREE- STREETS, TEN.N.ESSEE,. OKLAHOMA -AND 'KEN TUCY-HAVE'HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. .WE KNOW WHO BELONGS ON THE GOLF COURSE OR. NOW OPEN SPACE. WE HAVE CLEARVI EWS OF EVERYONE'S BACKYARDS. THIS IS -VERY IMPORTANT DU -RING THE SUMMER AS MANY HOMEOWNERS, ARE SNQWBIRDSL IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED THIS ABILITY WILL DISAPPEA.R. ACCORDIINGG TO NATIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH , THEY RECOMMEND HARDING OF ONE'S HOME THROUGH. ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN. PALM DESERT POKE RECOMMEND THE SAME_ TRACY AUSTI N. IS THE COM MU N ITY SERVICE OFFICER THAT -IS .IN --CHARGE .0E-NEIG-HBORHOOD WATCH, THIS MEANS NOTREES. OR BUSH ES.'B.LOCKING.rTHE VIEW OF THE HOMEOWNER, NO SOLID FENCES THAT BLOCK OBSERVATION OF THE AREA BY THE HOMEOWNER. THERE.ARE MANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH BLOCK CAPTAINS AND HOMEOWNERS NEED TO HAVE ACLEARVIEWTO PROTECT THEIR HOMES FROM PREDITORS. I AM ASKING YOU, NOT TO APPROVE TH-1S PROJECT AS PRESENTED. CHUCK POWERS 14%. Palm Desert July 21, 2004 Re: PDCC Golf Course Improvement, Clubhouse Renovation, and Residential Project - UPDATE Dear PDCC Resident: The past few months have been a busy and exciting time for our proposed golf course improvement, clubho renovation, and residential project, and we want to keep you updated on the project's status and activities. it also come to our attention that there may be some confusion and misinformation circulating about certain asps of the project and we hope to set the facts straight with this communication. The following information provides answers to the most frequently asked questions surrounding the project explains what PDCC residents can expect in the coming months. if you have a question or concern that is addressed here, please feel free to visit our website at or call us toll free 877.780. PDC C. Yes. At the June 2411' Council meeting, the Palm Desert City Council unanimously approved the projec proposed This includes development of 95 new single-family, one-story homes, update and rehabilitation c 27 holes of the golf course, renovation of the existing clubhouse to enhance and modernize facili neighborhood improt : : Li such as signage and landscaping, an automated irrigation system, and perrnai preservation of the PDCC Golf Course as a golf course yc- The project has also received unanimous support from the Palm Desert Parks and Recreation Departrr Architecture Review Board, Citizens Advisory Committee for Project Area Number 4, and the Palm Dc Planning Commission. Additionally, an election conducted by the PDCC Horne Owners Association sho nearly 70% of members in favor of the project Lis+trwatlrr 11160 by rhL" C Preservatton Socielly" debt. th0 prole, Yes. A lawsuit filed by the purported "POCC Preservation Society" challenges the legality of the project base the restrictions indicated in number three below. We believe that this challenge is completely unsuppo because the original deed documents clearly state that such restrictions can be modified if a majoril homeowners in each respective Tract determine in wilting to do so- By gathering signatures on the Amends to Restrictions document, PDCC Development LLC is strictly following legal requirements to Trove this pr' forward- The lawsuit filed by the "PDCC Preservation Society" identifies only two people as the plaintiffs: Jar Pineau and Lisa Theodoratus. ,-:rrieodmerir r,, ").,C rw4iinns "' rlfxrimenr that tromeo •n=:Y 5 :Iry P lire :` " sl ,r The Amendment to Declarations document amends the 40-year-old restrictions that are in place on the u: property within the PDCC development Tracts When signed by the majority of homeowners in the respe Tracts, this document authorizes development of 73 new homes to be built in Tract 2283 and 17 new homes built in Tract 2137 Sala of these new homes will provide the funds needed for renovation of the dubhr rehabilitation of the golf course and other community improvements If you are not in these Tracts, this doe apply to you No. 'he new homes proposed in this project are the only use authorized by the Amendment to Declaratic dojment. The remainder of the original restrictions will main in place and further development on Pt) property will be prohibited into the future. In fact, PDCC Development LLC wilt be dedicating a golf course easement in perpetuity, which means t after this project is completed, no other homes can ever be bunt on golf course property in the P: Desert Country Club. _ �-- iri.01 Os new homes cause 1wPP► -ashes ft+ cro pawl No. Property values in PDCC will likely go up, as is evidenced by developments everywhere in the Palm De area that have added new homes and upgraded amenities. The new homes will bring new owners to the as and the older homes will benefit from the enhanced facilities. As required by the City, PDCC Development I will be investing nearly $7 million in the golf course and clubhouse. We already have an unsolicited lis potential buyers interested in purchasing a home at PDCC as a result of this impending project - this is proc real estate value and interest. All plans, maps, renderings and project timeline, which have been approved by the City, are available on website at You will see from these plans that houses are not being installed din behind existing homes. if you would like to receive this information oy [nail, please call us at (877) 754-PDC{ Abiding by legal requirements, we have to wait until a majority of the homeowners sign the Amendme Declarations before beginning improvements. Also, legally, a transfer of title or sale of property cannot take f while there is pending litigation affecting that property. This means that sale of the PDCC golf course and sti proposed improvements must be delayed until judgment is awarded in the lawsuit filed by the "P Preservation Society". While our belief is that this lawsuit is unfounded, as described above, it will delay initi of work and our project timeline will be affected accordingly. We are confident that this project is a positive investment in this community, and what we have heard the hundreds of conversations with PDCC residents confirms that most of you agree. We do, however, under: that not everyone will be on board with the project. Unfortunately, these few opposing parties may cause undue delay in our plans for enhancing the PDCC golf course, clubhouse, and neighborhood. Further. according to the "PDCC Preservation Society' weleSrie, the leaders of this group have threatened tE the Homeowners Association because the Board voted to support the Project. In essence, the "F Preservation Society" is threatening to use the courts to overturn the vote of the PDCC Homeowners. Despite the "PDCC Preservation Society's" aggressive and litigious style. please know that we are fully corer to going the distance with this Project and accomplishing the best for the Palm Desert Country Club a, residents. We hone that you and your neighbors understand that we are here for the long term, and committed to putting millions of dollars into your golf course and community. We thank you for your support. If you have any questions or concerns. please visit our updated project web or contact us at (877) 780-PDCC or v a the ernail addresses below. Sincerely, Larry J. Kosmont, CRE Randy Case S,erry Ryan Managing Partner Partner $r Project Ma - ;; ' 1"-srtrer RE: PDCC Ex.course rstendellC cityofpaIandesert.org Mon 2/1/2016 8A2 AM To: yourdpoWei@msriz9m <gourdpowetiDrr sA.CGm>; -TrA.440- "rvtl I'm not sure, I know they did sever& locations but our traffic folks will review the dots when they are presented. If they are in;tifficient we will make that comment, Ryan Mendell' t5irector of Gorriittunity Development 1sh: 7 60.546 .Ci6 11 17i rec t: 760.776. 63304 , ittendellO ihtf nicieser+,, ra iirrom: Barbra powers [maifto;gQur+ipgMrt'msn.torri] Sent Monday, €etituary 01, ?PI:6 $:2$ AM to: Standen, Ryan Subject: RE: PttC Ex.ccurse Thanks. If they were the anew doing the traffic study the Treasuring period wps sure ndi very long. Like ono day.? `thanks 13Atb: Scot from my Veriz01 Wireless 40 S,,Th smt ipbone ----- Original trdessage Es tendeilAcityofoaimdesettora Date: 02101/2016 $3:20 AM (GMT 0$ q0) �ypy.fiouliakima oomfowmi-NewmodeKi,esdM nem&lteelt AOMIc bAWATINMTAIAGdwMAEOLWRIZINA0.DACLTANCgeOAAADTAul41!rig*KRF14 29GV1riM 62FAr.AnstWEX4M4kGMM4... 1/2 o: goutttoweffifinijn.coru Subject: I(E: PbCC Ex.course thanks, !would aisUme they are putting their dorUrtt ants ttlgether for a submittal. I also found tiuf that'theywere the ones doing traffic cailflls, iyiyr guess in anticipation of sub:reittinga traffic study a port of their proposal. Ryan Sterld&EIr Director of c 6r tittnity Devulopmnt Ph: 761/J46.6511 direct: 76Q.776.63$6 ; ista ndeNetcitvdf adfmdeseq.ori From: Br3rbara powers Jmall rasn.toinl Sent: Monday, F+Lbhiary 01, ROI§ §;16 Nl To: 5terld@ll, ikyah Subject: ODtt l *:course lust wanted to lot you knovy 1liat gurYpyors Were alit oil the dbtii$e on Saturdty Morning. Barb Sent from my Vrdaort Wireless 4G t:T . snsttphone https:l/outlook:rNe.COmlowanviewmodei=ReadMpssageIlem&ItemID.AQMItADAwATIWMTAwAciNMAE0LWR ZDIIMDACLTAWCgBOAAADTD4V1210ARK,Rl-14.%26GS0gM%2FACAnaWE7tQ1d4kGMfri4... SAFETY OF DETENTION AND RETENTION PONDS By Jonathan E. Jones, James Guo, Ben Urbonas, Rachel Pittenger Jonathan Jones. P,E , is CEO of Wright Water Engineers Inc. in Denver. CO. James Guo, Ph.D., P.E., is a professor in the University of Colorado's Civil Engineering Department. Ben Urbonas, P.E., is manager of the Master Planning Program for the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District in Denver. CO. Rachel Pittinger is a project engineer with Wright Water Engineers in Denver. Introduction Urban stormwater retention and detention ponds are widely used in the United States. Retention ponds, also commonly called wet ponds, refer to facilities that maintain a permanent pool, while detention ponds, often called dry ponds, contain water only in the aftermath of runoff events Although retention and detention ponds can be effective for stormwater management and flood control. they can also pose risks to public health, safety, and welfare. Urban storm drainage system planners, designers, facility owners, maintenance staff, and municipalities, including their elected officials and governing bodies, must be aware of such risks and insist on the use of recommended techniques to minimize them. Licensed professional engineers should be especially concerned about the risks that their designs may pose and be knowledgeable of design approaches that reduce such risks. given that their paramount responsibility as licensed professionals is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The purposes of this article are to • review safety hazards that can be associated with retention/detention ponds; • discuss techniques that can be used to reduce the risk of such hazards, and • review representative pond safety recommendations and guidance from municipalities, state and federal governments, professional societies. and the general stormwater literature. Although the focus of the article is on wet and dry ponds, many of the issues and recommendations presented here apply to other stormwater facilities, such as best management practices (BMPs), long underground pipes, and culverts (see the discussion of this topic later in the article). Conceptual designs of a typical wet pond and dry pond are provided in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Photographs 1 and 2 show examples of typical facilities. Photo 1 Typical retention pond Photo 2: Typical detention pond Overview Unsafe conditions can occur under both dry and wet weather conditions. These range from readily apparent problems such as outlet pipes that are open (unprotected with trash/safety racks) to less obvious concerns such as outflow pipes that are subject to overwhelming hydrostatic forces due to high headwater depths. A complicating factor is that children are often attracted to storrnwater facilities, and this poses special design challenges and risks. For instance, the authors are aware of a case where a dry pond in an office park had a rapid rise, and a child playing in the pond was apparently knocked down by jet flows from an inlet pipe, tumbled by vortex flows, and ultimately dragged into an unprotected outlet pipe by suction forces. These forces were not visible (apparent) when the water depth in the pond covered the pipe entrances and outlet. Although it is not feasible to anticipate every public safety risk, many scenarios are foreseeable and can be accounted for during design. Pond safety issues that do not involve drowning must also be considered. For example, embankment slopes that are too steep can be hazardous to the public and maintenance staff (such as those operating lawnmowers). Another example its high wingwalls or other vertical structures. In the past few years, a serious public health concern that has emerged is related to ponds that create mosquito -breeding habitat due to shallow and stagnant standing water, thus increasing the risk of West Nile virus to the adjacent community. Specific Safety Deficiencies The authors have observed the following safety deficiencies in storage facilities' • Outlets are open and unprotected, they lack trash/safety racks, the racks have openings large enough to pose a danger to the public, and/or the racks are too close to the outlet to provide sufficiently slow flow velocities that will not impinge a person against them. • Adjacent land uses are incompatible with storage facilities and few, if any, steps have been taken to minimize obvious risks. For example, a nursery school playground without a fence was observed immediately next to a retention pond that had a high concrete wall along one side without a suitable railing. The public is effectively invited to spend time near storage facilities because they are located in parks, along bike trails, next to playgrounds, etc., yet the designers fail to recognize that frequent use will occur, and public safety has clearly not been a specific design objective. Education of community residents, office and industrial park employees, users of multipurpose recreational facilities, etc., regarding pond hazards is not provided. Signs warning the public of rapidly rising floodwaters and associated danger are not posted. Sideslopes of the facility are excessively steep or vertical without suitable safety rails. As a result, it would be very difficult for someone to get out of the pond when water levels are rising. Sideslopes within the pond's permanent pool are too steep, and/or ponds tack "safety benches" around their perimeter. Pond inflow and outflow pipes are directly across from and in close proximity to one another. In this case, a person can be knocked over by the impulse forces (momentum) of inflows and then sucked into and/or pinned against the outlet structure. • Pond depths increase very rapidly, and inflow/outflow pipes are quickly inundated and not visible. • Hydraulic structures are designed and constructed in a manner that makes them hazardous. For example, steel bars on grates are not beveled, rounded, or covered, but have sharp ends. Bolts have jagged, exposed ends. Gaps between steel bars and concrete walls are too wide. Railings either are not used where they should be or are improperly designed. • Ponds have a "hard edge" appearance, such as a block or cobblestone vertical wall, immediately adjacent to the water surface drop into a pond that has steep sideslopes, so a person who fails in cannot get out without having to swim. • A variety of problems with spillways have been observed. For example, spillways are undersized. {lams and embankments are not designed to withstand overtopping forces during floods larger than they were designed to detain, despite the presence of homes and businesses in the "dam break" floodplain downstream. This is often the result of designers assessing embankment behavior for the design event, such as the 50-year storm or the 100-year storm, but failing to recognize that larger events can and do occur, and that the consequences of such events have to be considered. Inadequate maintenance and monitoring occur, thus leaving the facilities unable to function as designed or intended For example, when pond outlet structures are fully or partially blocked with debris, the risk of embankment overtopping and failure increases. Orifices in riser pipes that are used to gradually "bleed down" a water -quality design storm typically have small diameters. which leaves them vulnerable to plugging by trash. debris, sediment, algae. etc., unless frequently inspected and maintained. This can lead to prolonged pooling of shallow, stagnant water. which sets the stage for mosquitoes and, potentially, West Nile virus. Other drainage facilities adjacent to the pond (designed at the same time as the pond) are unsafe, such as channels, drop structures. energy dissipaters, and culverts. The key to reducing the observations described above is careful consideration of risks in the design phase, coupled with regular inspection and maintenance of the pond to ensure that the facility is functioning as intended and that unforeseen hazards have not been created. Design and Operational Techniaues to Reduce Risks The following risk -reduction techniques are recommended (see Photographs 3-10 for examples): Photo 3- Detention pond outlet with trash/safety racks Photo 5 Wetland vegetation in pond bottom promotes water -quality enhancement and tends to discourage public access Photo 4: Detention pond with safe outlet, placed mtdpond, with mild sideslopes and good visibility from office building Photo 6: Limit the use of vertical walls, have mild sideslopes above and below waits, and use railings where appropriate. Photo 7: Retention pond with various safety provisions, Photo 8 Fences have pros and cons as a safety including mild sideslopes and shallow water around full measure: in general. do not rely exclusively on fencing for pond perimeter safety Photo 9. There is widespread recognition of public Photo 10: Trash/safety rack on drop inlet pipe at wet pond hazards associated with urban -area impoundments and attempts to limit liability. 1 inform members of the pond design team that promoting public safety is an essential design objective Raise the subject regularly while the design is progressing Educate designers to understand that safety can be addressed without significantly increasing costs or disrupting hydraulic function. 2. After a conceptual or preliminary design for the facility has been prepared. review it with the facility owner. municipality, state staff concerned with dam safety (if relevant) and parties charged with its long-term operation/maintenance for potential safety issues. Modify, as necessary, to reduce risks to the public. Pay particular attention to risks to unattended children. Engineers are advised to design storage facilities in concert with a landscape architect, who will often have excellent suggestions for promoting safety (along with techniques to enhance appearance and maintenance). 3 Outlets pose particular risks and merit special attention. Do not use open, unprotected pipes as outlets. Instead. integrate the outlet pipe into an outlet structure that has smaller openings, and/or utilize a sloping trash/safety rack at the pipe entrance The rack should have a surface area that is many times larger than the surface area of the outlet pipe to reduce entrance velocities (which is necessary to minimize the risk of a person being pinned against the rack) and to ensure that if debris is a factor, at least some of the surface area of the rack will be open during flooding to enable the pond to drain The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in Denver, CO. has prepared detailed minimum design guidance for pond outlet racks The rack should be sloped at 3H•IV or milder A clear opening at the bottom of 9 to 12 inches will permit small debris at lower flows to go through The bars on the face of the rack should be spaced to provide 4- to 5-inch clear openings between them Transverse support bars should be minimized but they are essential for structural support under heavy hydraulic loads and will enable a person to climb up the rack 4. When feasible, place the outlet away from areas of heavy public use such as playgrounds, parks, and schoolyards. Screen the outlet so that the public will not be "drawn" to it. Thick shrubs, grading techniques, and aesthetic fencing or railing can be useful in this regard. Ensure that embankment sideslopes adjacent to the outlet structure are not too steep to enable people to scramble away from the structure as pond waters are rising. 5. Grade the overall site with safety in mind. For example, provide mild sideslopes leading to and within the pond and minimize the use of vertical walls. Use safety railings when vertical walls or overly steep slopes are used. 6. Integrate a safety ledge (also referred to as a safety bench) around the perimeter of the permanent pool of a pond. Fortunately, this recommendation is consistent with another technique related to stormwater-quality enhancement: integrating a littoral zone of emergent vegetation around the pond perimeter. Integrating a safety bench with emergent vegetation will discourage people from wading into the pond. This approach can also create wildlife habitat and provide an attractive natural shoreline. 7. Owners are advised to periodically observe the facility to ascertain how the public interacts with it. Owners should also consider the comments received from adjoining property owners_ For example, if children are skateboarding on concrete pans in the bottom of a dry basin, they should be told not to do this and warned of the hazard. Signs that say "No Skateboarding" may be helpful, although it may also be necessary to create a rough surface to make skating difficult. For facilities that are on private property, it is often feasible to have them included on security watches. Security staff should be instructed to pay particular attention to them during runoff events. 8. Community education can be a valuable tool. Use signs that warn of rapidly rising floodwater and educational, interpretative signs that explain how the stormwater storage facilities work. Urge local radio and television stations to include short public service announcements that emphasize the hazards posed by storm drainage facilities. Educate schoolchildren to these risks. Distribute flyers. Inform homeowner associations and property owner associations (for commercial areas) of these risks. Ponds are often located near public facilities such as recreation centers, libraries, and fire stations. Staff can be asked to observe the storage facility during dry and wet weather conditions and to identify potential hazards. Similarly, facilities in office parks and industrial complexes are often visible to workers, and they can be asked to identify potential hazards. 9. Attempt to separate certain land uses, such as preschools, from ponds or incorporate obstacles that will assuredly prevent access. 10. Separate inflow and outflow pipes by long distances and ensure that the pipes are not directly across from each other. This will avoid the creation of a continuous flow stream (current), which poses special dangers for the public. if this is not feasible, use an energy dissipater at the outlet where it discharges into the detention facility. 11. Regularly inspect and maintain the detention facility. Anticipate potential problems. Look at the impoundment from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the risks that such facilities pose. Look for potential hazards and address them. 12. Recognize that detention facility dams can be hazardous and use care in their design. Ensure that a!I aspects of darn safety, ranging from upstream and downstream sideslopes to spillway adequacy to behavior of the pond during overtopping, are addressed. In particular, acknowledge that floods larger than the 100-year event can and will occur, and determine how the dam will behave under such conditions. If the darn is anticipated to fail during extreme floods, analyze the downstream impact of such failure. 13. Take steps to eliminate shallow, shallow -stagnant water in the bottom of "dry" basins that can be conducive to mosquito breeding. For example, determine maximum groundwater table elevations prior to design. Do not use outlet structure designs that are subject to plugging. Consider the use of gravity underdrains. Because mosquitoes generally require a stable, shallow, and stagnant water surface for at least three days to reproduce, design ponds to drain the water -quality design storm in less than 72 hours and use fountains or aerators in wet ponds to induce waves. Over the past few years, there have been many articles in stormwater literature about mosquito control, and readers are urged to become familiar with this subject and to address it during design and operations/maintenance. 14. The question of whether to construct fences around detention facilities is complicated, with arguments both for and against the practice. Ultimately, the decision should be site -specific and there should be a good rationale for whatever decision is made. Fences certainly discourage some people from accessing ponds. Fences lend themselves to the installation of warning signs. Provided that fencing materials are carefully selected and well maintained, fences can be aesthetic. On the other hand, many children or youths wilt view crossing a fence as a worthy and exciting challenge. The authors have observed many unattractive, poorly maintained fences that are eyesores. It often seems to be the case that ponds surrounded by fences are not as well maintained as those that are in the open and more visible. Ironically, if a situation does occur involving public safety, reaching the person who requires assistance will be impeded by a fence. if the safety issues are addressed using many of the other techniques described in this article, it should not be necessary to fence the facility. Isolated lengths of fence can be desirable, provided that they are attractive and properly integrated into the overall site plan (again, this emphasizes the value in engineers working closely with landscape architects during design). For example, it can be valuable to include a fence at the top of a steep slope to discourage access. 15. Concrete pans in pond bottoms should be designed to make them less attractive for skateboarding, such as finishing the concrete with a rough texture and/or narrow V-shaped surface. 16. Reduce the number of small, onsite ponds that are used in new residential and commercial developments by appropriate drainage master planning, minimizing directly connected impervious area, using low -impact development measures, and emphasizing larger, regional storage facilities. It should not be necessary for every new convenience store, gas station, and fast food outlet to have its own dry detention pond, as this needlessly compounds public risks and creates other problems. Safety Racks at Stormwater-Ouaiity BMPs, Lona Underground Pipes. and Culverts Safety (trash) racks should often be integrated into the outlet structures for BMPs such as wetlands and swales. Although the primary focus of such facilities is water -quality enhancement, designers must concurrently protect public safety. The use of trashfsafety racks at inlets to culverts and Jong underground pipes should be considered on a case -by -case basis. While there is a sound argument for the use of racks for safety reasons, field experience has shown that when the culvert is needed the most —that is, during heavy runoff —trash racks often become clogged and the culvert is rendered ineffective. A general rule of thumb is that a trash/safety rack will not be needed if one can clearly "see daylight" from one side of the culvert to the other, if the culvert is of sufficient size to pass a 48-inch-diameter object, and if the outlet is not likely to trap or injure a person. By contrast, at entrances to longer culverts and long underground pipes and for culverts not meeting the above -stated tests, a trash/safety rack is necessary (Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2001). Conclusion Public safety must be carefully accounted for when planning, designing, and maintaining urban stormwater detention and retention facilities, BMPs, culverts, and other facilities. Failure to properly address these risks could leave all parties involved with their ownership, design, and maintenance subject to legal liability in the event of injury or death. The potential risks are numerous and significant, but they can be managed. Indeed, the great paradox of designing safe stormwater detention and retention facilities is that if they are attractive, interesting, well maintained, and "inviting," they will be regularly used by people of all ages, and this will promote public safety. cf—ii-telti Q- •f. - 20 r7" clwofPahmeset DEC 1 5 1017 TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT C.ornmunitY DeVetOPMent PLANNING COMMISSION. -DECEMBER 19, 2017 RE -:-PALM DESERT CC,IONE-CHANGE 69 CONDOS WE NEED TO -STUDY HISTORY IN ORDER NOT TO MAKE-. THE SAME MISTAKES. • OUTLINE.: HISTORY: 8 OWNERS, 1.MARN EL (Original) 1961 PLACE RESTRICTIONS- ON DEEDS RE: OPEN SPACE, 51%VOTE NEEDED TO ALLOW ANY THING BUT 6OLF COURSE. Attachment of Articles -of Development of PDCC. 2. MCMFLLIAN: OWNED THE GOLF COURSE IN THE 80'S +E WANTED TO BUILD A,100 ROOM HOTEL IN FRONT OF THE CLUB HOUSE AND CONDC1'S ON 13 AND 14. CITY DENIED. 3 iAWANESE GROIJP, IR. NAKAMURA OWNED TA-IE GOLF COURSE IN THE 90'S. HE TRIED TO DO THE SAME THING MAKING.THIS:A DESTINATION RESORT. THEY CLAIMED THEY COU.LD NOT MAKE -ANY MONEY. DENIED. 4 CHAS BLALOCK (USC GROUP), BOUTH THE GOLF COURSE, REFINANCED AND LOST THE PROPERTY TO GOLF TRUST OF AMERICA. 5.GOLF TRUST OF AMERICA, (FORECLOSED ON CHAS) G. SUNG SANG CHO- PURCHASE FOR = 4.79 MILLION .BUT (FILED BANKRUPTCY, LEFT 18 MILLION OWEING IN BANKRUPTCY) PARTNERED WITH LARRY KOSMONT GROUP AND CHO SOLD 95 LOTS. TO D.R.HORTON. NEIGHBORS GOT A NEW CLUB HOUSE, NEW WATERING SY-STEM, REMODELLED• 27 HOLES ON THE, GOLF COURSES,) 7. CANADIA-N -GROUP REQUESTING ZONE CHANGE) PURCHASED OUT OF BANKRUPTCY FOR 1.79 MILLION THERE ARE 18- HOLES ON THE CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE AND THERE WERE 9 HOLES ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. THE EXECUTIVE COURSE CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 30-ACRES. THERE ARE TWO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB .140A s. THE CHAM PSIO NSH I P COU RSE IS I NCLU DED IN THE PALM DESERT CCHOA.: THE NEW HORTON HOMES ,BELONG TO BOTH flOA'S. THERE ARE 111-HOMEOWNERS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE WHOARE NOT IN THE PDCC HOA. THERE ARE 87 LOTS:THAT ARE IN:THE HOA THAT ALSO. ARE INCLUDED ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. WHEN THE.O.R1G:1NA17. DEEDS:WERE; DRAWN- UP' THE aC'HAIVIPSIONSH1P CGURSEAD-A PROTECTIVE CLAUSE THAT STATED THE OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE, 51% PLUS TO RELEASE ANY OPEN SPACE FOR BUILDING. TRACT 2137.......2233. WHEN D.R. HORTON WANTED TO-BUA~LD THE-95 HOMES, THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT A VOTE BE TAKEN OF THE ORIGINAL TRACT 2137 AND THE OTHER - TRACK. (2283)'THAT WOULD, BE.AFFECTED. BY: BUILDING 95 HOMES. AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION ;1A/A5 PREPARED {ASKING A ONE TIME VOTE TO RELEASE OPEN. SPACE FOR BUILDING 95 HOMES. (POSSIBLY FROM THE LAW SUIT THAT WA5 FILED BY THE PRESERVATION SOCIETY) THE ,BUILDER, (KOSI IONT) PAID FOR THE MAIIJNG AND WHEN NOT, ENOUGH VOTES WERE RETURNED, A COMMITTEE WA5 FORMED. WE WENTTO HOMEOWNERS 1N BOTH TRACTS 2137 - TRACT 2283 THAT I4AD NOT RESPONDED VIA MAIL. WE HAD A NOTARY WITH US. WHEN ALL VOTES WERE IN, THERE WERE MORE THAN 51% GIVING CONSENT TO RELEASE OPEN SPACE TO BUILD THE aS THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT•TO KOSIVIONT'S ATTORNEY FOR RECORDING ON EACH RESIDENTS PROPERTY:THE CITY-THENAPPROVED THE BUILDING .OF THED5 HOMES. NONE OF THE EXECUTIVE COURSE OWNERS COULD VOTE BUT WE ENDURED SEVERAL MONTHS OF GRADING WHERE MORETHAN 4 FEET OF DIRT WAS ADDED TO THE •EXECUTIVE COURSE BEHIN.D OUR HOM ES._ Picture was submitted to the Arch..CoMMittee. -ONE ATTACHED. THE DECLARATION CLAUSE APPEARS NOT TO -HAVE BEEN PLACED ON OTHER TRACTS. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT IT WAS MEARLY ATYPO THAT IT WAS LEFT- ' OFF THE DEED RESTRCTIONS WHEN ITWAS RECORDED. THERE COULD ,BE,A 'PROBLEM, AS 174437 HOUSES INN THE HOA COULD VOTE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST RELEASING OPEN SPACE IF THEY LITIGATE THEIR RIGHTS IN A COURT. (Attachment) IF THIS IS ;NOT CLARIFIED THE -OTHER '9 HOLES ON THE CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE COULD FACE THE SAME REQUEST FORA ZONE CHANGE, LEAVI N G ONLY:A•9 HOLE COURSE,THUS CONTINUING THE ECONOMIC DOWNSIDE OF OUR -AREA. 8. ONE OTHER PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE- WHEN. THEY VOTED TO. AD ❑ TH.E HO RTO N HOMES,. TH.E - BUI L3ER ,HAD 'REPRESENTED THE GOLF COURSES WOULD REMAIN IN A CONSERVATION ENTITY IN PERPUTUITY; THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD -NOT LET THAT CLAUSE TO .BE.:RFCOR.DED IN THE CIIY'S ORDINANCE 1068. HOMEOWNERS- WERE NEVER TOLD ABOUT THIS . THUS IF YOU GET COPLAINTS THIS I5 ONE REASON WHY -PEOPLE ARE UPSET. WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE ow MANAGER.ABOUT THIS.. OUR' HOME OWNERS ARE VERY°PSET THAT THIS 'ROJECT HAS DRAGGED ON FOR ALMOST 4 YEARS. THEY ARE REALLY UPSET THAT THERE WERE -SEVERAL ARCH ITECTURAL COM MISSION ME ET1.N.GS WHERE MAN? OBJECT' 0 NS WERE MADE BUT VERY FEW WERE ADDRESSED. WE HOPE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM. THEY ARE ALSO UPSET THAT THE CITY HOSTED A. FINAL ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ON. 25 2017 WHILE MOST RESID.ENTS.WERE OUT•GF TOWN AND THEIR WAS NO NOTICE TO THEM THAT A MEETING WAS BEING HELD. THE CITY PROMISED NO MORE MEETINGS UNTIL THE FALL :AFTER THE MAY MEETING. NOW FOR MORE OBJECTIONS: 1., POWER POINT -OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE RETAINING. AREAS: WERE.GIVEN.TO THEARCH. COMMITTEE. - LOSS 'OF 10 PER CENT TO :PROPERTY VALUES IF YOU HOME 15 NEXT TO ONE HEALTH HAZARDS ETC. (POWER -POINT INCLUDED.) -THIS SYSTEIV115 TO = DRAIN ON IT'S ON TO THE STREETS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT. INTERESTING THAT THE BIG ONE BEHIND OKLAHOIMIA/CALIFORNIA.IS-TWO FEET .DEEPER THAN THE ROAD-ITIS TO DRAIN TO ON KENTUCKY. I HAVE PERSONALLY ASKED PLANNING,AND ENGINEERING ABOUTTHIS AT LEAST' 3 TIMES AND .RECEIVED NO ANSWER. NO RESPONSE FROM ARCH. COIV#MITTEE EITHER. THE CITY THOUGHTS ARE THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF LATER. THE RESIDENTS NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS HAPPENING. 2. , ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ASKED THE ARCHITECT THAT DESIGNED THE PROJECT TO MEET WITH EACH AND EVERY HOMEOWNER, ALONGWITH THE LANDSCAPING ARCHITECT. WE .PUT THEIR PHONE .N UM!I BERS ON OUR WEB SITE SOOUR HOMEOWNERS COULD CONTACT THEM. WE WERE THEN ASKED -TO REMOVE TH,EI.R PHONE NUMBERS AS THEY SAID THEY -DID -NOT GET SPA - 4 UNTIL THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WHAT IF YOU LIVED:N€XTTO A -HOME THAT WILL HAVE A SIX-FOOT WALL 8 FEET FROM YOUR- PROPERTY AND THEN A 24 FOOT ROAD WITH A CONDO BEHIND YOUR HOUSE? YOU ALSO HAVE A 15%. UP SLOPE. YOU WILL HAVE NO VIEWS. NOISE WILL BE.A PROBLEM. FEDEX AND UPS DRVVE DOWN. THE REGULAR STREET IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSESAT LEAST 4 OR 5 TIMES EACH. THE HOUSE SHAKES. THE TRASH. TRUCKS COM E ON; FRIDAY':(. 3) OF THEM SOMETI ES 4 OF THEM, 'PLUS THE STREET SWEEPER. SO NOW YOU WILL GET IT ON BOTH SIDES. ALL,O.UR BEDROOM5:FACE THE OLD EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE. NO -SLEEPING IN AS THEY START AT 6 AM. OBJECTION TO THE TRAFFIC REPORT: WE ARE ASKING fOR ANEW TRAFFIC 'STUDY. WHEN THE CURRENT ONE WAS DONE, IT WAS A WEEK DAY AND LEFT UP FOR 'ONbY ONE DAY. THEY'SHOULD. ALSO MEASURE THE TRAFFIC FROM THE 100 SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT HAPPEN FOR THE TENNIS TOURNAMENT AND COACH ELLAAN❑ COUNTRY MUSIC FEST I !VALES. AND WEEKENDS. TRAFFIC BETWEEN AND 9 -AM 45 VERY BUSY. WE HAVE A FEEDER ROAD COMING FROM OASIS CC. AND DUMPS OUT TO .CALIFORN IA. IF YOU ARE WAITING .ON FRED WARING TOTURN ,LEFT FOR RIGHT, YOU USUAL'Y M UST WAIT THROUGH 2 SIGNALS. PEOPLE CUT OVER FROM HOMELY, WASHINGTO►N AND CARS FROM THE EAST TAKE THIS SHORT CUT DOWN: CALI'FORNIA TO nom t3LSSVIER;-STRL'ETS 1 SENT RYAN STEN DELL AN EMAIL THE DAY THEY WERE MEASURING TRAFFIC ON CALI FO RN lAEIf K EITT_ U CKY . ETC. (Atteeti ieiit) I WAS CtMK A1N1NG AllUT T umt TIME THE STUDY WAS SET UP. 3,.. WE .O BJ..ECT TO THE MITIGATION OF WILD LIFE. 1 PERSONALLY SENT YOU - A Pc .W k POINT PRESENTATION, ON OUR WILD LIFE ON THE OLD EXECUTIVE COURSE. THESE BIRDS.AND GEESE HAVE BEEN COMING HERE SINCE 1983 WH.EN WE MOVED HERE. THE DEVELOPER IS -PLANNING ON TEARING .OUT THE:EXISTING.TREESON ON THE COURSE AND THUS DESTROYING THEIR HABITAT. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID TO =CONSERVATION GROUP IS WORTH LOOSINGTHEWILD LIFE. OUR ECO- SYSTEM WILL DISAPPEAR AND WILL DISRUPT THE OWLS, BLACK BIRDS AND HAWKS FOR CONTROLL.N.E THE ''RODENT PROBLEM. .EM❑TIONAL:FACTOR=. 5O MANY OF US ARE IN OUR 60'5-, 70'S SD'S, AND 30'S. WE BOUGHT ouR VIEW HOMES 25 TO 3131EARS:AGO BECAUSE OF THE VIEW, THE PEACE AND QUIET, THE WILD LIFE, ETC. MOST OF US ARE ON- FIXED INCOMESL WE ARE TOO 0.LD.TO SELL AND MOVE WE JUST DO NOT :-CIVANT.OURI.IFESVITET 3O`AWO. WE titiNt/INtEti TRAFFIC BEHIND OUR HOMES, LIGHT THAT WILL TAKE AWAY OUR NIGHTSKY, NOISE WILL BE AVERY BIG FACTOR. IF THE CITY WANTS OUR PROBLEMS TI/G.0 AWAY' FIML SOMEOTHER WAY TO KEEP 01.1:146PEN SPACE. DENY THIS 7.QNE CHANGE1 Ti-ilS'PROJECT IS-Ft111 PURE 6-REE[5. JUST MLLOW ii4E MONEY. THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO PROJECT US. -7't keArru c Avc--- eita44 Dose r-r q ZVI! Ne -717 7-- 6063- 12/19/2017 OBJETION TO TREES FOR PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB 69 CONDO PROJECT ON EXECUTIVE COURSE riwXCT Xi• PtM i PLANS BETWEEN KENTUCKY AND OKLAHOMA, SHOWING TREES IN BACK OF RESIDENTS HOMES AND ON THER OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD 1 12/19/2017 WEATHER HISTORY OF THE AREA Since owning on 1Lentucky since 1984 , comments about the weather for this Area are very relevant. The wind blows from the NW usually during the winter And it blows from the NE during Santa Ana conditions. The golf hole that was 3 used to have pine trees and a number of palm trees Shading the green. Over the years. prior to this owner, the trees were lost to the wind. On July 3,d , 2015 there was a terrible storm and two houses Were destroyed from Eucalyptus Trees falling on the homes. WE DO NOT WANT ANY TREES ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE ! At least not these Trees. These trees would be terrible for anyone with allergies. it would terrible for our pools and spas , as the trees shed flowers and pods and Are their branches are very weak and snap in the wind. y • pi LWnNMIy NFdY DW Vy.,dow 3sr+r 14 IOMd oo-r yYnd Ran Wolof Vow Ron- y yfr Indr ■uww Has+ . saw Enrpr «Pwe RECORD FOR PALM DESERT MAX WIND SPEED 2004-2017 NOTICE - IWM DESERT COUNTRY CLUES GETS WINO FROM THE NORTH WEST AND WIND FROM NORTH EAST DURING SANTAANA WINDS. OVER THE YEARS HAVE UPROOTED MANY TREES pH THE EXECUTIVE COUR;E. 111LY 3^ . 2015 THERE WAS AMIRCRO BURST THAT DESTROYED ICO'S Of TREES AND tAUSED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO MANY HOMES. 2 12/19/2017 1111111Mir PALM DESERT WINDS Palm Desert Cowry Club Fnecup.a GNPS, RnWmrs. gr.t At tfr Ik.rnw. twig.. depn. aril sand HAWS the rnnrl Warr from nsfa+ the North West or Horn Eau. Residents are rwrirranng to r lean their NI... are} Ir oh t.'7rR1 W'r 4I 111-P.( c' WAS CREATED TO PROVIDE UP TO DACE, ACCURATE WEATHER INFORMATION FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. LIVE DATA IS PROVIDED BY HIGH QUALITY SENSORS LOCATED IN THOUSAND PALMS, CALIFORNIA WEATHERUNDERGROU❑ ID: KCATHOUS$ 3 Slide 6 Bpi Barbara powers, 3/5/2017 12/19/2017 TIPUANA (Tipu) Tree Planned 36" BOX ■ Great shade tree. Semi -evergreen with small apricot -yellow flower in summer, followed by pea•like seed pods im abundance. A rapid grower to 25 feet in a few years from a 24" box. Ultimately the tipu tree reaches 40 to 50 feet with a Large arching crown. The fruit is a legume (pod). ■ It sheds all of it leaves and "helicopter' seed packets from January to May each year. It produces masses of seeds most of which succeed i germinating. ■ Invasiveness: It is known for having a very aggressive root system. ■ The tree roots can easily lift up concrete and asphalt. ■ Caution should be taken when planting near buildings, homes , or pools. ■ WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE IN OUR OPEN SPACE! ■ Information from Wikipedia and Arizona Landscaping.... On line. TIPU TREE (ACACIA) 12/19/2017 TIPUANA (Tipu) Tree -In btoom ACACIA WILLOW TREEPLANNING ON 24" BOX IP= 12/19/2017 Willow Acacia: ► Willow Acacia, evergreen tree, grows to reach 20 to 40 feet. ► Spans 15 to 20 feet in width. Contains no thorns. ■ Grows 3 feet a year with water. ✓ Branches break easy in the wind. ■ Prone to falling over if water is shallowly. ► Unexpected cold could kill the tree. ▪ Abundent production of flowers and seed pods produces extensive litter ■ that may be undesirable around swimming pools. ■ Roots spred looking for water. • Beautiful to watch in a breeze , but makes a terrible mess. ■ Sources: Horne & Garden Landscape, Amazon, Wikipedia. ■ WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE PLANTED IN OUR OPEN SPACE! ACACIA ANEURA MULGA 24" BOX PLANNED 12/19/2017 Acacia Aneura Mutga ■ Upright Et Very Stiff,evergreen , 20 to 25 feet. Wood is brittle. o Mutga Rowers are red/yellow stamens. Fruit in Spring small flat pod. a Muiga flowers during warm season, heavily during fall. ► Needle -like ,silvery gray foliage, bright yeltow,rod•shaped flowers that ► give away to pods 4 times a year. Sores: Wikapedia, SF Gate and others. WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE PLANTED IN OUR OPEN SPACE. WOULD YOU LIKE THIS IN YOUR POOL OR ON YOUR PATIO? 12/19/2017 i Acacia Shoestring 2..4" Box Planned ► Size: 30 ft High by 20 Feet Wide, spreading with age to 40 feet. ► Long, very narrow drooping, pale green. ■ Flowers cluster of small vz" cream colored balls. ■ Flowers & Fruits: November to January, pods 8" iong ► Flowers in late fall and winter. ✓ Fruit: Seed Pod ■ Comments: Moderate litter. No Torns.. ■ Maintenance: some, pod cleanup. ■ Needs aggressive training. ■ SOURCE: ARIZONA , EDU. ► WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE IN OUR OPEN SPACE. MESSY! HONEY MESIUITE TREE-36" Box Planned 12/19/2017 1 Flowers Et Pods From Honey Mesquite HONEY MESQUITE TREE • Big and floppy branches with feathery foliage ,paired spines on twigs, reaches • 20-30 feet but can grow as tall as 50 feet. Flowers March to November with • Pale yellow elongated spikes and yellow seedpods. S upports: Native pollinator species of bees and other insects. m. SOURCE: Wikipedia NO TREES IN OUR OPEN SPACE , PLEASE wr 4 9 12/19/2017 SONORAN PALO VERDE 36" BOX PLANNED SONORA PALO VERDE TREE ► ALSO KNOWN AS PARKINSONIA MICROPHYLL4 ► Mostly planted on slopes. ► Slow growing 16 to 23 feet tail. Flowers are found on the end of a branch. w They occur Late spring. Seeds will appear in 4•8 cm long. Soft poss. They I" Ripen in July. Rodents often carry and store seeds underground, some I. Will germinate. SOUCE : Wikipedia. 10 12/19/2017 DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE 36" BOX PLANNED DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE TREE 12/19/2017 DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE 4 Upright shade tree. Lage yellow blossoms in spsring lasting longer than other species. May re -bloom in summer. After flowers fall truck and stems remain green. Produces very few seedpods. Fast grower to 25 feet and width. k SOURCE: MONROVIA LANDSCAPE ON WEB. NO TREES UNLESS PALM TREES ON OUR OPEN SPACE. VIEW NORTHSIDE OF MARRIOT SHADOW RIDGE WE WOULD LOOSE OUR VIEWS. NO TREES. SAME TYPE TREES IN BACKGROUND. 12 12/19/2017 NORTH SIDE OF MARRIOET SHADOW RIDGE. ACACIA TREES. NOT MUCH VIEW. REQUEST OF ARCHIETUAL COMMITTEE IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT WE WILL LOOSE OUR VIEWS WITH NEW CONDO'S ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. WE DO NOT WANT TO BE ❑IVIDED WITH FENCES. WE DO NOT WANT TREES OUT IN THE OPEN SPACE , ESPECIALLY ALL OF THE TREES LISTED IN THIS PRESENTATION. OUR WINDS AT TIMES HAVE TAKEN OUT MANY TREES. THE FLOWERS , SEEDS AND PODS WILL NOT ONLY FILL OUR POOLS BUT FOR THOSE THAT HAVE ALLERGIES IT WILL BE A NIGHTMARE. WE HOPE YOU WILL LISTEN TO OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE. 1� OBJECTION TO ANY RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS AND LANDSCAPING OF SAME ON THE PALM DESERT EXECUTIVE COURSE: CONTROLED BY THE CITY OF PALM ❑ESERT WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT, CITY OF PALM DESERT, PAGE 50 Program 5.A: Establish and enforce regulations and guidelines for the development and maintenance of project -specific on -site retention /detention basins, which implement the NPDES program ,enhance groundwater recharge, complement regional flood control facilities, and address applicable community design policies. RESPONSIBLE AGENCY: Public Works Department, Community Development ❑epartment 1. WE OBJECT TO ANY RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS ON THE E XCUTIVE COURSE OF PALM DESERT COUNTRY AS SHOWN ON THE PLANS FOR OVER 39 ON THE GRADING PLANS AN❑ LANDSCAPING PLANS. WE OBJECT TO ANY OF THESE BEING FENCED. HISTORY: SPECIFIC AREA BETWEEN OKLAHOMA/KENTUCKY, OLD HOLES OF 2 AND 3 WHEN IT WAS A GOLF COURSE. Picture taken prior to golf course renovation: We could see our neighbors across the fairway, We had a very active Neighborhood watch for safety. k.7 Ala', 4-ocr. Drie M t0,, r s e ric, In December , 2005, 4 feet of soil was added to the golf course. See picture dated 12-6-2005. The City of Palm Desert allowed this. On 12/31/2005 The Developer, Larry Kosmont, Engineer, Randy Case and Mr. Brown (building inspector) from the City of Palm Desert came to my property to view this mess. Brown and Case had a topography and engineering map. The height Above sea level was 96 feet before they added 4 feet of•dirt. Brown agreed it could be lowered to 98 feet above sea level. With negotiations, all agreed to remove two feet of dirt from the golf Course. This was done. We endured weeks of large moving equipment and trucks, dust and noise. The grass was planted . We never had any drainage problems while the Executive Course was a golf course. Fast forward. In 2013 the new owners of PDCC closed the Executive Golf Course. Trees and grass died. I ordered a new Topography MAP. Attached shows 200 feet above sea level. Source is the Federal Government. PARCEL OUEST l'T= Topography Report 1 4 } a• • s add: 76918 KENTUCKY AVE PALM DESERT CA 92211-7709 Parcel* EAPN) 537-411.020 • r � Cz • r • • t.- r,J S :1 I : t r.r + . ■ i c ■•+sna■aI 6' .r li�ia+'4 i f a .# A.. .:...,„,.° Tito AO,' -47 rfriatiTh We were also told by Brown that our Property Lines were in- correct in the Riverside County original survey. LANDSCAPE AND GRADING PLANS SHOW RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS: Refer to Grading Revised Plans on City Web Site. To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. I couldn't believe that there at least 39 areas that are proposed on the grading plans for retention areas, SEVEN of which are behind us. I have been researching this subject. There are many, many articles an the web from engineers to Realtors, and people that have purchased homes next to one of these areas. MOST ARE NEGATIVE. FROM INSECTS, MOSQUITOES, AND ESPECIALLY ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN TO PLAYIN. From what you told us before these will be dry and not pumped into the sewer system , nor out to any street, but just left to drain in place. I know we usually don't get that much rain but the last two years we have had it all at once. A visit to Public Works on 2-23-2017 , revealed that the there was no specific retention plans to file. The employee stated that the smaller retention areas would have pipes running to the larger retention areas. If they filled with water they would drain to the street. I stated to him that Eric Ceja said the areas would be 1 to 2 Y: feet deep and he replied that the larger ones would be much deeper. On the landscaping plans, posted on line at the City's web site , it shows that all the retention areas would be grass ( Bermuda,Tiff Green) except 2 areas down near the Pickle Ball court. 1 asked Public works what would be included inside the retention areas. He replied that many would be grass but most likely they would include boulders and sand. I asked to see the specific plan and was told they were sent back to the Architect with comments. S❑ I WAS UNABLE TO SEE THE PLANS. IT WAS UNKOWN WHEN THEY WOULD BE RETURNED. 50 WE ARE A LITTLE CONFUSED. Question when does the builder file the BMP AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY? I have been watching the one the City owns at Hovley/Kansas. Yesterday it still had water in the bottom from the drain ❑n Friday and Saturday. I also observed, dog tracks, human► tracks and during the dry part over the last two months , dogs are being allowed to defecate and walk with" humans around the area. I assume the Builder will be responsible to clean and maintain those areas until a HOA Takes over. How can we rely on this owner to maintain anything. They do a terrible job as it is now. We always have to call code and then it takes days to clean it up. It took 3 years to get the dead tree on Kentucky next to the new house cut down. Looks so much better when you enter our area. If one of these areas happens to flood on to a neighbors property, who pays. The builder doesn't have insurance for that , the HOA will not carry insurance for that, and if the person owning the damaged property does not have flood insurance , they are out of luck. AN OTHER PROBLEM . REFERENCE SLADDEN ENGINEERING REPORT OF MAY 6, 2016. "Infiltration Testing for Proposed New Town Homes" "As requested, we have performed infiltration testing on the subject site to evaluate the infiltration potential of the near surface soil for proosed new town houses. The infiltration rates Determined should be useful in the assessment of on -site storm water retention needs The approximate locations are indicated on Figure 1." SEE ATTACHED. Sudden Engineering 1502 Guth Crafcr rur+ra7, Sots F, hero. CA f22h1 l'fR7rsLYnt3 Fu Min 64,3.1487 A+!] Snows Avra , 3wihe C. (twos talk CA 6152t (7I4) S33-ci4s7 Fa P1a1 S23.1369 +50 Egon AYnlNc. Bnuhemrs, CA 92225 1931} Iis3-77s3 Fe t9S11 /i3-1a63 SOR E Penes As-mm.14am. CA 92f1] (93i )166417? Fos MN 766-1771 May 6, 2016 Project No.544-160i0 15-09.350 Palm Desert Country flub do McFadden Architects 75-145 5t. Charles Plate, Suite 4 Palm Desert, CA 92211 Project- Proposed New Town Flautists Palm Desert Country Club 27-200 California Dr Tract No- 33195 APN's 637-1904724 & if27 Palm Desert, CA Subject Infiltration Testing for Proposed New Town I louses As requested, we have performed infiltration testing on the subject site to evaluate the infiltration potential of the near surface soil for proposed new town houses. The infiltration rates detrrrnined should be useful in the assessment of on -site storm water retention needs. The approximate locations of the tests are indicated on Figure 1. Inpslrrrtinn testing was performed on March t6. 2016 utilizing double nrg infiltrosneters. Testing was performed in general accordance with the Standard Test Method%r infiltration Retr of Soils in Faefd Using Donble-Ring ftrfdtrmuerrr (AST1v1 D-3385). Testing indicated infiltration rates of approximately 8.9, 8.9 and 0.5 inches per hour tin/hour) in test location P-1, P-2 and P-3 respectively The rates determined represent ultimate rates and an appropriate safety factor should be incorporated into the design to account for long term saturation and potential "silting' of the surface soil The safety factor should be determined with consideration to offer facia= considered in the Stomi water reterbor eystrm design (specifically storm water volume est:mates) and the safety factors asaactared with the related design components. Ifyou have any questions regarding this tr•emo or the testing summarized herein, please contact the undersigned. Respectfully submitted. SLADDEN ENG1NEERIN Brett L. Antferien Princlpaf Engtneer Copies: 4 / Addressee NOTE: The area between Kentucky and Oklahoma was not tested where we have drainage problems. This is where tons of dirt was added when the golf course was redone in 2005. None of this soil was ever compacted WE OBJECT TO THE RETENTION AREAS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS AREA.. 1 a v INFILTRATION TEST LOCATIONS [Mow. L11.IN011 10.1 rrr Barbara Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 760-345-7203 Hi Barbara, Thank you for the letter expressing the Open Space Committee's concerns regarding the retention areas. These areas are shown on the precise grading plans and are available for viewing on the City's webpage. In review of the plans there are numerous retention areas which range in depth from YY-foot to 2-feet. The intent of having numerous retention areas is so that they blend more into the landscape and are incorporated in to the landscape design, as opposed to a single larger retention area that would be out of place with the residential character of the neighborhood. Aside from the research you have found, I will say that this City, and cities throughout the Coachella Valley and region, often integrate retention areas in to park space. This is the case with the Hovley Soccer Park, Freedom Park, and Adams Park in La Quinta. I believe that if these areas remain dry for extended periods that insects and mosquitoes are not major issues. That said, the retention areas for the proposed development are nowhere near the scale of those larger retention facilities at local parks. I think you're correct that the builder will maintain these area until the HOA takes over, which will probably happen in phases. I will also look into the flood issue and liability further. We have scheduled an Architectural Review Commission hearing for the proposed development for Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:30 in the Council Chambers I will also post this schedule online. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Community Development Department eceia(citvofualmdesert.org P: (760) 346.0611 F: (760) 776.6417 NEGATIVE : I VISITED FREEDOM PARK AND PALM DESERT SOCCER PARK . ONLY TO FIND THE FOLLOWING, ALTHOLIG}1 ERIC SAID OUR RETENTION AREAS WILL BE SMALL, LOOK WHAT 1 FOUND IN OUR CITY PARKS AND RETENTION AREA OWNED BY CITY AT HOVLEY/KANSAS BEST SAID BY PICTURES: PALM DESERT SOCCER PARK ON I LOVELY: flillarift 1 w... t 1 oM.sziaa'A1 %Nava s a rI-inr •A ■ LIO I*IR.17+ Full of broken glass, plastic bottles, trash, weeds and still muddy. Conditions were discusting. Who is suppose to take care of these retention area in the City of Palm Desert. We have since learned that Parks and Recreation are responsible for the parks maintenance. FREEDOM PARK ON COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, PALM DESERT Pictured near the bottom of this picture was broken glass, trash, weeds, Other area still muddy. 0 ► 19 roe., rye ■ 4 ow• THE FOLLOWING PICTURES ARE FROM THE RETENTION AREA IN THE BACK OF FREEDOM PARK Trash, debris, broke glass , plastic ,weeds This is the retention area in back near the Tamarisk Trees THE NEXT RETENTION AREA, HOVELY AND KANSAS, CITY OWNED? visited this retention area more than 3 or 4 times. The pictures reflect the Condition at different dates. The first date was after 1-21-2017 rain. Water still remained in the basin. There were foot prints of humans and animals all around the area. It appears That this retention is pumped into the street when it reaches a certain height. Anything left under that height slowly drains into the ground. It has appeared muddy until at least 2-9-20171. There was a small amount of trash, grass or weeds are coming up, bicyle tracks and human tracks all around the basin. Fruit was seen At the bottom of the drain... THIS AREA IS NOT FENCED MAINTENANCE UNKNOWN???????? The City owned retention area has grass /weeds coming up. More bike tracks, Human and animal foot prints, fruit in the bottom . WHEN DOES STHE CITY ❑O MAINTENANCE? 2-15-2017 SAME CONDITION. THE CITY SAYS OUR RENTENTION/DETENTION PLANS WILL BE 1-1/2 TO 2 1/2 FEET DEEP , WE ARE STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEGATIVE AFFECTS OF ANY OUT BEHIND OUR HOME , ESPECIALLY HAVING 9 BEHIND US. NEGATIVE RESULTS: 1. Property near a retention/detention pond: Trulia, a well known Real Estate Company on line has a question/answer section Regarding this item. HOME BUYING NEAR A RETENTION POND/PRO-CON? ON Trulia , Many negative comments. Problems if there are maintenance concerns. WE WOULD BE CONCERNED BECAUSE THE OWNER DOES NOT EVEN TAKE CARE OF THEIR AREA'S WHERE THEY ADDE❑ DESERT LANDSCAPING AND THE EXECUTIVE COURSE 15 A MESS. WE ALWAYS HAVE TO CALL CODE BEFORE ANYTHING IS CLEANED UP. 2. Insects can be a concern as well as mosquitoes, rodents, snakes. FOR THE PAST YEAR ❑UR NEIGHBORHOOD ON KENTUCKY HAS BEEN HAVING A VERY BAD RAT PROBLEM. CODE ,SOCIAL SERVICES AN❑ PROFESSIONAL EXTERMINATORS ARE TRYING TO WORK ON THE PROBLEM. We are talking about 100's of rats. AS TO LANDSCAPING PLANS , NO FRUIT TREES. THEY BREED RAT PROBLEMS. 3. HOUZZ, http://thegardenweb.com/discussion/2584683/would you buy - house -next -to -a -water -easement -detention -pond Strange question: " We want to buy a house and it next to a dry storm water run-off detention pond. My question: Would a large detention pond/be bad for resale value/ Would this deter people from buying this home?. Buyers with kids? Comments will be much appreciated.' Comments: " If the water stayed very long in the retention area I would be concerned about mosquitoes. Even a little bit of water would worry me." "I think that retention areas are huge eyesores, breeding grounds for mosquitoes, along with rodents and snakes plus they never seem to be maintained in older subdivisions." "Who will pay if the area overflows and causes you damage?" "Probably no one. Unless you have flood insurance." 4. REAL ESTATE APPRAISAL/House Close to Detention Basin, on line By Jim Root. "I can only say this about the issue as it pertains to value and future marketability of the home you are planning to by or sell, in an Appraisal Process, with everything else similar, comparing your proposed home to one that didn't have the detention Basin across the street would find your home to have a lesser value. How much? Only a local Appraiser, through a process called "Paired Sales" can tell you the "Dollar" difference. STORMWATERCENTER.N ET Paragraph just prior to References "Another economic concern associated with dry ponds is that they may slightly detract from the value of adjacent properties. One study found that dry ponds can actually detract from the perceived value of homes adjacent to a dry pond by between three and ten percent (Emmerling-Dinovo, 1995 )" • Emmerling-Dinovo,C.1995 Stormwater Detention Basins and Residential Location Decisions. Water Resources Bulletin 31 (3) 515-521. 5. Resale should be the biggest concern. OUR EXECUTIVE COURSE HAS ALL READY SUSTAINED A LOSS IN VALUE OF OUR HOMES BECAUSE THE GOLF COURSE HAS BEEN CLOSED. Even the Riverside County Accessor's office said it could be devalued by 10%. 6. Child safety. Children are drawn to these areas to play. WE HAVE SMALL GRAND- CHILDREN AS WELL AS OTHER NEIGHBORS THE FOLLOWING 15 THE MOST IMPORTANT ARTICLE THAT WAS FOUND IN RESEARCH OF RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS. SAFETY OF DETENTION AND RETENTION PONDS By Jonathan E. Jones, James Guo, Ben Urbonas, Rachel Pittinger Jonathan Jones, P.E., is CEO of Wright Water Engineers inc. in Denver, CO. James Guo, Ph.D., P.E., is a professor in the University of Colorado's Civil Engineering Department. Ben Urbonas, P.E., is manager of the Master Planning Program for the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District in Denver, CO. Rachel Pittinger is a project engineer with Wright Water Engineers in Denver. Introduction Urban stormwater retention and detention ponds are widely used in the United States, Retention ponds, also commonly called wet ponds, refer to facilities that maintain a permanent pool, while detention ponds, often called dry ponds, contain water only in the aftermath of runoff events. Although retention and detention ponds can be effective for stormwater management and flood control, they can also pose risks to public health, safety, and welfare. Urban storm drainage system planners, designers, facility owners, maintenance staff, and municipalities, including their elected officials and governing bodies, must be aware of such risks and insist on the use of recommended techniques to minimize them. Licensed professional engineers should be especially concerned about the risks that their designs may pose and be knowledgeable of design approaches that reduce such risks, given that their paramount responsibility as licensed professionals is to protect public health, safety. and welfare. The purposes of this article are to • review safety hazards that can be associated with retention/detention ponds. • discuss techniques that can be used to reduce the risk of such hazards; and • review representative pond safety recommendations and guidance from municipalities, state and federal governments, professional societies, and the general stormwater literature. Although the focus of the article is on wet and dry ponds, many of the issues and recommendations presented here apply to other stormwater facilities, such as best management practices (BMPs), long underground pipes, and culverts (see the discussion of this topic later in the article). Conceptual designs of a typical wet pond and dry pond are provided in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Photographs 1 and 2 show examples of typical facilities. Photo 1: Typical retention pond Photo 2: Typical detention pond Overview Unsafe conditions can occur under both dry and wet weather conditions. These range from readily apparent problems such as outlet pipes that are open (unprotected with trash/safety racks) to less obvious concerns such as outflow pipes that are subject to overwhelming hydrostatic forces due to high headwater depths. A complicating factor is that children are often attracted to stormwater facilities. and this poses special design challenges and risks. For instance, the authors are aware of a case where a dry pond in an office park had a rapid rise, and a child playing in the pond was apparently knocked down by jet flows from an inlet pipe, tumbled by vortex flows, and ultimately dragged into an unprotected outlet pipe by suction forces. These forces were not visible (apparent) when the water depth in the pond covered the pipe entrances and outlet. Although it is not feasible to anticipate every public safety risk, many scenarios are foreseeable and can be accounted for during design. Pond safety issues that do not involve drowning must also be considered. For example, embankment slopes that are too steep can be hazardous to the public and maintenance staff (such as those operating lawnmowers). Another example is high wingwalls or other vertical structures. In the past few years, a serious public health concern that has emerged is related to ponds that create mosquito -breeding habitat due.to shallow and stagnant standing water, thus increasing tile risk of West Nile virus to the adjacent community. ' Specific Safety Deficiencies The authors have observed the following safety deficiencies in storage facilities: • Outlets are open and unprotected, they lack trash/safety racks, the racks have openings large enough to pose a danger to the public, and/or the racks are too close to the outlet to provide sufficiently slow flow velocities that will not impinge a person against them. • Adjacent land uses are incompatible with storage facilities and few, if any, steps have been taken to minimize obvious risks. For example, a nursery school playground without a fence was observed immediately next to a retention pond that had a high concrete wall along one side without a suitable railing. • The public is effectively invited to spend time near storage facilities because they are located in parks, along bike trails, next to playgrounds, etc., yet the designers fail to recognize that frequent use will occur. and public safety has clearly not been a specific design objective, • Education of community residents, office and industrial park employees, users of multipurpose recreational facilities, etc., regarding pond hazards is not provided. Signs warning the public of rapidly rising floodwaters and associated danger are not posted. • Sideslopes of the facility are excessively steep or vertical without suitable safety rails. As a result, it would be very difficult for someone to get out of the pond when water levels are rising. • 5ideslopes within the pond's permanent pool are too steep, and/or ponds lack "safety benches" around their perimeter. • Pond inflow and outflow pipes are directly across from and in close proximity to one another. In this case, a person can be knocked over by the impulse forces (momentum) of inflows and then sucked into and/or pinned against the outlet structure. • Pond depths increase very rapidly. and inflow/outflow pipes are quickly inundated and not visible. • Hydraulic structures are designed and constructed in a manner that makes them hazardous. For example, steel bars on grates are not beveled, rounded, or covered, but have sharp ends. Bolts have jagged, exposed ends. Gaps between steel bars and concrete walls are too wide. Railings either are not used where they should be or are improperly designed. • Ponds have a "hard edge" appearance, such as a block or cobblestone vertical wall, immediately adjacent to the water surface drop into a pond that has steep sideslopes, so a person who falls in cannot get out without having to swim. • A variety of problems with spillways have been observed. For example, spillways are undersized. Dams and embankments are not designed to withstand overtopping forces during floods larger than they were designed to detain, despite the presence of homes and businesses in the "dam break" floodplain downstream. This is often the result of designers assessing embankment behavior for the dellgn event, such as the 50-year storm or the 100-year storm, but failing to recognize that larger events can and do occur. and that the consequences of such events have to be considered. • Inadequate maintenance and monitoring occur, thus leaving the facilities unable to function as designed or intended. For example, when pond outlet structures are fully or partially blocked with debris, the risk of embankment overtopping and failure increases. Orifices in riser pipes that are used to gradually "bleed down" a water -quality design storm typically have small diameters, which leaves them vulnerable to plugging by trash. debris, sediment, algae, etc., unless frequently inspected and maintained. This can lead to prolonged pooling of shallow, stagnant water, which sets the stage for mosquitoes and, potentially, West Nile virus. • Other drainage facilities adjacent to the pond (designed at the same time as the pond) are unsafe, such as channels, drop structures, energy dissipaters, and culverts The key to reducing the observations described above is careful consideration of risks in the design phase, coupled with regular inspection and maintenance of the pond to ensure that the facility is functioning as intended and that unforeseen hazards have not been created. Design and Operational Techniques to Reduce Risks The following risk -reduction techniques are recommended (see Photographs 3-10 for examples). Pho'to 3: Detention pond outlet with trash/safety racks Photo 5: Wetland vegetation in pond bottom promotes water -quality enhancement and tends to discourage public access Photo 4: ❑etention pond with safe outlet, placed midpond, with mild sideslopes and good visibility from office building Photo 6: Limit the use of vertical walls, have mild sideslopes above and below walls, and use railings where appropriate. Photo 7: Retention pond with various safety Photo 8 Fences have pros and cons as a provisions, including mild sideslopes and safety measure; in general, do not rely shallow water around full pond perimeter exclusively on fencing for safety. Photo 9: There is widespread recognition of Photo 10: Trash/safety rack on drop inlet public hazards associated with urban -area pipe at wet pond impoundments and attempts to limit liability. i. Inform members of the pond design team that promoting public safety is an essential design objective. Raise the subject regularly while the design is progressing. Educate designers to understand that safety can be addressed without significantly increasing costs or disrupting hydraulic function. 2 After a conceptual or preliminary design for the facility has been prepared, review it with the facility owner, municipality, state staff concerned with dam safety (if relevant), and parties charged with its long-term operation/maintenance for potential safety issues. Modify, as necessary, to reduce risks to the public. Pay particular attention to risks to unattended children. Engineers are advised to design storage facilities in concert with a landscape architect, who will often have excellent suggestions for promoting safety (along with techniques to enhance appearance and maintenance). 3. Outlets pose particular risks and merit special attention Do not use open, unprotected pipes as outlets. Instead, integrate the outlet pipe into an outlet structure that has smaller openings, and/or utilize a sloping trash/safety rack at the pipe entrance. The rack should have a surface area that is many times larger than the surface area of the outlet pipe to reduce entrance velocities (which is necessary to minimize the risk of a person being pinned against the rack) and to ensure that if debris is a factor, at least some of the surface area of the rack will be open during flooding to enable the pond to drain. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in Denver, CO, has prepared detailed minimum design guidance for pond outlet racks. The rack should be sloped at 3H:IV or milder. A clear opening at the bottom of 9 to 12 inches will permit small debris at lower flows to go through. The bars on the face of the rack should be spaced to provide 4- to 5-inch clear openings between them. Transverse support bars should be minimized, but they are essential for structural support under heavy hydraulic loads and will enable a person to climb up the rack. 4 When feasible, place the outlet away from areas of heavy public use such as playgrounds, parks. and schoolyards Screen the outlet so that the public will not be "drawn" to it. Thick shrubs, grading techniques, and aesthetic fencing or railing can be useful in this regard Ensure that embankment sideslopes adjacent to the outlet structure are not too steep to enable people to scramble away from the structure as pond waters are rising. 5 Grade the overall site with safety in mind. For example, provide mild sideslopes leading to and within the pond and minimize the use of vertical walls. Use safety railings when vertical walls or overly steep slopes are used. 6 Integrate a safety ledge (also referred to as a safety bench) around the perimeter of the permanent pool of a pond. Fortunately. this recommendation is consistent with another technique related to stormwater-quality enhancement: integrating a littoral zone of emergent vegetation around the pond perimeter. Integrating a safety bench with emergent vegetation will discourage people from wading into the pond. This approach can also create wildlife habitat and provide an attractive natural shoreline. 7. Owners are advised to periodically observe the facility to ascertain how the public interacts with it. Owners should also consider the comments received from adjoining property owners. For example, if children are skateboarding on concrete pans in the bottom of a dry basin, they should be told not to do this and warned of the hazard. Signs that say "No Skateboarding" may be helpful, although it may also be necessary to create a rough surface to make skating difficult. For facilities that are on private property, it is often feasible to have them included on security watches. Security staff should be instructed to pay particular attention to them during runoff events. 8 Community education can be a valuable tool. Use signs that warn of rapidly rising floodwater and educational, interpretative signs that explain how the stormwater storage facilities work. Urge local radio and television stations to include short public service announcements that emphasize the hazards posed by storm drainage facilities. Educate schoolchildren to these risks. Distribute flyers. inform homeowner associations and property owner associations (for commercial areas) of these risks. Ponds are often located near public facilities such as recreation centers, libraries, and fire stations. Staff can be asked to observe the storage facility during dry and wet weather conditions and to identify potential hazards. Similarly, facilities in office parks and industrial complexes are often visible to workers, and they can be asked to identify potential hazards. 9 Attempt to separate certain land uses, such as preschools, from ponds or incorporate obstacles that will assuredly prevent access. to. Separate inflow and outflow pipes by long distances and ensure that the pipes are not directly across from each other. This will avoid the creation of a continuous flow stream (current), which poses special dangers for the public. If this is not feasible, use an energy dissipater at the outlet where it discharges into the detention facility. it. Regularly inspect and maintain the detention facility. Anticipate potential problems. Look at the impoundment from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the risks that such facilities pose. Look for potential hazards and address them. 12 Recognize that detention facility dams can be hazardous and use care in their design. Ensure that all aspects of dam safety, ranging from upstream and downstream sideslopes to spillway adequacy to behavior of the pond during overtopping, are addressed. In particular, acknowledge that floods larger than the 100-year event can and will occur, and determine how the dam will behave under such conditions. If the dam is anticipated to fail during extreme floods, analyze the downstream impact of such failure. 13. Take steps to eliminate shallow, shallow -stagnant water in the bottom of "dry" basins that can be conducive to mosquito breeding. For example, determine maximum groundwater table elevations prior to design. Do not use outlet structure designs that are subject to plugging. Consider the use of gravity underdrains. Because mosquitoes generally require a stable, shallow, and stagnant water surface for at least three days to reproduce, design ponds to drain the water - quality design storm in less than 72 hours and use fountains or aerators in wet ponds to induce waves. Over the past few years, there have been many articles in stormwater literature about mosquito control, and readers are urged to become familiar with this subject and to address it during design and operations/maintenance . 14. The question of whether to construct fences around detention facilities is complicated, with arguments both for and against the practice. Ultimately, the decision should be site -specific and there should be a good rationale for whatever decision is made. Fences certainly discourage some people from accessing ponds. Fences lend themselves to the installation of warning signs. Provided that fencing materials are carefully selected and well maintained, fences can be aesthetic. On the other hand, many children or youths will view crossing a fence as a worthy and exciting challenge. The authors have observed many unattractive, poorly maintained fences that are eyesores. It often seems to be the case that ponds surrounded by fences are not as well maintained as those that are in the open and more visible. Ironically, if a situation does occur involving public safety, reaching the person who requires assistance will be impeded by a fence. If the safety issues are addressed using many of the other techniques described in this article, it should not be necessary to fence the facility. Isolated lengths of fence can be desirable, provided that they are attractive and properly integrated into the overall site plan (again, this emphasizes the value in engineers working closely with landscape architects during design). For example, it can be valuable to include a fence at the top of a steep slope to discourage access. 15. Concrete pans in pond bottoms should be designed to make them less attractive for skateboarding, such as finishing the concrete with a rough texture and/or narrow V-shaped surface. 16. Reduce the number of small, onsite ponds that are used in new residential and commercial developments by appropriate drainage master planning, minimizing directly connected impervious area, using low -impact development measures, and emphasizing larger, regional storage facilities. It should not be necessary for every new convenience store, gas station, and fast food outlet to have its own dry detention pond, as this needlessly compounds public risks and creates other problems. Safety Racks at Stormwater-Qualitv BMPs. Lona Underground Pipes. and Culverts Safety (trash) racks should often be integrated into the outlet structures for BMPs such as wetlands ancf swales. Although the primary focus of such faciiitiesis water -quality enhancement, designers must concurrently protect public safety, The use of trash/safety racks at inlets to culverts and long underground pipes should be considered on a case -by -case basis. While there is a sound argument for the use of racks for safety reasons, field experience has shown that when the culvert is needed the most —that is, during heavy runoff —trash racks often become clogged and the culvert is rendered ineffective. A general rule of thumb is that a trash/safety rack will not be needed if one can clearly "see daylight" from one side of the culvert to the other, if the culvert is of sufficient size to pass a 48-inch-diameter object, and if the outlet is not likely to trap or injure a person. By contrast, at entrances to longer culverts and long underground pipes and for culverts not meeting the above -stated tests, a trash/safety rack is necessary (Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2001). Conclusion Public safety must be carefully accounted for when planning, designing, and maintaining urban stormwater detention and retention facilities, BMPs, culverts, and other facilities. Failure to properly address these risks could leave all parties involved with their ownership, design, and maintenance subject to legal liability in the event of injury or death. The potential risks are numerous and significant, but they can be managed. Indeed, the great paradox of designing safe stormwater detention and retention facilities is that if they are attractive, interesting, well maintained, and "inviting," they will be regularly used by people of all ages, and this will promote public safety. Projfessionally Mana ed by PERSONALI EIS PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ['M 77r� i:earrr-lw[!rr irrii.: l:urrrrrrrrrrilti ifrrruw-me 1( Coml+<rrrti Palm Desert lt Country Club Association Located in Palm Desert November 3, 2017 77-800 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 345-2331 Tel (760) 34S-7413 Fax (Hy of Palm Desert Community Development NOV 0 6 209T SENT VIA EMAIL / CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT / FIRST CLASS MAIL City of Palm Desert c/o Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Settlement with PD Holdings, LP over the Proposed Condominium Project Dear Mr. Stendell: As you are aware, the Palm Desert Country Club Association [' Association") initially opposed the condominium project proposed by PD Holdings, LP ("Golf Course Owner") based on various legal and environmental concerns. The parties have met and have resolved their differences. Accordingly, please accept this letter as the Association's formal withdrawal of its opposition to the Proposed Condominium Project by PD Holdings, LP for Sites A, B and C contained within Proposed Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241 and 37242. Sincerely, PALM DES • RT COUN)RY CLUB ASSOCIATION dot Ron Crisp, Board Presid cc: Association Corporate Counsel MEMBER OF community ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE • July S, 2017 Eric Ceje, Planning Dept. City of Palm Desert Dear Eric, Desert /J 13 zog Enclosed , please find a letter we are sending to the Architectural Committee. Sincerely, Barbara Powers, Secretary of OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE July 8, 2017 To: Architectural Committee From : Barbara Powers, OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE SECRETARY Dear Committee Members, At our last Architectural Committee Meeting on 5-23-2017, the Landscape Architect, Chuck Shepherdson offered to meet with our residents about the concerns of the many trees that will be planted behind their homes. He stated he would also meet with them to help preserve their views. Chris McFadden, the Architect for the project at PDCC Executive Course also said he would meet with individual residents. We thought it should be brought to your attention that we placed the above information on our web Site "OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE" along with their phone numbers and sent out email to our Email base. Surprise, Chuck Shepherdson and 1 spoke. He asked me to remove this information as he will not meet with any residents until the City Council has approved this project as he is not being paid until the project has been approved BY City Council.. We assume this is true with Chris McFadden also If you were left with the impression that homeowners were satisfied with their offer to meet with both Architects then you are very MISTAKEN, Our homeowners feel very disturbed by this conversation, We were also told that nothing would happen as far as this project until the summer was over. Our home owners and snow bird owners are not available to respond and probably not attend a meeting on July 25'. THIS DOES NOT SEEM FAIR. We want you to know we have also retained an attorney to guide us through the final processes. We hope you will not approve the new plans until our home owners have the opportunity to look at, research and attend a meeting where they have input. Posting the agenda 3 or 4 days along with a staff report does not give enough time to try and reach our homeowners that arenot in town. Many do not have computers and email and the only way we can reach them is by actually door to door flyers when they are in town. Sincerely, Barbara Powers, Secretary, OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE AND HOMEOWNER tkN6 N\\) P.O. Box 12140 Costa Mesa CA 92627 27 March 2017 Palm Desert City Manager Council Members Project Leader Palm Desert City Hall Palm Desert CA Dear Sirs: RtCEhi'EU CITY CLERKS OFFICE PALM DESERT r A 2011 MAR 30 PM 3: 59 This was the presentation that I prepared for the 28 Feb meeting on this issue. I could not give it then as the Planning Commission restricted comments to architecture ❑nly. So I am giving it to you now. It is still relevant. erely yours, J Frederick P. Kent I own a property on California Drive, and I have never received anything written from the City of Palm Desert on the important issue of proposed housing on the abandoned golf course. I assume no other owners have either. Because this issue is going into its fifth year, Palm Desert seems to be working with the owners of the golf course to keep this issue alive. I understand there are 900 or so homes in the area around the golf course. If these homes have an average value of just $200,000 each, then the total invested capital investment of these homeowners amounts to around $180 million. In contrast, I have heard that the current owners bought the golf course, two golf courses actually, for a few million dollars. Shortly thereafter, the owners decided to abandon their smaller course. They have not been good stewards of the land, allowing it to deteriorate substantially in appearance. One could contend that this was intentional in order to gain support for their proposal. The fact that the Palm Desert is still keeping this issue alive seems to imply that they are endorsing the project, giving the golf course owners implicit approval. But why has this issue gone so long? Why hasn't Palm Desert told the owners long ago that their proposal: 1) Goes against the long standing approved, zoned use of the land 2) That it is inappropriate in every way with the surrounding residential housing that has been there for 30 years 3) That it is in no way endorsed by virtually all of the current homeowners Would Palm Desert have worked this long and hard on a proposal to change the area around City Hall to an industrial park? In conclusion, I would like to know what is going to decide this issue. I have been told that the City Council will make this decision. That is not the answer to my question. Rather, my question is: What material facts are missing that are keeping this project from being disapproved right now? Frederick P. Kent Ceja, Eric From: Barbara powers rgourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 1:55 PM To: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric Cc: Marilyn Forney; Serena & Charlie; Cindy Stevenson Subject MEETING OF ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 7-25-2017 Eric, Thank you for sending me the cross section for behind our home on Kentucky. I am objecting to the 8 foot backyard, 5 foot dedication ( WHY I5 THAT BEING SLIPPED IN AGAIN. WE DISCUSSED THIS FROM THE VERY FIRST MEETING) WE DO NOT WANT THEIR 5 FEET, WE WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF IT AND WE WILL NOT PAY TAXES ON IT. ....AND A 6 FOOT WALL. , ITIS BAD ENOUGH WE WOULD LOOSE OUR VIEW BUT THEN A 6 FOOT WALL. DON'T YOU THINK IT WILL HOLD THE HEAT IN . GRASS 15 SO MUCH BETTER AND SCIENTIFICALLY KEEPS THE AREA COOLER (EVEN IF IT IS JUST SAND OR DIRT) What happened to the retention area behind Oregon Trail , draining down behind California where the road was two feet higher than the retention area. There are just so many things that are no right with these plans. I CANT BELIEVE YOU REALLY THINK THIS I5 THE BEST THING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THE PLANS ARE SICK. What is really sick is having a meeting when 90 per cent of the homeowners are not in residence. One other thing, adding 6 inches to keep Tights out of homeowners backyards is not helpful. People that have SUV's and Trucks are much higher. I submitted pictures at a prior meeting. By the way the file we were talking about still will not load on the web site. I sent these objections to the Architectural committee on the city's web site but I don't know if it will reach them in time. I guess one of the biggest complaints was about the Landscape Architect saying he would be glad to meet with the homeowners, as suggested by the the Architectural Committee, then telling us he would not meet with anyone unless the City Council Approved the Project, because he was not getting paid until then. I am sure there are many more items to object to. I am in St. Louis and will not be able to attend. Barb Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 July 8, 201 City of Palm Desert Ryan Stendell Dear Ryan, aty of Palm Desert Community 0 ... . t JUL 12 201 Enclosed , please find a letter we are sending to the Architectural Committee. Sincerely, Barbara Powers, Secretary of OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE July 8, 2017 To: Architectural Committee From : Barbara Powers, OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE SECRETARY ❑ear Committee Members, At our last Architectural Committee Meeting on 5-23-2017, the Landscape Architect, Chuck Shepherdson offered to meet with our residents about the concerns of the many trees that will be planted behind their homes. He stated he would also meet with them to help preserve their views. Chris McFadden, the Architect for the project at PDCC Executive Course also said he would meet with individual residents. We thought it should be brought to your attention that we placed the above information on our web Site "OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE" along with their phone numbers and sent out email to our Email base. Surprise, Chuck Shepherdson and I spoke. He asked me to remove this information as he will not meet with any residents until the City Council has approved this project as he is not being paid until the project has been approved BY City Council.. We assume this is true with Chris McFadden also If you were [eft with the impression that homeowners were satisfied with their offer to meet with both Architects then you are very MISTAKEN. Our homeowners fee! very disturbed by this conversation. We were also told that nothing would happen as far as this project until the summer was over. Our home owners and snow bird owners are not available t❑ respond and probably not attend a meeting on July 25`h. THIS DOES NOT SEEM FAIR. We want you to know we have also retained an attorney to guide us through the final processes. We hope you will not approve the new plans until our home owners have the opportunity to look at, research and attend a meeting where they have input. 'Pasting the agenda 3 or 4 days along with a staff report does not give enough time to try and reach our homeowners that arenot in town. Many do not have computers and email and the only way we can reach them is by actually door to door flyers when they are in town. Sincerely, Barbara Powers, Secretary, OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE AND HOMEOWNER 1 July 10, 2017 Questions to Eric Ceja, Principal Planner for Proposed PDCC Development. . IS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT STILL A CONDO PROJECT? . DID THEY RELOCATE THE ROAD AWAY FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES MORE THAT 15 FEET? . WHY CAN'T ACCESS ROAD IN SECTION B, BE RELOCATED TO SOUTH SIDE AS OPPOSED TO NORTH SIDE. • RELOCATE STRUCTURES AND REVISED GRADING. PAD HEIGHTS, STRUCTURES SECTION B LOT 199 UNITS SAND 9 . AC VISIBILITY RELOCATE TO GROUND . PEREMETER FENCING, MATERIAL AND LOCATION TO EXISTING PROPERTIES. . 30" WALL TO BLOCK VEHICLE HEADLIGHTS. . WERE ANY OF MY COMPROMISES FROM THE 5/23/17 MEETING GIVEN ANY CONSIDERATION? Jack Forney OWNERS, SOME HAVING INVESTED THEIR LIFE SAVINGS, WHO PURCHASED THEIR HOMES FOR THE MAJESTIC MOUNTAIN VIEW AND OPEN AREA OF THE GOLF COURSE FOR THEIR GOLDEN YEARS, THEY TAKE PRIDE IN THE COMMUNITY, MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTY, RESPECT THEIR NEIGHBORS AND ARE AN ASSET TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT TO CORRECT THE OBVIOUS FLAWS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE THE PRECISE APPLICATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE PLAN: A. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STANDARDS B. SITE PLANNING SHALL OCCUR THAT MINIMIZES ❑BSTRUCTION OF SCENIC VIEWS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. C. SITE PLANNING SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING TERRAIN. D. SITE PLANNING SHALL ❑CCUR IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT EXPOSE UNATTRACTIVE AREAS OR ACTIVITIES TO THE DETRIMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. E. TREE SELECTION SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AS TO FAMILY TYPE, MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND SPREAD OF CANOPY. I HAVE REVIEWED THE MINUTES OF THE ARC, MARCH 14, 2017 MEETING AND THE SUMMARY OF MINIMAL CHANGES MADE AND I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT REVISION. A. NO STRUCTURE, PORTION THERE OF OR RECREATION FACILITY SHALL BE CLOSER THAN 80 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE. B. NO STRUCTURE OR APPURTANCES THERE ON SHALL EXCEED 10 FEET ABOVE THE ELEVATION OF THE NEAREST ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE AND A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET IN EACH DIRECTION ALONG SAID PROPERTY LINES. RELOCATING AIR CONDITIONING UNITS TO THE GROUND WOULD HELP. C. ALL ROADWAYS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 60 FEET FROM EXISTING PROPERTY LINES. CURRENTLY A PROPOSED !MAIM AY IS i6 h'E1+;TFROM WV REAR PROPI RTV TINE (SEE EXCEPTION BELOW) . D. ALL ROADWAYS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET BELOW THE ELEVATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES. THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR 30 INCH SEGMENTED WALLS (SEE EXCEPTION BELOW) E. ALL EXTERIOR FENCING SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL SELECTED BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS FROM 3 CHOICES: STUCCOED BLOCK WALL WITH WROUGHT IRON ON TOP SOLID STUCCOED BLOCK WALL. WROUGHT IRON. FOR CONSISTENCY NO LESS THAT 3 ADJOINING PROPERTIES (180 FEET) SHALL BE OF THE SAME CONSTRUCTION (SEE EXCEPTION BELOW) F. NO EXTERIOR FENCING SHALL BE PERMITTED 1 FOOT AWAY FROM EXISTING PERMANENT PROPERTY LINE FENCING. NO DOUBLE FENCE LINE WHERE EXISTING PERMANENT FENCE LINE IS IN PLACE. G. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MATURE TREES SHALL BE 30 FEET AND CANOPIED DIAMETER 30 FEET. TREES SHALL BE LOCATED 100 FEET FROM STRUCTURES, OTHER TREES OR PROPERTY LINES. H. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 50% GREEN GRASS. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ALL POSSIBLE ON THESE 200 FOOT WIDE FAIRWAYS AND ARE VERIFIED IN THE LATEST SUMMARY OF CHANGES WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB OWNERSHIP HAS SET US ON A PATH "TOWARDS LESS OPEN SPACE, LESS WILDLIFE AND MORE SPRAWL. " FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE REASONS, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. t-%Dt tlLIr%: 1 LIi\L VLif 4-00L.L' ,3:i1U r 1 15L1L, 3L1 1111,112,1N l L3 EVERYTHING. WITH PUBLIC SENTIMENT YOU CAN'T FAIL; WITHOUT IT YOU CAN'T SUCCEED. THE ONLY WAY TO MEASURE PUBLIC SENTIMENT I5 TO VOTE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION. NOTE: EXCEPTIONS: HEIGHT OF AND MATERIAL USED ON PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT ROADWAY TO THE PROJECT SHALL BE A SIGNED Gty of Palm Desert community Development JUL 19 2017 July 18, 2017 To: Architectural Review Commission Chris Van Vliet, Chair, Karel Lambell, Vice Chair, Doug Brewer, Allan Levin, Michael McAuliffe, Jim McIntosh and John Vuksic Subject: PDCC Executive Course Proposed Development. My name is Jack L. Forney, I reside at 76831 Kentucky Ave, Palm Desert. My Property abuts the former Bch Tee Box of the Closed Executive Course. On May 23, 2017, 1 addressed this Commission and provided a list of certain items in the Precise Application Plan Development Standards that I believe do not conform to the Palm Desert Standards for the plan ,as well as the proposed compromise recommendations to be included in a revised application for the project. To refresh your memory I have attached a copy of the items I previously addressed. I have reviewed the proposed changes submitted by Mr. McFadden for the July 25, 2017 meeting and I find none of my broad proposed recommendations have been included. To express my major concerns, I am providing specific changes that will address these issues: ▪ PROBLEM: Proposed road is 16 feet from my read property line. . S01 11TION: Rotate units B8, B9, B10 and B11, 90 degrees making the long side (96 feet) parallel with the edge of the Fairway and the short side (58 feet) perpendicular to the edge, (Fairway is 210 feet wide) this will allow the units and the road to be moved 30 feet south providing safety and less noise and pollution from the road. . PROBLEM: View obstruction and non -compatibility of roof design. . SOLI ETIf1N: Remove extraneous projections, provide a 4/12 roof pitch for all units that will be compatible with roof design of surrounding properties and lower pad elevations 12 to 18 inches. As I stated at the May 23rd meeting the owners of property abutting the former Executive Course have been told we must "COMPROMISE". The most recent definition of the word "COMPROMISE" is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions" The 188 property owners abutting the former Executive Course have made significant concessions by being subjected to blight conditions of the former course due to lack of water and maintenance for the past 4 years. We have lost green grass and convenience of living on a golf course as well as a major financial loss of 1O% of our property value as reported by the Riverside County Assessor's Office, a property abutting a golf course would typically be appraised 10% higher than a similar property not on a golf course. Mr. McFadden and Palm Desert Holdings (listed owners) have not currently made any significant compromises on their application as originally proposed for the project. They appear to be taking the same attitude now that was taken on compromise recommendations for the former golf course. (ie donate the property to the Wounded Warrior Project or other Veteran Organizations for rehabilitation of injured service personnel; accept the proposal from TGA Association for use of Executive Course for youth golf and other activities, as well as various other suggestions all of which were met with the statement "THE GOLF COURSE IS CLOSED". 1 again request the project be returned to the applicant to correct the flaws in the Precise Development Plan I have outlined and provide a revised plan that includes the compromises I have listed. Thank you for your consideration, Jack L. Forney CC: Eric Ceja THIS PROJECT SHOULD BE RETURNED TO THE APPLICANT TO CORRECT THE OBVIOUS FLAWS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE THE PRECISE APPLICATION PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS UNDER ARTICLE 5 OF THE PLAN: A. ACCESS AND CIRCULATION STANDARDS B. SITE PLANNING SHALL OCCUR THAT MINIMIZES OBSTRUCTION OF SCENIC VIEWS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. C. SITE PLANNING SHALL BE COMPATIBLE WITH EXISTING TERRAIN. D. SITE PLANNING SHALL OCCUR IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT EXPOSE UNATTRACTIVE AREAS OR ACTIVITIES TO THE DETRIMENT OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. E. TREE SELECTION SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED AS TO FAMILY TYPE, MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND SPREAD OF CANOPY. I HAVE REVIEWED THE MINUTES OF THE ARC, MARCH 14, 2017 MEETING AND THE SUMMARY OF MINIMAL CHANGES MADE AND I SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING TO BE INCLUDED IN THE NEXT REVISION. A. NO STRUCTURE, PORTION THERE OF OR RECREATION FACILITY SHALL BE CLOSER THAN 80 FEET FROM THE CLOSEST ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE. B. NO STRUCTURE OR APPURTANCES THERE ON SHALL EXCEED 10 FEET ABOVE THE ELEVATION OF THE NEAREST ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE AND A DISTANCE OF 100 FEET IN EACH DIRECTION ALONG SAID PROPERTY LINES. RELOCATING AIR CONDITIONING UNITS TO THE GROUND WOULD HELP. C. ALL ROADWAYS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 60 FEET FROM EXISTING PROPERTY LINES. CURRENTLY A PROPOSED ROADWAY IS 16 FEET FROM MY REAR PROPERTY LINE (SEE EXCEPTION BELOW) . D. ALL ROADWAYS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 3 FEET BELOW THE ELEVATION OF ADJACENT PROPERTY LINES. THIS WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR 30 INCH SEGMENTED WALLS (SEE EXCEPTION BELOW) E. ALL EXTERIOR FENCING SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED OF MATERIAL SELECTED BY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS FROM 3 CHOICES: STUCCOED BLOCK WALL WITH WROUGHT IRON ON TOP SOLID STUCCOED BLOCK WALL. WROUGHT IRON. FOR CONSISTENCY NO LESS THAT 3 ADJOINING PROPERTIES (180 FEET) SHALL BE OF THE SAME CONSTRUCTION (SEE EXCEPTION BELOW) F. NO EXTERIOR FENCING SHALL BE PERMITTED 1 FOOT AWAY FROM EXISTING PERMANENT PROPERTY LINE FENCING. NO DOUBLE FENCE LINE WHERE EXISTING PERMANENT FENCE LINE IS IN PLACE. G. MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF MATURE TREES SHALL BE 30 FEET AND CANOPIED DIAMETER 30 FEET. TREES SHALL BE LOCATED 100 FEET FROM STRUCTURES, OTHER TREES OR PROPERTY LINES. H. ALL LANDSCAPED AREAS SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 50% GREEN GRASS. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE ALL POSSIBLE ON THESE 200 FOOT WIDE FAIRWAYS AND ARE VERIFIED IN THE LATEST SUMMARY OF CHANGES WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB OWNERSHIP HAS SET US ON A PATH "TOWARDS LESS OPEN SPACE, LESS WILDLIFE AND MORE SPRAWL. " FOR ALL OF THE ABOVE REASONS, I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT. EXCEPTIONS: HEIGHT OF AND MATERIAL (JSED ON PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT ROADWAY TO THE PROJECT SHALL BE A SIGNED AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON EACH SIDE OF THE ROADWAY AND THE APPLICANT. Ceja, Eric From: Bella <sparkie.giriz@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:46 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: PLS READ BEFORE ARC MEETING RE PD EX COURSE on 7/25 To Eric Ceja/ARC This letter is in regards to the Palm Desert Country Club Executive Golf Course. To be very honest, at first I was opposed. After all desirable possibilities were exhausted, it seems this project is the most advantageous. I've been following the plans and ideas from the very beginning and it seems they are getting sharpened to perfection with great thought and detail to the consideration of privacy, noise, and tasteful landscaping surrounding the current residents. I frequent the PDCC web site to keep up to date with info and visuals. So far, I'm really impressed with what I see! Aesthetically pleasing on so many levels!! My husband and I have attended a few of the meetings here at PDCC regarding the Executive Course. I was absolutely astonished, dumbfounded, and terror-stricken. No real words can describe my emotions witnessing barbaric, vulgar, aggressive, cantankerous and discustingly rude people!!!! Closed minded, resistant to change even for the better, ignorant peoples l l l _ l Couldn't wrap my head around what I saw and heard. I was shocked some people (idiots) behaved so poorly. My husband had to leave because one guy wouldn't shut his mouth and let others express their opinions, I thought he was going to punch him! This behavior just evokes violence inside that normally isn't there! (enough of that!!) Despite the pessimistic, unfavorable, ignorant gainsay that some residents have, I truly feel this project/condos will enhance the neighborhood (better than it looks now) and create a desirable richness that will help increase our property value over and above! Change is hard, sign of the times and all that. Please, get this project going, get it done fast so we can enjoy our backyards again!! My husband and I are totally 100% in with moving forward. It's a win win all around, sooner or later, others will agree_ I wish to remain anonymous in fear of our house burning down and getting stoned to death!! z Ceja, Eric From: Jim Krzyminski <jim@jameskrzyminski.cam> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:39 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Barbara powers Subject: NO CONDOSrrrrr 1 strongly object to the proposed condo development at the PDCC. Approving a 24 foot street in back of my house is ridiculous. Palm Desert is going to end up looking like Los Angeles or worse. Please vote NO! Jim James M. Krzyminski Law Office of James M. Krzyminski, P. C. 361 North Canon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 USA Phone (310) 777-7481 Fax (310) 777-8754 Email iimCcr�.iameskrzvminski.com IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION: To insure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we advise you, unless otherwise expressly indicated, that any federal tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of: avoiding tax -related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or applicable state or local tax law provisions or prornoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax -related matters addressed herein. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail contains information belonging to the Law Office of James M. Krzyminski, P. C., which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. 1 Ceja, Eric From: Barbara powers <gourdpower@msn.coma Sent Sunday, July 23, 2017 1:55 FM To: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric Cc: Marilyn Forney; Serena & Charlie; Cindy Stevenson Subject: MEETING OF ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 7-25-2017 Eric, Thank you for sending me the cross section for behind our home on Kentucky. I am objecting to the 8 foot backyard, 5 foot dedication ( WHY I5 THAT BEING SLIPPED IN AGAIN. WE DISCUSSED THIS FROM THE VERY FIRST MEETING) WE DO NOT WANT THEIR 5 FEET, WE WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF 1T AND WE WILL NOT PAY TAXES ON IT. ....AND A 6 FOOT WALL. , IT IS BAD ENOUGH WE WOULD LOOSE OUR VIEW BUT THEN A 6 FOOT WALL. DON'T YOU THINK IT WILL HOLD THE HEAT IN . GRASS IS SO MUCH BETTER AND SCIENTIFICALLY KEEPS THE AREA COOLER (EVEN IF IT IS JUST SAND OR DIRT) What happened to the retention area behind Oregon Trail , draining down behind California where the road was two feet higher than the retention area. There are just so many things that are no right with these plans. I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU REALLY THINK THIS IS THE BEST THING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THE PLANS ARE SICK. What is really sick is having a meeting when 90 per cent of the homeowners are not in residence. One other thing, adding 6 inches to keep lights out of homeowners backyards is not helpful. People that have SUV's and Trucks are much higher. I submitted pictures at a prior meeting. By the way the file we were talking about still will not load on the web site. I sent these objections to the Architectural committee on the city's web site but I don't know if it will reach them in time. I guess one of the biggest complaints was about the Landscape Architect saying he would be glad to meet with the homeowners, as suggested by the the Architectural Committee, then telling us he would not meet with anyone unless the City Council Approved the Project, because he was not getting paid until then. I am sure there are many more items to object to. I am in St. Louis and will not be able to attend. Barb Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 July 25, 2017 To: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Eric Ceja, Palm Desert Planning Dept., Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development My name is Jack Forney, I reside at 76831 Kentucky Ave., Palm Desert. My property abuts the former 8th tee box of the closed Executive Course. First, I would like to thank Eric Ceja for his patience and assistance in helping me analyze the proposed project. Let me state I am opposed to any construction on the former Executive Course, but I am also a realist and believe the property will never be a golf course again. On May 23 I addressed this commission and provided a list of certain items in the Precise Application Plan Development Standards that I believe do not conform to the Palm Desert Standards for the proposed plan, as well as some proposed modification recommendations to be included in a revised application for the project. As I stated at the May 23, 2017 meeting the owners of property abutting the former Executive Course have been told we must `COMPROMISE". The most recent definitions of the word "COMPROMISE" is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. The 188 property owners abutting the former Executive Course have made significant concessions by being subjected to the blight conditions of the former Executive Course due to the lack of water and maintenance the past 4 years. We have lost green grass and the convenience of living on a golf course and most importantly a major financial loss of 10% of our property value as reported by the Riverside County Assessors Office; A property abutting a golf course would typically be appraised l0% higher than a similar property not on a golf course. Mr. McFadden and Palm Desert Holdings (listed owners) have not currently made any significant compromises on their application as originally proposed for this project. In a proper location this project would probably be a welcome addition to the area. This is not that area. This proposed project does not conform to the structures and character of the surrounding community. A good faith effort of compromise and responsible citizenship by Palm Desert Holdings to the 188 home owners abutting the former Executive Course would be a CASH REIMBURSEMENT equal to 10% of the assessed value of their property as shown on their 2017 tax bill. I have reviewed the proposed changes submitted by Mr. McFadden for today's meeting and I find none of my broad proposed recommendations have been included. To express my major individual concerns, I am providing 2 specific changes that will address these issues: PROBLEM: Proposed road is 16 feet from my rear property line. SOLUTION: Rotate units B8, B9, B10 and B11 90 degrees making the long side (96 feet) parallel with the edge of the fairway and the short side (58feet) perpendicular to the edge (Fairway is 210 feet wide). This will allow the units and road to be moved 30 feet south providing safety and less noise and pollution from the road. PROBLEM: View obstruction and non -compatibility of roof design. SOLUTION: Remove superfluous roof projections. Provide a 4/12 roof pitch for all units which will be compatible with roof design of surrounding property. Lower the pad elevations 12 to 18 inches. I again request the project be returned to the applicant to correct the flaws in the Precise Development Plan I have outlined and provide a revised plan that includes the compromise suggestions 1 have made. ABRAHAM LINCOLN ONCE SAID "PUBLIC SENTIMENT IS EVERYTHING. WITH PUBLIC SENTIMENT YOU CAN'T FAIL; WITHOUT 1T YOU CAN'T SUCCEED. THE ONLY WAY TO MEASURE PUBLIC SENTIMENT IS TO VOTE. Thank you for your consideration. Ceja. Eric From: Bella <sparkle.giriz@yahoo.com> Sent Monday, July 24, 2017 4:46 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: PLS READ BEFORE ARC MEETING RE PD EX COURSE on 7/25 To Eric Ceja/ARC This letter is in regards to the Palm Desert Country Club Executive Golf Course. To be very honest, at first I was opposed. After all desirable possibilities were exhausted, it seems this project is the most advantageous. I've been following the plans and ideas from the very beginning and it seems they are getting sharpened to perfection with great thought and detail to the consideration of privacy, noise, and tasteful landscaping surrounding the current residents. I frequent the PDCC web site to keep up to date with info and visuals. So far, I'm really impressed with what I see! Aesthetically pleasing on so many levels!! My husband and I have attended a few of the meetings here at PDCC regarding the Executive Course. I was absolutely astonished, dumbfounded, and terror-stricken. No real words can describe my emotions witnessing barbaric, vulgar, aggressive, cantankerous and discustingly rude people!!!! Closed minded, resistant to change even for the better, ignorant people) " " " " l Couldn't wrap my head around what I saw and heard. I was shocked some people (idiots) behaved so poorly. My husband had to leave because one guy wouldn't shut his mouth and let others express their opinions, I thought he was going to punch him! This behavior just evokes violence inside that normally isn't there! (enough of that!!) Despite the pessimistic, unfavorable, ignorant gainsay that some residents have, I truly feel this project/condos will enhance the neighborhood (better than it looks now) and create a desirable richness that will help increase our property value over and above! Change is hard, sign of the times and all that. Please, get this project going, get it done fast so we can enjoy our backyards again!! My husband and I are totally 100% in with moving forward. It's a win win all around, sooner or later, others will agree. I wish to remain anonymous in fear of our house burning down and getting stoned to death!! a Ceja. Eric From: J im Krzyminski rjim©jameskrzyminski.coma Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:39 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Barbara powers Subject: NO CONDOSIIIII I strongly object to the proposed condo development at the PDCC. Approving a 24 foot street in back of my house is ridiculous. Palm Desert is going to end up looking like Los Angeles or worse. .Please vote NO! Jim James M. Krzyminski Law Office of James M. Krzyminski. P. C. 361 North Canon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 USA Phone (310) 777-7481 Fax (310) 777-8754 Email iim an.iameskrzvminski,com IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION: To insure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we advise you, unless otherwise expressly indicated, that any federal tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of: avoiding tax -related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or applicable state or local tax law provisions or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax -related matters addressed herein. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail contains information belonging to the Law Office of James M. Krzyminski, P. C., which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. if you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. 1 Ceja, Eric From: Barbara powers < gourdpower@msn.com > Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 1:55 PM To: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric Cc: Marilyn Forney; Serena & Charlie; Cindy Stevenson Subject: MEETING OF ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 7-25-2017 Eric, Thank you for sending me the cross section for behind our home ❑n Kentucky. I am ❑bjecting to the 8 foot backyard, 5 foot dedication ( WHY IS THAT BEING SLIPPED IN AGAIN. WE DISCUSSED THIS FROM THE VERY FIRST MEETING) WE DO NOT WANT THEIR 5 FEET, WE WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF IT AND WE WILL NOT PAY TAXES ❑N IT. ....AND A 6 FOOT WALL. , !T IS BAD ENOUGH WE WOULD LOOSE OUR VIEW BUT THEN A 6 FOOT WALL. DON'T YOU THINK IT WILL HOLD THE HEAT IN . GRASS IS SO MUCH BETTER AND SCIENTIFICALLY KEEPS THE AREA COOLER (EVEN IF IT 15 JUST SAND OR DIRT) What happened to the retention area behind Oregon Trail , draining down behind California where the road was two feet higher than the retention area. There are just so many things that are no right with these plans. I CAN'T BELfEVE YOU REALLY THINK THIS 15 THE BEST THING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THE PLANS ARE SICK. What is really sick is having a meeting when 90 per cent of the homeowners are not in residence. One other thing, adding 6 inches to keep lights out of homeowners backyards is not helpful. People that have SUV's and Trucks are much higher. I submitted pictures at a prior meeting. By the way the file we were talking about still will not load ❑n the web site. I sent these objections to the Architectural committee on the city's web site but I don't know if it will reach them in time. I guess one of the biggest complaints was about the Landscape Architect saying he would be glad to meet with the homeowners, as suggested by the the Architectural Committee, then telling us he would not meet with anyone unless the City Council Approved the Project, because he was not getting paid until then. I am sure there are many more items to object to. I am in St. Louis and will not be able to attend. Barb Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 James C. Evans 76827 Oklahoma Ave. Palm Desert, California 92211-7704 October 9, 2017 Jan Harnik, Mayor City Hall 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mayor Harnik: RECEIVED ClT Y CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT, r n 2G17 NOV -3 MI 8: 20 My name is James Evans and I live at 76827 Oklahoma Ave, Palm Desert. I request my fetter be read at any hearing concerning the change of the Palm Desert Golf Course. My home abuts the proposed housing development by the P.D. Holding, LP. It is a wonderful home and I enjoy sitting on my back patio enjoying the view of the mountains that surround the desert valley. This is what makes my home different than most of my neighbors that don't abut the golf course, the view. My property will be devalued, as will the quality of my life, with the construction of the proposed housing development. My wife, Jeanne and I specifically selected this property because of the view and to be on the golf course. My home is a two bedroom, unremarkable house but will sell because of the location. We did not purchase the home with neighbors immediately on our property line. We are now faced with losing our view and quiet enjoyment of our property. There will be two or three additional homes next to ours and with that more people and noise. The owners of the golf course also knew what they were purchasing — a golf course. The developers will tell you about all the additional income generated from property taxes. There are additional costs as well including rnore roads, school classrooms, garbage pickup, police, fire fighters, etc. The desert has a severe water shortage. Houses will use much more water than the recycled water a golf course will use. These are ail costs to our society that cannot be neglected when considering a housing development. My wife and I respectfully request you not approve any housing developments on the existing golf course. We request it remain as open space which is very needed in our community. Sincerely, James C. Evans CONYTO L/r7 01ANA&-Cf DATE of Ceja, Eric From: Bella <sparkle.girlz@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:46 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject PLS READ BEFORE ARC MEETING RE PD EX COURSE on 7/25 To Eric Ceja/ARC This letter is in regards to the Palm Desert Country Club Executive Golf Course. To be very honest, at first I was opposed. After all desirable possibilities were exhausted, it seems this project is the most advantageous. I've been following the plans and ideas from the very beginning and it seems they are getting sharpened to perfection with great thought and detail to the consideration of privacy, noise, and tasteful landscaping surrounding the current residents. I frequent the PDCC web site to keep up to date with info and visuals. So far, I'm really impressed with what I see! Aesthetically pleasing on so many levels!! My husband and I have attended a few of the meetings here at PDCC regarding the Executive Course. I was absolutely astonished, dumbfounded, and terror-stricken. No real words can describe my emotions witnessing barbaric, vulgar, aggressive, cantankerous and discustingly rude people!!!! Closed minded, resistant to change even for the better, ignorant people!!!!!! Couldn't wrap my head around what I saw and heard. I was shocked some people (idiots) behaved so poorly. My husband had to leave because one guy wouldn't shut his mouth and let others express their opinions, I thought he was going to punch him! This behavior just evokes violence inside that normally isn't there! (enough of that!!) Despite the pessimistic, unfavorable, ignorant gainsay that some residents have, I truly feel this project/condos will enhance the neighborhood (better than it looks now) and create a desirable richness that will help increase our property value over and above! Change is hard, sign of the times and all that. Please, get this project going, get it done fast so we can enjoy our backyards again!! My husband and I are totally 100% in with moving forward. It's a win win all around, sooner or later, others will agree. I wish to remain anonymous in fear of our house burning down and getting stoned to death!! i Ceja, Eric From: Jim Krzyminski <jim@jameskrzyminski.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:39 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Barbara powers Subject: NO CONDOS" 1 strongly object to the proposed condo development at the PDCC. Approving a 24 foot street in back of my house is ridiculous. Palm Desert is going to end up looking like Los Angeles or worse. Please vote NO! Jim James M, Krzyminski Law Office of James M. Krzyminski, P. C. 361 North Canon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 USA Phone (310) 777-7481 Fax (310) 777-8754 Email iim al'},iameskrzvminski.com IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION: To insure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we advise you, unless otherwise expressly indicated, that any federal tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of: avoiding tax -related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or applicable state or local tax law provisions or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax -related matters addressed herein. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail contains information belonging to the Law Office of James M. Krzyminski, P. C., which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. if you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. 1 July 25, 2017 To: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION Eric Ceja, Palm Desert Planning Dept., Principal Planner Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development My name is Jack Forney, I reside at 76831 Kentucky Ave., Palm Desert. My property abuts the former 8th tee box of the closed Executive Course. First, I would like to thank Eric Ceja for his patience and assistance in helping me analyze the proposed project. Let me state I am opposed to any construction on the former Executive Course, but I am also a realist and believe the property will never be a golf course again. On May 23 I addressed this commission and provided a list of certain items in the Precise Application Plan Development Standards that I believe do not conform to the Palm Desert Standards for the proposed plan, as well as some proposed modification recommendations to be included in a revised application for the project. As I stated at the May 23, 2017 meeting the owners of property abutting the former Executive Course have been told we must `COMPROMISE". The most recent definitions of the word "COMPROMISE" is a settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. The 188 property owners abutting the former Executive Course have made significant concessions by being subjected to the blight conditions of the former Executive Course due to the lack of water and maintenance the past 4 years. We have lost green grass and the convenience of living on a golf course and most importantly a major financial toss of 10% of our property value as reported by the Riverside County Assessors Office; A property abutting a golf course would typically be appraised 10% higher than a similar property not on a golf course. Mr. McFadden and Palm Desert Holdings (listed owners) have not currently made any significant compromises on their application as originally proposed for this project. In a proper location this project would probably be a welcome addition to the area. This is not that area. This proposed project does not conform to the structures and character of the surrounding community. A good faith effort of compromise and responsible citizenship by Palm Desert Holdings to the 188 home owners abutting the former Executive Course would be a CASH REIMBURSEMENT equal to 10% of the assessed value of their property as shown on their 2017 tax bill. I have reviewed the proposed changes submitted by Mr. McFadden for today's meeting and I find none of my broad proposed recommendations have been included. To express my major individual concerns, I am providing 2 specific changes that will address these issues: PROBLEM: Proposed road is 16 feet from my rear property line. SOLUTION: Rotate units B8, B9, B10 and B11 90 degrees making the long side (96 feet) parallel with the edge of the fairway and the short side (58feet) perpendicular to the edge (Fairway is 210 feet wide). This will allow the units and road to be moved 30 feet south providing safety and less noise and pollution from the road. PROBLEM: View obstruction and non -compatibility of roof design. SOLUTION: Remove superfluous roof projections. Provide a 4/12 roof pitch for all units which will be compatible with roof design of surrounding property. Lower the pad elevations 12 to 18 inches. I again request the project be returned to the applicant to correct the flaws in the Precise Development Plan I have outlined and provide a revised plan that includes the compromise suggestions I have made. ABRAHAM LINCOLN ONCE SAID "PUBLIC SENTIMENT IS EVERYTHING. WITH PUBLIC SENTIMENT YOU CAN'T FAIL; WITHOUT IT YOU CAN'T SUCCEED. THE ONLY WAY TO MEASURE PUBLIC SENTIMENT IS TO VOTE. Thank you for your consideration. 11-6-2017 Ryan Stendell, Director Community Developmemt City Of Palm Desert Re: Palm Desert Country Club, 69 Condo Request for a Zone Change & Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. We are submitting the enclosed Power Point Presentation to show that there is significant wild life on the executive golf course. No amount of money donated to any group could replace our Wild life. The building proposal would greatly affect the wild life habitat. This power point takes a few minutes to load. Also attached is page 7 dated September 2, 2016,Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. The box checked states it all. Also attached is the most recent picture taken 11-2-2017, GEESE HAVE RETURNED. The tree swallows were spotted on 11-1-2017. WE ASK THAT THIS BE A MAJOR ISSUE IN DENYING A ZONE CHANGE. PLEASE PASS ALONG TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Sincerely, Barbara Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 760-777-006 gourdpower@msn.com Palm Desert Country Club Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2016/Page 7 fit PERM NAT(ON: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation_ ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. J find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the protect proponent. A I iITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I end that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the envirreeMectt, biz at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because ail potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier ER or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date City of Palm Desert Printed Name City of Palm Desert For Environmental Checklist and Discussion: The following checklist evaluates the proposed project's potential adverse impacts. For those environments] topics for which a potential adverse impact .may -exist, a discussion of the existing site eavi .nne t-related•to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the praject's potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. as A N o , AA v t I ti ift to !• V 1 lot g !Y ti A A. MANY OTHER BIRDS AND ANIMALS. W UW 0- re D ce 8 W LL J W o Z0 z < 0 Q Q I/9 u 1- z z Lio D � W z uW Lu: J • 0 i= E -- ,:e ce 20 ic- 2 a ce ^z < V z E Q THE WILD LIFE HAVE BEEN HERE FOR OVER 54 YEARS. PLEASE DO NOT DESTROYTHIS BEAUATIFUL , PEACEFUL AREA FOR GREED AND PROFIT. TO: CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISS1ON DECfMBER 19, 2017 RE: PALM DESERT CC, ZONE CHANGE 69 CONDOS City of Palm Dee6[t DEC 15 2017 Community Development WE NEED TO STUDY HISTORY IN ORDER NOT TO MAKE THE SAME MISTAKES. OUTLINE:: HISTORY: 8 OWNERS, 1.MARNEL (Original) 1961 PLACE RESTRICTIONS ON DEEDS RE: OPEN SPACE, 51% VOTE NEEDED TO ALLOW ANY THING BUT GOLF COURSE. Attachment of Articles of Development of PDCC. 2. MCMILLIAN: OWNED THE GOLF COURSE IN THE 80'S HE WANTED TO BUILD A 100 ROOM HOTEL IN FRONT OF THE CLUB HOUSE AND CONDO'S ON 13 AND 14. CITY ❑ENIED. 3 JANPANESE GROUP, MR. NAKAMURA OWNED THE GOLF COURSE IN THE 90'S. HE TRIED TO DO THE SAME THING MAKING THIS A DESTINATION RESORT. THEY CLAIMED THEY COULD NOT MAKE ANY MONEY. ❑ENIED. 4 CHAS BLALOCK (USC GROUP), BOUTH THE GOLF COURSE, REFINANCED AND LOST THE PROPERTY TO GOLF TRUST OF AMERICA. 5.GOLF TRUST ❑F AMERICA, (FORECLOSED ON CHAS) 6. SUNG SANG CHO PURCHASE FOR 4.79 MILLION BUT (FILE❑ BANKRUPTCY, LEFT 18 MILLION OWEING IN BANKRUPTCY) PARTNERE❑ WITH LARRY KOSMONT GROUP AN❑ CHO SOLD 95 LOTS TO D.R.HORTON. NEIGHBORS GOT A NEW CLUB HOUSE, NEW WATERING SYSTEM, REMODELLED 2.7 HOLES ON THE GOLF COURSES.) 7. CANAD#AN GROUP (REQUESTING ZONE CHANGE) PURCHASED OUT OF BANKRUPTCY FOR 1.79 MILLION THERE ARE 18 DOLES ON THE CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE AND THERE WERE 9 HOLES ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. THE EXECUTIVE COURSE CONSISTS OF APPROXIMATELY 30 ACRES. THERE ARE TWO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB HOA s. THE CHAMPSIONSHIP COURSE IS INCLUDED IN THE PALM DESERT CC HOA. THE NEW HORTON HOMES BELONG TO BOTH HOA'S. THERE ARE 111 HOMEOWNERS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE WHO ARE NOT IN THE PDCC HOA. THERE ARE 87 LOTS THAT ARE IN THE HOA THAT ALSO ARE INCLUDED ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. WHEN THE. ORIGINAL DEEDS WERE DRAWN UP THE CHAM-PSIONSHIP COURSE HAD A PROTECTIVE CLAUSE THAT STATED THE OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO VOTE, 51% PLUS TO RELEASE ANY OPEN SPACE FOR BUILDING. TRACT 2137 2283. WHEN D.R. HORTON WANTED TO BUILD THE 95 HOMES, THE CITY COUNCIL REQUESTED THAT A VOTE BE TAKEN OF THE ORIGINAL TRACT 2137 AND THE OTHER TRACK (2283) THAT WOULD BE AFFECTED BY BUILDING 95 HOMES AMENDMENT TO DECLARATION WAS PREPARED (ASKING A ONE TIME VOTE TO RELEASE OPEN SPACE FOR BUILDING 95 HOMES. (POSSIBLY FROM THE LAW SUIT THAT WAS FILED BY THE PRESERVATION SOCIETY) THE BUILDER, (KOSMONT) PAID FOR THE MAILING AND WHEN NOT, ENOUGH VOTES WERE RETURNED, A COMMITTEE WAS FORMED. WE WENT TO HOMEOWNERS IN BOTH TRACTS 2137 & TRACT 2283 THAT HAD NOT RESPONDED VIA MAIL. 1111E HAD A NOTARY WITH US. WHEN ALL VOTES WERE IN, THERE WERE MORE THAN 51% GIVING CONSENT TO RELEASE OPEN SPACE TO BUILDTHE95 HOMES.. THOSE DOCUMENTS WERE SENT TO KOSMONT'S ATTORNEY FOR RECORDING ON EACH RESIDENTS PROPERTY. THE CITY THEN APPROVED THE BUILDING OF THE 95 HOMES. NONE OF THE EXECUTIVE COURSE OWNERS COULD VOTE BUT WE ENDURED SEVERAL MONTHS OF GRADING WHERE MORE THAN 4 FEET OF DIRT WAS ADDED TO THE EXECUTIVE COURSE BEHIND OUR HOMES. Picture was submitted to the Arch. Committee, ONE ATTACHED. THE DECLARATION CLAUSE APPEARS NOT TO HAVE BEEN PLACED ON OTHER TRACTS. IT IS OUR OPINION THAT IT WAS MEARLY A TYPO THAT IT WAS LEFT OFF THE DEED RESTRCTIONS WHEN IT WAS RECORDED. THERE COULD BE A PROBLEM, AS THE 87 HOUSES IN THE HOA COUL❑ VOTE EITHER FOR OR AGAINST RELEASING OPEN SPACE IF THEY LITIGATE THEIR RIGHTS IN A COURT. (Attachment) IF THIS IS NOT CLARIFIED THE OTHER 9 HOLES ON THE CHAMPIONSHIP COURSE COULD FACE THE SAME REQUEST FOR A ZONE CHANGE, LEAVING ONLY A 9 HOLE COURSE, THUS CONTINUING THE ECONOMIC DOWNSIDE OF OUR AREA. 8. ONE OTHER PROBLEM THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE WHEN THEY VOTE❑ TO ADD THE HORTON HOMES, THE BUILDER HAD REPRESENTED THE GOLF COURSES WOULD REMAIN IN A CONSERVATION ENTITY IN PERPUTUITY. THE CITY ATTORNEY WOULD NOT LET THAT CLAUSE TO BE RECORDED IN THE CITY'S ORDINANCE 1068. HOMEOWNERS WERE NEVER TOLD ABOUT THIS . THUS IF YOU GET COPLAINTS THIS IS ONE REASON WHY PEOPLE ARE UPSET. WE HAD A MEETING WITH THE CITY MANAGER ABOUT THIS. OUR HOME OWNERS ARE VERY UPSET THAT THIS PROJECT HAS DRAGGED ON FOR ALMOST 4 YEARS. THEY ARE REALLY UPSET THAT THERE WERE SEVERAL ARCHITECTURAL COMMISSION MEETINGS WHERE MANY OBJECTIONS WERE MADE BUT VERY FEW WERE ADDRESSED. WE HOPE YOU HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THEM. THEY ARE ALSO UPSET THAT THE CITY HOSTE❑ A FINAL ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ON 7-25-2017 WHILE MOST RESIDENTS WERE OUT OF TOWN AND THEIR WAS NO NOTICE TO THEM THAT A MEETING WAS BEING HELD. THE CITY PROMISED NO MORE MEETINGS UNTIL THE FALL AFTER THE MAY MEETING. NOW FOR MORE OBJECTIONS: 1. POWER POINT OBJECTIONS REGARDING THE RETAINING AREAS WERE GIVEN TO THE ARCH. COMMITTEE, LOSS OF 10 PER CENT TO PROPERTY VALUES IF YOU HOME IS NEXT TO ONE HEALTH HAZARDS ETC. (POWER POINT INCLUDED.) THIS SYSTEM IS TO DRAIN ON IT'S ON TO THE STREETS SURROUNDING THE PROJECT. INTERESTING THAT THE BIG ONE BEHIN❑ OKLAHOMA/CALIFORNIA IS TWO FEET DEEPER THAN THE ROAD IT IS TO DRAIN TO ON KENTUCKY. I HAVE PERSONALLY ASKED PLANNING AN❑ ENGINEERING ABOUT THIS AT LEAST 3 TIMES AND RECEIVED NO ANSWER. NO RESPONSE FROM ARCH. COMMITTEE EITHER. THE CITY THOUGHTS ARE THAT WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF LATER. THE RESIDENTS NEED TO KNOW WHAT 15 HAPPENING. 2. ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE ASKED THE ARCHITECT THAT DESIGNED THE PROJECT TO MEET WITH EACH AND EVERY HOMEOWNER, ALONG WITH THE LANDSCAPING ARCHITECT. WE PUT THEIR PHONE NUMBERS ON OUR WEB SITE SO OUR HOMEOWNERS COULD CONTACT THEM. WE WERE THEN ASKED TO REMOVE THEIR PHONE NUMBERS AS THEY SAID THEY DID NOT GET PAID UNTIL THE PROJECT WAS APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. WHAT IF YOU LIVED NEXT TO A HOME THAT WILL HAVE A SIX-FOOT WALL 8 FEET FROM YOUR PROPERTY AND THEN A 24 FOOT ROAD WITH A CONDO BEHIND YOUR HOUSE? YOU ALSO HAVE A 15% UP SLOPE. YOU WILL HAVE NO VIEWS. NOISE WILL BE A PROBLEM. FEDEX AND UPS DRIVE DOWN THE REGULAR STREET IN FRONT OF OUR HOUSESAT LEAST 4 OR 5 TIMES EACH. THE HOUSE SHAKES. THE TRASH TRUCKS COME ON FRIDAY ( 3) OF THEM, SOMETIMES 4 OF THEM, PLUS THE STREET SWEEPER. SO NOW YOU WILL GET IT ON BOTH SIDES. ALL OUR BEDROOMS FACE THE OLD EXECUTIVE GOLF COURSE. NO SLEEPING IN AS THEY START AT 6 AM. OBJECTION TO THE TRAFFIC REPORT: WE ARE ASKING FOR A NEW TRAFFIC STUDY. WHEN THE CURRENT ONE WAS DONE, IT WAS A WEEK DAY AND LEFT UP FOR ONLY ONE DAY. THEY SHOULD ALSO MEASURE THE TRAFFIC FROM THE 100 SHORT TERM RENTALS THAT HAPPEN FOR THE TENNIS TOURNAMENT AND COACHELLA AND COUNTRY MUSIC FESTIVALES AND WEEKENDS. TRAFFIC BETWEEN 8 AND 9 AM IS VERY BUSY. WE HAVE A FEEDER ROAD COMING FROM OASIS CC. AND DUMPS OUT TO CALIFORNIA. IF YOU ARE WAITING ON FRED WARING TO TURN LEFT OR RIGHT, YOU USU.ALY MUST WAIT THROUGH 2 SIGNALS. PEOPLE CUT OVER FROM HOVELY, WASHINGTON AND CARS FROM THE EAST TAKE THIS SHORT CUT DOWN CALIFORNIA TO AVOID BUSYIER STREETS. I SENT RYAN STEN DELL AN EMAIL THE ❑AY THEY WERE MEASURING TRAFFIC ❑N CALIFORNIA/KENTUCKY ETC. (Attachment) WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT ThE LITTLE TIME THE STUDY WAS SET UP. 3. WE OBJECT TO THE MITIGATION OF WILD LIFE. PERSONALLY SENT YOU A POWER POINT PRESENTATION ON OUR WILD LIFE ON THE OLD EXECUTIVE COURSE. THESE BIRDS AND GEESE HAVE BEEN COMING HERE SINCE 1983 WHEN WE MOVED HERE. THE DEVELOPER IS PLANNING ON TEARING OUT THE EXISTING TREES ON ON THE COURSE AND THUS DESTROYING THEIR HABITAT. NO AMOUNT OF MONEY PAID TO:A CONSERVATION GROUP 15 WORTH LOOSING THE WILD LIFE. OUR ECO- SYSTEM WILL ❑ISAPPEAR AND WILL DISRUPT THE OWLS, BLACK BIRDS AND HAWKS FOR CONTROLING THE RODENT PROBLEM. EMOTIONAL FACTOR: SO MANY OF US ARE IN OUR 60'S, 70'S 80'S, AND 90'S. WE BOUGHT OUR VIEW HOMES 25 TO 30 YEARS AGO BECAUSE OF THE VIEW, THE PEACE AND QUIET, THE WILD LIFE, ETC. MOST OF US ARE ON FIXED INCOMESL WE ARE TOO OLD TO SELL AND MOVE. WE JUST DO NOT WANT OUR UUEESYTLE TO GO AWAY. WE DO NOT NEED TRAFFIC BEHIND OUR HOMES, LIGHT THAT WILL TAKE AWAY OUR NIGHT SKY, NOISE WILL BE A VERY BIG FACTOR. IF THE CITY WANTS OUR PROBLEMS TO GO AWAY FIND SOMEOTIER WAY TO KEEP OUR OPEN SPACE. DENY THIS ZONE CHANGE! THIS PROJECT 15 FOR PURE GREED. JUST FOLLOW THE MONEY. THE CITY IS SUPPOSED TO PROJECT US. (:)c) L era "701 r 'hie-- M DoserI 0* *WPMIw AMICISON Ls sssXll -filii: 'f UNE mains; othot t6o undaTeismed, iL ll&L OttrIPPMENT CO., a corporation, mires melled the " Dealavent", it the om *r of that CertR.in real property in We County of liver- 41i4, wits of California, described as: Lots Nos. 73, 09, 261, 405 sad 453 its '7 act 2137 as shover, by ,nay un rtie !rs Fre311. 41 pzgem 29, to 3 both ,inc.1t- sir, recorder to RJ.Jem; n Co,rriLy. Cal, rnrnia. That Asilerant having aubd.vidaa Tract 2131 shown kV IMP aforesaid of record in the offf a of the Recorder, of said County, does hereby certify and declare that it has er blisk,d, and does hereby establish, a general plan fat the improvement and development of said Tract , and does hereby establish conditions, xeatrictions and covenants upon and subject )ro vhich 411 of the restricted lots, and por- tions thereof, shr' i be improved t.y It ■• eetrh rwnex , each and all of witch shall W covenento running with each of sa`d restrict A lots and for this benefit of each owner of, or Lome of an undivided interest of any lot within said Tract and shall inure and pees with each and every lot of irri.rl , and shall apply to and bind the respective euocesisoce iu ircarest of the present ovner thereof, and are imposed on each restr ctad lot as a servitude in f vor _1- s ' W *4f0V Waibtiltitt. is 'A# 4oninawt bane- VP; taakiadiets ill be *afowawaitte a a Ln a t t,3 tiiMil id10, evi oaob of Lhart, by thss then spasm nr Ste„ ioitAea of lotto**, of as ether lob ow Lott, or inagoraata tbor'+ in, in maid zle , to att. 1?Alt xtstrleted iota shot/ be Jaa4 solely for the pawpaw of sei.araii iog n golf court* sad !such 1 to reasoaabli relaxed thereto. No err# tursa she1!, Cie peratittod the'een ezeept elmb houses, pro -straps, equipment ltrrage ahevxs, walla, pumps, and 34har improve.ents reaso shly :slated to tf oueration of a golf course, r, Ttia above restrictions shall he binding on ali parties or persons claLning uw er it until Jahuery 1, 11i2., et which tiwe ft will oe suGo- uaticaliy extended for successive periods of five (5) years; provided, however, that much re- ►stzictionc may be sup p1emented,coanged or reJc ioded at any time after January 1, 1992, by the owners of fifty-one per cant (51%) cf the number of residential lots in Trect 2137 evidence by an instru- ment in vr'_ ring executed by said owners in the oennex provided by law for, rho ccxiuuyance of real property, and duly recorded in the office of the County Recorder aforesaid, and upon such recorda- tion shall be valid and binding upr*n e11 persons. Div WITN;iSS lil ri lil , the uitdersig:.ed has caused -2- • oft ,iviar417,:Lkp_ • pp anae►asd lir Its duty euttwpriaAd olfi- cult Wall AL_ iota_ �r ryl�.i_s i. . ► Want iwvirLoRtrz A Corpri L op •- -. "2g,2 La Cgu, r" STATIC or CALI{{Y9jimrA cakar d .4.144,1.r. before r. the under eg,rd., a M ._ per. In M d fer�ui i ' atS Spin, peraaaaCy apr.arr.! 7aln10}1� H. O'irrat. wwwn to Rig N �yr,,e�-,ice-L PrmJrnr. _ItUh�.► rtek2 gorY._.Y- 1iea•.!e:ca•r.hr kiltrr:rry ■f tie eve ipsaof l era akf Ott . irTtiw lretremon6 Iesarw k+ s.e is his +lte, '+kf.it !€.2bni est r.n WW1 ar eke r rperrNis.! r<<r•fn a;,A1t. esv are asr'r 'a:..i - th.+. r•:^F ecepos::es eAmi Owl +rl Irfn inNr1.. mind enermeame IS J, y'lars w r rgelotlsn fki lwrd o dt•r.. "ITN E'i4anYFyy ISeqb ':a r ee ^d 'r.:sisi 1 � . }'wLik im end far old Cennitfr---- DI ft Der eCiZt ixe.A trupecleci fi,4-p.e L LQ Mae At Devefarment .o. E Eivy. 33 n P& % i esri, 00.(ti $\iq 4 • is _1 •.rr PART R, GERrRAL PROMS/DNS rt"1 a--1. TEARS, h11 of The Restr1.cti pne, CDndltionD, Covenants and Agreements shall affect all of the Lots of said Tract. Said Restrictions, Conditions and Covenants shall be binding on all parties and all persons claiming under them until January 1, 1498, at which time they shall be automatically extended Tin' sunceseive tariods of five years, provided, nowevcre that such Reetrictionap Con- ditions, Covenants and Agreements, or any of the;,rsy be supplemented, Changed or rescinded in any or all Particulars at any time after Sammy1, 1g4$ by the owners of Si pernt of the dUmoer or Uote in saio Tract, evidenced by ae Instrument In writing executed say the said owners In the scanner provided by 1awihr the conveyance of real property, and duly recorded in the Ot£ioe or the Re- corder afureaaid, and upon Such reoordation shall be ar valid and bindin¢ upon the Sellers and Owners or the sad Lots in said Tract, and upon cll.;other persons, a--2, ENFORCEMENT, If the Part?ea hereto, or their succeasorrs shall violate or attempt to violate any of the Covenants hereinbefare xanasry 1, 1998. or during any of the extended porioda Tor which they are in force, it shall be lawful for any person, owning any Lot subject thereto to Prosecute any proceedings at law or in eouity against the person or nersone violating or attempting to'violate any such covenants, or either to prevent him or them from no doing or to recover dasaagea or other dues for such violation, B-3, SUBORDINATION, It is further provided that a breach of any of the conditions contained herein ar any re retry by reason of such breach s Ether: not dafeat ornerier Invalid the lien of any taortgage'or Peel of Trust made in !Ivoo faith and for value - as to said pre- t mines or any part thereof, but Bald Conditions shall bs binding upon Fnd effective m title thereto is an �a..nat any owner or said premises ►chase 4oired by foreclosure, Trustee a Sale or otherwise. 8»4, SE ERABILIT:', Invalidation of any one or more of these covenants tw Judgment or Cozrt Order shall 1n no affect any of the other pro- visions which shall remain in full force and effect. In rdtnesa whereof, the undersigned has caused this Declaration to be executed by its duly authorised orfioers this day of t� ' /47.v -4- PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLnB, INC. BY: An open -space easement is an instrument whereby the owner relinquishes to the public the right to construct improvements upon the land, effectively preserving for public use or enjoyment the natural or scenic character of the open -space land. (See Gov. Code, 51051.)" (Paull v. California Coastal Com. (1986) 178 Cal.ADD.3d 544. 548, fn. 2 [223 Cal. Rotr. 7921.) 1. The city/county is the holder of the easement (duh). 2. When such an easement is created as part of a zoning regime, it doesn't give the average citizen any rights to a permanent easement. 3. However, voters might be able to limit the right of the city, to relinquish such easements. Thus, in County of San Mateo Coastal Landowners v. County of San Mateo, a group of owners seeking to develop their property sued to overtum a referendum which required any relinquishment of an open space easement by the city to be subject to voter approval. In that case, the court held that such a limitation on the city's right to relinquish its open space easement was a valid subject for referendum (in other words, voters could enact a rule limiting the city's right to relinquish open space easements...) PART A. N.Fe rP.AL-ROVISIONS n--1. TE?Me. C3 CO All or The Restrictions, Conditional. CDveranta and Agreements shall arrect all or the Lots or ,slid Tract. Said Restrictions, Conditions and Covenants ,hall be binding on all parties and all person claiming under these until January 1* 149$, at which time they shall he automatically extended fer seceensive reriods of five :tears, providedv rouevary that such ?ieatrictione, .:on- ditions, Covenants and Agreements, or any of the{t. rev be supplemented* changed or rescinded in any or ail spa rticulars at any time after Swim I. 19p$` by the o mera of 51 per sent of the dumber of Lets in said Tract, evidenced by en Inetrement in writing exeosted ny the said ownere in the zaannee provided by law ibr the Conveyance of real .ee,e ;,,,. and duly recorded in the Offloe or the Re- corder aforesaid, and unon high raoordateen shall be of' valid and tindine unon the Sellers and owners of the geld Lots in said Tract. and upon el1..other persona. 11-2, E'IPORCEKEUT. If the Parties hereto. or their 5ucceaaora shall violate or attempt to violate any of the Covenants hereinbefare fan-.iary 1, leg, or during any of the extended periods for which they are irf force, it shell be lawful for any person, aiming any Lot subject thereto to azrosecute any proceedings at law or In eau against the person or persons eiplatifg or attemnting to -violate any such oorenants, or either to Prevent him or them from so doing or to recover damages or other dues for such violation. B-3, SUBORDINATIQ,i, • 1 it is further provided that a breech of any or the conditions I contained herein or spy re.enty by reason of such breach shm71 not defeat orverrie ittvalid the lien of any mortgage- or Deel of Trust made in :;uoa faith and for value -es to said ore- f wises or any part thereof; but said Conditions shall be binding upon end effective egeinst ant owner of said premises xhOae title thereto is at:mired by foreclosure, Truatee'a Sale or otherwise. B-4, SEVER.BItIT . invalidation of any One or more of these aavenatts tv Judgment or Coert Order shall. in-ea:Wise affect any of the other pro- visions tonic; shall remain in full force and effect. In uitneea whereof. the undersigned has eauaed this Ueal.aratlan to be exec d by its duly authorised officers thin day of,..,, -4-- PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB, INC. SY: CORM G REQUESTED BY AND. 'MEM' RECORDED Wt.t. 70: 772C-0 Canalika Dsive Jeo.5We ere= eeero DOC a Z004-09291579 11l39I2004 06:eea Fee:746.00 Page s of 236 Racarded In Offlola3 ircoorda County of R9varclt,c Gary L. arAo 'Aerworsar, County Clerk F. Rceoreur PAFGp !ALE { Pete LOCLA ELF 2 l IGNO. I€EN T TO DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS This Amendment to DeciaraLon t7f Resfrlctions rAmendmanrj is made this 4th day of June, 2004, by. undersigned Property owners, comprising fifty-one percent (51%) of owners of residential lots in Tract 2137. rg rag RiestriZeee. On, April 7, Rom;, tee Meenal Develepreeni Co., a corporation ('t)eazr ;') executed a ciareVon o' Res''71ctions (Madam:ion ; tenth was recordeec Apr.' 12, 1eel es rrstrurnerr? No. 31032 En the C .ctia Records in tea Office 0 the Reilorde o" Rives Cae.:ay, Ste of fiforn;a_ -ree Deder8ton eels for;?; certain f+astr coons regirdere ',` a t:se o° oer'ain rest property. more particelaey described as Lots 73 199, 261, 405 an*e 493 le Tract 2137 row it PooX :, maces 29 teetigh 35 a-rc es ve, records of Riverside County. 2. (iutbPrity try W difv. Pursuant to the itrepress terms of lha Declaration, the J lapsed es of Janaarrr 1,1992. The Deciaretion further provides that, from and after January 1, 1992, the rectrictlans are renewed for successive five (5) year terms unless, at any time after January 1,1992, the owners of Bne percent (51%) or more of the number of residential lets iri Tract 2137 determine In'writing to see. '..:...,. chance c rescind the roes te;or!s con reci it tee Decierefen. ik.eeer-.;� ad:A _ There are si,,rogn y `cue hundred seve �47�3� res:c'an?'a: c ; cts `-r etc: of : rac'r 2sit 13 .ed by L` a Dec;slcai on. $y Vete sigiae.wes .e: a o, 51% cc more of tee owners of suee reeiciereal toe et Traci 2137 have ne'.erreinad .to -,oct'y end amen: the Deiteerelioe by modifying Para ep-, of se i; tieel .aefrion by maetieg s::.c, Feecesraph, the farlowe- , Provided, however, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Declaration of Restrictions, there shall be allowed on the restricted lots, the subdivision, development, construction sale/lease anala occupancy of up to 17 eingle family lots upon which residential units mac be constructed, etas is mare partEceteey p ov:rec under City of :Palm Desert Do renere of Carnmwnity Cove:Opr.r-_n; Ceee at'ovr CrZ C►4-03, T` i s, 5, 'P 04. 1 and DA 0L-"° E , lane "Prefect") as see,',. !leeect rr ey be moditec are ;5r ,i'y eppewett by tee City of Patm Desert. cosAmEl.m:$ Aprearneftt rney be €eceeee wee'eerpers. teen of tritVc' set( of eeeret c^TF c- gieei tee &i of w'7.•i sits? eceeteres ens end we acme ireVei,;,r t. (Signatures Appear an F&Hcasi,'r ages] Chicago TVe Camper/ eas eace*n ties instrnent by request as a': accorreitote- r;tee eery and res not exaerr c It der ro v ;achy and sefficlen.y or as :o its of eel up .1% the tittle to ley re& ercperty sea^ mo} be d e ribed herein. Tract 2137 - Page 1 L.:044c, .‘6=7O. £, REWESTED Sr AND lr#1 EN : OR:X° itAtL TO PDCC Development, LLC 77200 California Drive ?an Cs; , CA efle-deiaer7. c T J78 Space above IN AVENCWF' 7 .0 7. ciARATK»Z OF RSV :RBCT#JNS 77act 228Z' t 1l t912o64 weasi Foe' w.6.9a Page i of 256 Rocordod In 6FFaclal Rgeordn County of RJvarsida Gary L. arse. Aaaeaor, taact.y Rw^crr-4r:• 1 tiit1 'l iy rr fled : car cant iia au twcNc i fai This Arerernere 10 Decteeetiort of Res:r[c ens• cArieencreare) is made t +is 461 day of .one, 20.04, by ender$; rret ors,7ar y owners. com r** fi, y-one percent (51 %) o`.` owrws of residential tote ii Tract 2283. 1. acisaa': 1 of Rosud . r:s. r Warcn 5, 'ic5;i, the Ntamai Dev¢`opreent Com pity, a corporation ("Declarant') executed a Declaration of Restrictions etleclaralion") which was recorded on March 12. 1963 as instrument No. 24645 in the office of the Recorder of Riverside County, State of Caiifarnia. The Declaration sets forth certain restrictions regarding the use of certain real property, mom particularly described es Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in Tract 2283 re,oitet• 42, rages : 2 :t.re:.y 8 ;:r a~sive. recarde cr" Ryae ge y 2. Aktetoritelo Mretfv. PtrireeeTt to the express ?er'r= c. ete 0e;.y. reition. the eas'eicrions '.eased a. of January :,7992. Tee-e may be a pOr'�of: of ornited language tot the D Ctareton under paragraph 2 vint i was oantelned Wi a CereDarr on Declaration of Restsiciurrs for Traci 2'37, (the "Tract 2137 De araton). The Try 21S7 Declaration oreviees teat, from ant efbar Jarlt.sary 1, 1992, 'Me res itletio Is motel to renewed !or successive fatre (5) year teems v rdes. . at any t7irte after January 1, /992, iha OWnerS or fifty-one percent (5`: %) or mom :e number or res!dentgai' kits in Tract 2137 determined in writing to supplement, change or rescind the restrictions contained in the Tract 2137 Declaration. As of the date of this Amendment, there has been no Judicial determination that the Declaration is to be automatically renewed for successive five (5) year terms as provided in the Tract 2137 Restriction. However, In the event it is ever aetwers n C by a court of comae`.a Z ;urds6.-Con hat gh Dec'•arai.o:t Is to be r& orrned to Seel :de ?`e feeguege a` 'Ile Tract 2137 Declaraton recard`rg the aeto:+tatic renee-rva tie successive 5 year periods un.ass al. any time ate? .:anuary the owners oP ffey-orie oe er t (51%) or more o., the number of residential lots in Tract 2263 date:rne :In writing to supp'ement, change or rescqd the restrictions contWned it the DectaraVen, then fee undersigned owners want ale Decoration, as extender by such curt order, to be .modified as provided arts Amendment. Arpendroont to .,he Thant are epprox?sratetyTour leiTie'rG r,w.xeg..ntrle pm) reettVellgal fors in the portions of Tract 2283 affected by the Declaration. By their signatures hereto, mots than 51 % of the owners of such residential lots have determined to modify and amend the Declaration by modifying Paragraph 1 of said Declaration by adding to the end of such paragraph, the following: ^PrbvlCers, :'luwever. notwithrc.ndi g enfc1 % to tie cc'i?-an! contained akt is iG s9Caration of Restrictions, t'i-ere Gltabe a csrre5 on the restricted lots the setittiveicn, developmere, cortesu :ten sesPasse arrior occupancy err up rd 73 s.ir gie 'arriky Vs upon which residesi1ai bits may be Constricted, al as ite more ,par top:teiy provided under City o` Pa4n Desert Ctapartmen: ce Gomm. Deve"rop er Case Nos: C!2 44-0E, TT 3` S5, ;} 4.-41 arcs DA 04-a , the '?;o ec'r} as vice Pro,eCt may be scbse,;uenSy rno L ..ed ant aJla;Ji approved by the C'ty of po{^ 1 ese' . 4. Coiintprrarts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shah be deemed an original but all of Which shall constitute one and the same instrument, Cliizac.ti Tete Conteat'y+ e.as LNS ;S'ffv $tt•LrES Daa cr. cp.trwlf!ryi Pages; msltru tare by rece.'8$t as an eccoreenoda- t'.on only astl spas not exx..&rsed• i for tagix• Panty and stitgeietsey or aS ID its ottec;, upon the late to any tom' pto7ert°;y i of dteicrri :Neat). `�: : 2233 -'-Pap w f It ad. f .5itact rt,w• J 4-AL ' r a Y .. FORM OF OWNER.SKP: STATE OF CALIFORN A SS. COUNTY OF RAPERStDE LEGAL DESCMPTION OF OWNERS Lot 392, e Traci 2137, as shown o; t Tract 2137 filed in the office of County Recorder, Riverside County. California on December 28, 1960, 2$ Instrument 09220 AsstSSor'a'i rce Ntellber: 637 2$J1S Address: 77185ppCalifornia � D/�, �y • Palm Desert, CA 022 1 r On r >� �u p e c io. d ; 20 Sefora r. ie, .i i r r' i r. ".c (L porsorieV a p,:.earec - r4 �. pufson2 +y known to ime �o." prove E. the ort tie bas% o? sacs arrwy ev tea ': to be the pareen!ey wneae narmetim is <erei subecribeci to the within inamment end , .• ,..J fie me Let heisheP:hey executed the samo in hiafiter!Li r authorized capec tyties}, end that by hie/her/their signatura(s) on The - Instrument the parson(, or Ma entity iipor; bshatt of wh ;h the parsons) acted, e.;ccatad tho instrument WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEX) My CCtrrn;ss+0n exu,res STATE OF CA! IFORNIA. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE on ip IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions is executed, e "e::five as of the oay and yeart:Irst we -Mar', above.. OWNER(Sk Signature: .4 0-44c, Signal • } ss, } ' v • colic xi an fo- 'zie State of California imRi ANiL hWOSsec/; ;Svmnitastena taAieei NotglyNiaur - t:aN%rain Rivstikta EA L 20O before rrre, Y ,� �S i i r�:{is' (/ rsenatty appeared parr o ial anown i5 iris (,r prove to me on t e basis of sa is ac:ory evidence; lo trio ereon(s) whose :s tare} st scr 90 tote vvi,'tii xissrurr:ert and m �,.. •1 sd t:+ me :ha; rtels,Ro/ .%y executee: the same tin 6-4AertOi.a; azktcraet cap8w-'Mies), arid net i y •L.stho:. +eir sign ature(s;, or...c: nstrlrner+t ttJ personisl, vr::::y upon t.►etieff of Well L:a petsOn(s) Wild, exec. te4 the iR3trumient. W;ThESS my and anG r =ca see:. (SEAL) -ic ir. anti for nn State of Ceitiomia stycormiaeOntrims }i}- 9'.65, ($ ?odure Pax :c A.mwr, rreri -o ;'ec,eP-a,!t 1 of Res ri �.. EtaeAi IiNN tfiramRCIC Cic aryr=t.4tis - Ceitiornie 4:cfanien Courtly Tract 2137 - Ram 2 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: PDCC Development, LLC 77200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 0,�ft--.3 0.3' -7:2 1- Space above thi Doc 62it ®® 2989ES 11/19120ta4 08:00 Fee:806.00 Pogo 1 of 235 Recorded in Official Records County of Riverside Cary L. Orso Assessor, County Clerk & Recorder 11111111W1 1111 NI iiii m I!} 11111111 M 5 U I PAGE SIZE pA FGDR NOCOR $74F A R L I COPY tO G REF -AC NCNO AMENDMENT TO DECLARATIONS OF RESTRICTIONS Tract 2283 gob Atl$C This Amendment to (Declaration of Restrictions ("Amendment") is made this 4th day of June, 2004, by undersigned property owners, comprising Fifty-one percent (51 %) of owners of residential lots in Tract 2283. 1. Declaration of Restrictions. On March 6, 1963, the Mamei Development Company, a corporation ("Declarant) executed a Declaration of Restrictions ("Declaration") which was recorded on March 12, 1983 as instrument No. 24645 in the office of the Recorder of Riverside County, State of California. The Declaration sets forth certain restrictions regarding the use of certain real property, more patticulariy described es Lots 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 in Tract 2283 recorded in Book 42, pages 82 through 89 inclusive, records of Riverside County, 2. Ag>rhority to Modify. Pursuant to the express terms of the Declaration, the restrictions lapsed as of January 1,1992. There may be a portion of omitted language in the Declaration under paragraph 2 which was contained in a companion Declaration of Restrictions for Tract 2137, (the "Tract 2137 Declaration"). The Tract 2137 Declaration provides that, from and after January 1, 1992, the restrictions would be renewed for successive five (5) year terms unless, at any time after January 1,1992, the owners of Fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the number of residential Tots in Tract 2137 determined in writing to supplement, change or rescind the restrictions contained in the Tract 2137 Declaration. As of the date of this Amendment, there has been no judicial determination that the Declaration is to be automatically renewed for successive five (5) year terms as provided in the Tract 2137 Restriction. However, in the event it is ever determined by a court of competent jurisdiction that the Declaration is to be reformed to include the language of the Tract 2137 Declaration regarding the automatic renewal for successive 5 year periods unless at any time after January 1,1992, the owners of fifty-one percent (51%) or more of the number of residential lots in Tract 2283 determine in writing to supplement, change or rescind the restrictions contained in the Declaration, then the undersigned owners want the Declaration, as extended by such court order, to be modified as provided in this Amendment. 3, Amendment to the Declaration. Thera are approximately four hundred ninety-nine (499) residential lots in the portions of Tract 2283 affected by the Declaration. By their signatures hereto, more than 51% of the owners of such residential lots have determined to modify end amend the Declaration by modifying Paragraph 1 of said Declaration by adding to the end of such paragraph, the following: Provided, however, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this Declaration of Restrictions, there shall be allowed on the restricted lots the subdivision, devetopment, construction sale/lease and/or occupancy of up to 73 single family lots upon which residential units may be constructed, all as is more particularly provided under City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development Casa Nos: C12 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01, (the "Project') as such Project may be subsequently modified and finally approved by the City of Paim Desert. 4, Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same Instrument. Chicago Title Company has recorded this instrument by request as an accomrnode- tion only and has not examined it for regu• tartly and sufficiency or as to its effect upon the title to any real property that be described herein. [Signatures Appear on Following Pages] Tract 2283 - Page 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions is executed, effective as of the day and year first written above. OWNER(S): Signet Pre Signature: Ar&wr FORM OF OWNERSHIP: STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ss. COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) 11 On l� , 25�, before me, . ;I/_r.L, (.: h �a s , personally appeared �t.L�ft- r l 1 t ,. , .. •,. j : .. :. (or pro ed to on the of satisfactory evidence) to be the perso whose nametM Is ( subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that jlshelt i executed the same in Velherithtauthorized capactty(ttfay, and that byglherithi ,signature(t on the instrument the person(N•, or the entity upon behalf of which the person(4acted, executed the instrument. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OWNERS OT: Lot 398, of Tract 2283, as shown on Tract 2283 filed in the office of County Recorder, Riverside County, California an November 14, 1961, as Instrument No. 98132 Assessor Parcel No: 637-254-002 Address: 77015 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) My commission expires j 2xope, STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ss. On ] ( P 20 , before me ; INc: be the person( named) helsholt* executed the same in hi instrument the person), or the entity m i� , personally appeared .. j . 4e-—(or paved to Ise on the b sls of satisfactory evidence) rs ( Subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged tc me that slltnr r authorized capacity( and that by his/ signature(g_on the upon behalf of which the persoi acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) My commission expires (64kr(31% 2tis [Signature Page to Amendment to Deets Tract 2283 - Page 2 coo 34/c ECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: PDCC Development, LLC 77200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 suer.- .30035-37ff zC space above this 11/19/20e4 08:80A Fee:748.G Pagc 1 of 238 Recorded in Official Records County or Rivctrsido Cary L. Oroo Asseceor, County Cleric 8 Recorder M 5 u AAce SliE 1(1 A R L i AMENDMENT TO DECLARAT DNS OF RESTRICTIONS Tract 2137 on PARC 1212 COPY LONC HEFLH6 NC116 114 This Amendment to Declaration of Restrictions ("Amendment") is made this 4th day of June, 2004, by undersigned property owners, comprising fifty-one percent (51%) of owners of residential lots in Tract 2137. 1. Aeciaratien 01 Rgstrirations. On, April 7, 1961, the Marcel Development Co., a corporation ("Declarant") executed a Declaration of Restrictions ("Declaration") which was recorded on April 12, 1961 as instrument No. 31032 in the Official Records in the Office of the Recorder of Riverside County, State of California. The Declaration seta forth certain restrictions regarding the use of certain real property, more particularly described as Lots 73, 199, 261, 405 and 493 In Tract 2137 recorded In Book 41, pages 29 through 36 Inclusive, records of Riverside County. 2. Aulherlty to Mollify. Pursuant to the express terms of the Declaration, the restrictions lapsed as of January 1,1992. The Declaration further provides that, from and after January 1, 1992, the restrictions are renewed for successive five (5) year terms unless, at any time after January 1,1992, the owners of fifty-one percent (51 %) or more of the number of residential lots in Tract 2137 determine in wrtting to supplement, change or rescind the restrictions contained in the Declaration. 3. Amendment to the Declaration, There are approximately four hundred seventy (470) residential lots in the portions of Tract 2137 affected by the Declaration. By their signatures hereto, 51% or more of the owners of such residential tots in Tract 2137 have determined to modify and amend the Declaration by modifying Paragraph 1 of said Declaration by adding to the end of such paragraph, the following: Provided, however, notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained iin this Declaration of Restrictions, there shall be allowed on the restricted Tots, the subdivision, development, construction sale/lease and/or occupancy of up to 17 single family lots upon which residential units may be constructed, all as is more particularly provided under City of Palm Desert Department of Community Development Case Nos: C/2 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01, (the "Project-) as such Project may be modified and finally approved by the City of Palm Desert. 4. Counterpart. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. [Signatures Appear on Following Pages) Chicago Title Company has recorded this instrument by request as an accommoda- tion only and has not examined It for regu- Iatity and sufficiency or as to Its effect upon the title to any r0a1 property that may bo described herein. Tract 2137 - Page 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Amendment to the Declaration of Restrictions is executed, effective as of the day and year first written above. Signature: .tztAu.. r Signet Itrirricack. eset FORM OF OWNERSHIP: Hi/0 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On L 7 E J6, a 00'4, 200 6Y before me, t Pti n CiiVI,4cic.. personally appeared Lcfi� personally known to me Or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the rson(s) whose name(s) is (are) subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same In his/her/their authorized capacitY(fes), and that by hlslherltheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which The person(s) acted, executed the instrument. LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF OWNERS LOT: Lot 392, of Tract 2137, as shown on Tract 2137 filed in the office of County Recorder, Riverside County, California on December 28, 1960, as Instrument No. 109220 Assessor Parcel Number: 637-124-018 Address: 77185 California Dr Palm Desert, CA 92211 ) ) ss. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) My commission expires \O lci- 05 STATE OF CALIFORNFA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE • On &' 41-f> c:ajna to be the person(s) w ) ) ss. it ry Pu lc in and for the State of California ERIN ANN WOMAcX ComrelsWen o 133410R1 Notary Public - Ceafe mlo Rive/Wide County *Carrot Etq>i r Oa to , 200a' before me, tf 1 ilk 1 \ ti rsonally appeared personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) ose nbme(s) is (ars) subscribed to the within Instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(Ies), and that by hisfherltheir signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. (SEAL) My commission expires 1 i-0. �r►/alaPIL. 6tic in and for the State of California [Signature Page to Amendment fa Declaration of Restrict! ERIN ANN aWOi+tACr{ Commission 6 133eDa9 j( Notary Pub& • California Riverside County d My Corm E> s c tfl. c�06 j► Tract 2137 - Page 2 n SAFETY OF DETENTION AND RETENTION PONDS By Jonathan E. Jones, James Guo, Ben Urbonas, Rachel Pittinger Jonathan Jones, P.E., is CEO of Wright Water Engineers inc. in Denver, CO. James Guo, Ph.D., P.E., is a professor in the University of Colorado's Civil Engineering Department. Ben Urbonas, P. E., is manager of the Master Planning Program for the Urban Drainage & Flood Control District in Denver, CO. Rachel Pittinger is a project engineer with Wright Water Engineers in Denver. Introduction Urban stormwater retention and detention ponds are widely used in the United States. Retention ponds, also commonly called wet ponds, refer to facilities that maintain a permanent pool, while detention ponds, often called dry ponds. contain water only in the aftermath of runoff events. Although retention and detention ponds can be effective for stormwater management and flood control, they can also pose risks to public health, safety, and welfare. Urban storm drainage system planners, designers, facility owners, maintenance staff, and municipalities, Including their elected officials and governing bodies, must be aware of such risks and insist on the use of recommended techniques to minimize them. Licensed professional engineers should be especially concerned about the risks that their designs may pose and be knowledgeable of design approaches that reduce such risks, given that their paramount responsibility as licensed professionals is to protect public health, safety, and welfare. The purposes of this article are to • review safety hazards that can be associated with retention/detention ponds; • discuss techniques that can be used to reduce the risk of such hazards; and • review representative pond safety recommendations and guidance from municipalities, state and federal governments, professional societies, and the general stormwater literature. Although the focus of the article is on wet and dry ponds. many of the issues and recommendations presented here apply to other stormwater facilities, such as best management practices (BMPs), long underground pipes, and culverts (see the discussion of this topic later in the article). Conceptual designs of a typical wet pond and dry pond are provided in Figures 1 and 2, respectively. Photographs 1 and 2 show examples of typical facilities. Photo 1: Typical retention pond Photo 2: Typical detention pond Overview Unsafe conditions can occur under both dry and wet weather conditions. These range from readily apparent problems such as outlet pipes that are open (unprotected with trash/safety racks) to less obvious concerns such as outflow pipes that are subject to overwhelming hydrostatic forces due to high headwater depths. A complicating factor is that children are often attracted to stormwater facilities, and this poses special design challenges and risks. For instance, the authors are aware of a case where a dry pond in an office park had a rapid rise, and a child playing in the pond was apparently knocked down by jet flows from an inlet pipe, tumbled by vortex flows, and ultimately dragged into an unprotected outlet pipe by suction forces. These forces were not visible (apparent) when the water depth in the pond covered the pipe entrances and outlet. Although it is not feasible to anticipate every public safety risk, many scenarios are foreseeable and can be accounted for during design. Pond safety issues that do not involve drowning must also be considered. For example, embankment slopes that are too steep can be hazardous to the public and maintenance staff (such as those operating lawnmowers). Another example is high wingwalls or other vertical structures. In the past few years, a serious public health concern that has emerged is related to ponds that create mosquito -breeding habitat due to shallow and stagnant standing water, thus increasing the risk of West Nile virus to the adjacent community. Specific Safety Deficiencies The authors have observed the following safety deficiencies in storage facilities: • Outlets are open and unprotected, they lack trash/safety racks, the racks have openings large enough to pose a danger to the public, and/or the racks are too close to the outlet to provide sufficiently slow flow velocities that will not impinge a person against them. • Adjacent land uses are incompatible with storage facilities and few, if any, steps have been taken to minimize obvious risks. For example, a nursery school playground without a fence was observed immediately next to a retention pond that had a high concrete wall along one side without a suitable railing. • The public is effectively invited to spend time near storage facilities because they are located in parks, along bike trails, next to playgrounds, etc., yet the designers fail to recognize that frequent use will occur, and public safety has clearly not been a specific design objective. • Education of community residents, office and industrial park employees, users of multipurpose recreational facilities; etc., regarding pond hazards is not provided. Signs warning the public of rapidly rising floodwaters and associated danger are not posted. • 5ideslopes of the facility are excessively steep or vertical without suitable safety rails. As a result, it would be very difficult for someone to get out of the pond when water levels are rising. • 5ideslopes within the pond's permanent pool are too steep, and/or ponds lack "safety benches" around their perimeter. • Pond inflow and outflow pipes are directly across from and in close proximity to one another. In this case, a person can be knocked over by the impulse forces (momentum) of inflows and then sucked into and/or pinned against the outlet structure. • Pond depths increase very rapidly, and inflow/outflow pipes are quickly inundated and not visible. • Hydraulic structures are designed and constructed in a manner that makes them hazardous. For example, steel bars on grates are not beveled, rounded, or covered, but have sharp ends. Bolts have jagged, exposed ends. Gaps between steel bars and concrete walls are too wide. Railings either are not used where they should be or are improperly designed. Ponds have a "hard edge" appearance, such as a block or cobblestone vertical wall, immediately adjacent to the water surface drop into a pond that has steep sideslopes, so a person who falls in cannot get out without having to swim. A variety of problems with spillways have been observed. For example, spillways are undersized. Dams and embankments are not designed to withstand overtopping forces during floods larger than they were designed to detain, despite the presence of homes and businesses in the "dam break" floodplain downstream. This is often the result of designers assessing embankment behavior for the design event, such as the 50-year storm or the 100-year storm, but failing to recognize that larger events can and do occur, and that the consequences of such events have to be considered. Inadequate maintenance and monitoring occur, thus leaving the facilities unable to function as designed or intended. For example, when pond outlet structures are fully or partially blocked with debris, the risk of embankment overtopping and failure increases. Orifices in riser pipes that are used to gradually "bleed down" a water -quality design storm typically have small diameters, which leaves them vulnerable to plugging by trash, debris, sediment, algae, etc., unless frequently inspected and maintained. This can lead to prolonged pooling of shallow, stagnant water, which sets the stage for mosquitoes and, potentially, West Nile virus. • Other drainage facilities adjacent to the pond (designed at the same time as the pond) are unsafe, such as channels, drop structures, energy dissipaters, and culverts. The key to reducing the observations described above is careful consideration of risks in the design phase, coupled with regular inspection and maintenance of the pond to ensure that the facility is functioning as intended and that unforeseen hazards have not been created. Desiun and Operational Techniques to Reduce Risks The following risk -reduction techniques are recommended (see Photographs 3-10 for examples): taiggiadosmilfr Photo 3: Detention pond outlet with trash/safety racks • Photo 5: Wetland vegetation in pond bottom promotes water -quality enhancement and tends to discourage public access Photo 4: Detention pond with safe outlet, placed midpond, with mild sideslopes and good visibility from office building Photo 6: Limit the use of vertical walls, have mild sideslopes above and below walls, and use railings where appropriate. Photo 7: Retention pond with various safety provisions, including mild sideslopes and shallow water around full pond perimeter Photo 9: There is widespread recognition of public hazards associated with urban -area impoundments and attempts to limit liability. Photo 8: Fences have pros and cons as a safety measure; in general, do not rely exclusively on fencing for safety. Photo 10: Trash/safety rack on drop inlet pipe at wet pond 1, Inform members of the pond design team that promoting public safety is an essential design objective. Raise the subject regularly while the design is progressing. Educate designers to understand that safety can be addressed without significantly increasing costs or disrupting hydraulic function. 2. After a conceptual or preliminary design for the facility has been prepared, review it with the facility owner, municipality, state staff concerned with dam safety (if relevant), and parties charged with its song -term operation/maintenance for potential safety issues. Modify, as necessary, to reduce risks to the public. Pay particular attention to risks to unattended children. Engineers are advised to design storage facilities in concert with a landscape architect, who will often have excellent suggestions for promoting safety (along with techniques to enhance appearance and maintenance). 3. Outlets pose particular risks and merit special attention. Do not use open, unprotected pipes as outlets. Instead, integrate the outlet pipe into an outlet structure that has smaller openings, and/or utilize a sloping trash/safety rack at the pipe entrance. The rack should have a surface area that is many times larger than the surface area of the outlet pipe to reduce entrance velocities (which is necessary to minimize the risk of a person being pinned against the rack) and to ensure that if debris is a factor, at least some of the surface area of the rack will be open during flooding to enable the pond to drain. The Urban Drainage and Flood Control District in Denver, CO, has prepared detailed minimum design guidance for pond outlet racks. The rack should be sloped at 3H:IV or milder. A clear opening at the bottom of 9 to 12 inches will permit small debris at lower flows to go through. The bars on the face of the rack should be spaced to provide 4- to 5-inch dear openings between them. Transverse support bars should be minimized, but they are essential for structural support under heavy hydraulic loads and will enable a person to climb up the rack. 4. When feasible, place the outlet away from areas of heavy public use such as playgrounds, parks, and schoolyards. Screen the outlet so that the public will not be "drawn" to it. Thick shrubs, grading techniques, and aesthetic fencing or railing can be useful in this regard. Ensure that embankment sideslopes adjacent to the outlet structure are not too steep to enable people to scramble away from the structure as pond waters are rising. 5. Grade the overall site with safety in mind. For example, provide mild sideslopes leading to and within the pond and minimize the use of vertical walls. Use safety railings when vertical walls or overly steep slopes are used. 6. Integrate a safety ledge (also referred to as a safety bench) around the perimeter of the permanent pool of a pond. Fortunately, this recommendation is consistent with another technique related to stormwater-quality enhancement: integrating a littoral zone of emergent vegetation around the pond perimeter. Integrating a safety bench with emergent vegetation will discourage people from wading into the pond. This approach can also create wildlife habitat and provide an attractive natural shoreline. 7. Owners are advised to periodically observe the facility to ascertain how the public interacts with it. Owners should also consider the comments received from adjoining property owners. For example, if children are skateboarding on concrete pans in the bottom of a dry basin, they should be told not to do this and warned of the hazard. Signs that say "No Skateboarding" may be helpful, although it may also be necessary to create a rough surface to make skating difficult. For facilities that are on private property, it is often feasible to have them included on security watches. Security staff should be instructed to pay particular attention to them during runoff events. 8. Community education can be a valuable tool. Use signs that warn of rapidly rising floodwater and educational, interpretative signs that explain how the stormwater storage facilities work. Urge local radio and television stations to include short public service announcements that emphasize the hazards posed by storm drainage facilities. Educate schoolchildren to these risks. Distribute flyers. Inform homeowner associations and property owner associations (for commercial areas) of these risks. Ponds are often located near public facilities such as recreation centers, libraries, and fire stations. Staff can be asked to observe the storage facility during dry and wet weather conditions and to identify potential hazards. Similarly, facilities in office parks and industrial complexes are often visible to workers, and they can be asked to identify potential hazards. 9. Attempt to separate certain land uses, such as preschools. from ponds or incorporate obstacles that will assuredly prevent access. 10. Separate inflow and outflow pipes by long distances and ensure that the pipes are not directly across from each other. This will avoid the creation of a continuous flow stream (current), which poses special dangers for the public. If this is not feasible, use an energy dissipater at the outlet where it discharges into the detention facility. 11. Regularly inspect and maintain the detention facility. Anticipate potential problems. Look at the impoundment from the perspective of someone who knows nothing about the risks that such facilities pose. Look for potential hazards and address them. 12. Recognize that detention facility dams can be hazardous and use care in their design. Ensure that all aspects of dam safety, ranging from upstream and downstream sideslopes to spillway adequacy to behavior of the pond during overtopping, are addressed. In particular; acknowledge that floods larger than the 100-year event can and will occur, and determine how the dam will behave under such conditions. If the dam is anticipated to fail during extreme floods, analyze the downstream impact of such failure. 13. Take steps to eliminate shallow, shallow -stagnant water in the bottom of "dry" basins that can be conducive to mosquito breeding. For example, determine maximum groundwater table elevations prior to design. Do not use outlet structure designs that are subject to plugging. Consider the use of gravity underdrains. Because mosquitoes generally require a stable, shallow, and stagnant water surface for at least three days to reproduce, design ponds to drain the water -quality design storm in less than 72 hours and use fountains or aerators in wet ponds to induce waves. Over the past few years. there have been many articles in stormwater literature about mosquito control, and readers are urged to become familiar with this subject and to address it during design and operations/maintenance. 14. The question of whether to construct fences around detention facilities is complicated, with arguments both for and against the practice. Ultimately, the decision should be site -specific and there should be a good rationale for whatever decision is made. Fences certainly discourage some people from accessing ponds. Fences lend themselves to the installation of warning signs. Provided that fencing materials are carefully selected and well maintained, fences can be aesthetic. On the other hand, many children or youths will view crossing a fence as a worthy and exciting challenge. The authors have observed many unattractive, poorly maintained fences that are eyesores. !t often seems to be the case that ponds surrounded by fences are not as well maintained as those that are in the open and more visible. Ironically, if a situation does occur involving public safety: reaching the person who requires assistance will be impeded by a fence. If the safety issues are addressed using many of the other techniques described in this article, it should not be necessary to fence the facility. Isolated lengths of fence can be desirable, provided that they are attractive and properly integrated into the overall site plan (again, this emphasizes the value in engineers working closely with landscape architects during design). For example, it can be valuable to include a fence at the top of a steep slope to discourage access. 15. Concrete pans in pond bottoms should be designed to make them less attractive for skateboarding, such as finishing the concrete with a rough texture and/or narrow V-shaped surface. 16. Reduce the number of small, onsite ponds that are used in new residential and commercial developments by appropriate drainage master planning, minimizing directly connected impervious area, using low -impact development measures, and emphasizing larger, regional storage facilities. It should not be necessary for every new convenience store, gas station, and fast food outlet to have its own dry detention pond, as this needlessly compounds public risks and creates other problems. Safety Racks at Stormwater-Quality BMPs. Lona Underaround Pipes. and Culverts Safety (trash) racks should often be integrated into the outlet structures for BMPs such as wetlands and swales. Although the primary focus of such facilities is water -quality enhancement, designers must concurrently protect public safety. The use of trash/safety racks at inlets to culverts and long underground pipes should be considered on a case -by -case basis. While there is a sound argument for the use of racks for safety reasons, field experience has shown that when the culvert is needed the most —that is, during heavy runoff —trash racks often become clogged and the culvert is rendered ineffective. A general rule of thumb is that a trash/safety rack will not be needed if one can clearly "see daylight" from one side of the culvert to the other, if the culvert is of sufficient size to pass a 48-inch-diameter object, and if the outlet is not likely to trap or injure a person. By contrast, at entrances to longer culverts and long underground pipes and for culverts not meeting the above -stated tests, a trash/safety rack is necessary (Urban Drainage and Flood Control District 2001). Conclusion Public safety must be carefully accounted for when planning, designing, and maintaining urban stormwater detention and retention facilities, BMPs, culverts, and other facilities. Failure to properly address these risks could leave all parties involved with their ownership, design, and maintenance subject to legal liability in the event of injury or death. The potential risks are numerous and significant, but they can be managed. Indeed, the great paradox of designing safe stormwater detention and retention facilities is that if they are attractive, interesting, well maintained, and "inviting," they will be regularly used by people of all ages, and this will promote public safety. Palm Desert Country Club Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2016/Page 7 DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this initial evaluation: ❑ I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ❑ I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an 'ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact on the environment, but at least one effect 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date City of Palm Desert Printed Name For City of Palm Desert Palm Desert Country Club Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration September 2016/Page 8 Environmental Checklist and Discussion: The following checklist evaluates the proposed project's potential adverse impacts. For those environmental topics for which a potential adverse impact may exist, a discussion of the existing site environment related to the topic is presented followed by an analysis of the project's potential adverse impacts. When the project does not have any potential for adverse impacts for an environmental topic, the reasons why there are no potential adverse impacts are described. 1. AESTHETICS -- Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Potentially Significant Impact 0 Less Than Less Than Significant Significant with Mitigation Impact Incorporation No Impact El 0 0 a) Less than Significant Impact. The project site involves a decommissioned nine -hole executive golf course that is divided into three areas of former fairways and greens within the existing Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC). For the purpose of this project, the three golf course areas are identified as Parcels "A", "B", and "C" respectively, These separate parcels are located within relatively close proximity of each other in a south-central portion of the country club. The existing interior streets of the country club follow a curvilinear layout design that frames the placement and orientation of existing homes, as well as the extents of the former executive golf course. Specifically, Parcel "A" encompasses a decommissioned area of approximately 13.56 acres surrounded by existing single-family homes facing Oklahoma Avenue to the west and north; Tennessee Avenue to the east; and Kentucky Avenue, Oregon Circle, and California Avenue to the south. Parcel "B" involves approximately 6. 1 5 acres surrounded by existing single-family homes that face Kentucky Avenue to the west and north; Tennessee Avenue to the east and California Drive to the south. Parcel "C" involves approximately 9.74 acres surrounded by existing homes facing Colorado Street and New Mexico Drive to the north; California Avenue to the east; Indiana Avenue to the south; and Tennessee Avenue and Utah Circle to the west. The adjoining residential uses on the east side of Parcel "C", along California Drive, include Villas on the Green, which consist of 76 age -restricted (55 plus age) rental dwelling units configured in two-story buildings. The current visual character of the project parcels is distinguished by the remaining conditions of the former golf course fairways and greens. These areas are now characterized by gentle mounds and slopes with scattered mature trees. Portions of concrete paths also remain on -site. The discontinuance of the golf course resulted in a reduction in the landscape maintenance. Moreover, the recent statewide and local water -use restrictions have required operators and home owners to substantially reduce water irrigation use, resulting in the current dry or brown lawn conditions that visually differ from the active green areas in the Country Club. The perimeter of each project area is adjoined by the rear yards of neighboring homes. These individual limits are distinguished by varying physical demarcations, including metal fences and garden walls. Some homes lack a physical rear yard boundary. The placement of existing homes is generally elevated in relation to former golf course. As a result, existing residents have limited visual obstructions of the decommissioned golf course from their rear yards. r aJ LA 0 L) W u u ❑ cL W rstendell@cityofpal andesert.org Mon 2/1/00.016 8:42 AM To: gourdpowerpmsn.com <gourdpowerannsn.com>; I'm not sure, I know they did several locations but our traffic folks will review the dacs when they are presented. if they are insufficient we will make that comment. ht!ps:I/outlook.live.comlowal7viewmodel=ReadMessageltem&item ID=AQMkADAWATIWMTAWAC4wMAEOLWRIZD1tMDACLTAWCgBGAAADTDukWZK3tkKRH5%2BGSOgM%2FAcAnaWEXQjd4kGMM4, .. ; 720C, Caii;ur July 21, 2004 Palm Desert Pf1(rte 7' m j Fr'ir F=x,i' P C eon our Improvement, Cie R.enova yen; and -' ieleieaee Peeijeat n UPDATE E Dear PDCC Resident: • The past few months have iseen a busy and exciting time for our proposed golf course improvement, clubho renovation, and residential project, and we. want to keep you updated on the project's status and activities. it also come to our attention that there may be some confusion and misinformation circulating about certain asp: of the project and we hope to set the facts straight with this communication. The following information provisoes answers to the most frequently asked questions surrounding the, project explains what PDCC residents can expect in the corning months. if you have a question or concern that is addressed here, please ;eel free to visit our website et or call us toll free 377.760.PDCC. Y. At the June 24th Council meeting, the Palm Desert City Council unanimously approved the projec proposed. This includes development of 95 new single-family, one-story homes, update and rehabilitation c 27 holes of the golf course, renovation of the existing clubhouse to enhance and modernize facili neighborhood improvements such as siganaga and landscaping, an automated irrigation system, and permar preservation of the PDCC Golf Course as a golf course. The project has also received unanimous support from the Palm Desert Parks and Recreation Depertrr Architecture Review Board, Citizens Advisory Committee for Project Area Number 4, and the Palm De Planning Commission. Additionally, an election conducted by the PDCC Horne Owners Association sho nearly 70% or members in favor of the project. the tree eel eeee -darker" Prncrir__w r"n cle!av rite nrttriN-. Fes. A lawsuit filed by the ;purported "PDCC Preservation Society" challenges the legality of the project base the restrictions indicated in number three below. We believe that this challenge is completely unsuppo because the orginal deed documents clearly state that such restrictons can be modified if a rnajorii homeowners in each respective Tract determine in writing to do so. By gathering signatures on the Amend! to Restrictions document, PDCC Development LLC is strictly following legal requirements to move this pr+ forward. The lawsuit filed by the "POCC Preservation Society" :4, only two people as the plaintiffs: Jer Pineau and Lisa Theocioratus. The Amendment to L3eclavafior+c document amends the 40-year-old re . _' _',"_ s treat ere in place on the u: property witfin the PDCC development Tracts When signed by the majority of homeowners in the respe Tracts, this document authorizes development of 73 new homes to be built :n Tenet 2283 and 17 new homes built in Tract 2137. Sale of these new horses will provide the funds needed for renovation of the dubhc rehabilitation of the golf course and other community improvements If you are not in these Tracts, this doe apply to you lklo4,cThe new homes proposed in .this project are the only use authorized by the Amendment to Declaratic doament. The remainder of the original restrictions will remain in place and further development on PD property will be prohibited into the future. rre. In fact, PDCC Development LLC isri93 be dedicating a golf course easement in perpetuity, which means it fe after this project is completed, no other homes can ewer be bulk on golf course property in the Pa Desert Country Club. No. Property values in PDCC will likely go up, as is evidenced by developments everywhere in time Palm De area that have added new homes and upgraded amenities. The new homes will bring new owners to the as and the older homes will benefit iTom the enhanced facilities. As required by the City, PDCC Development l will be investing nearly $7 million in the golf course and clubhouse. We already have an unsolicited lis potential buyers interested in purchasing a home et PDCC as a result of this impending project — this is proc real estate value and interest. All plans, maps, renderings and project timeline, which have bean approved by the City, are available on website at . You will see from these plans that houses are not being installed din behind existing homes. if you would like to receive this information by mail, please call us at (877) 7 O-PDO Abiding by legal requirements, we have to wail: until a majority of the homeowners sign the Amendmei Declarations before beginning improvements. Also, legally, a transfer of title or sale of property cannot take while there is pending litigation affecting that property. This means that sale of the PDCC golf course and sty proposed improvements must be delayed until judgment is awarded in the lawsuit filed by the "P Preservation Society". While our belief is that this lawsuit is unfounded, as described above, it will delay initi of work and our project timeline will be a'rected accordingly. We are l onfdent that this project is a positive investment in this community, and what we have heard the hundreds of conversations with PDCC residents confirms s that m-ost o; your agree. We do, however, under: that not everyone will be on board with the project. Unfortunately, these few opposing parties may cause undue delay in ow plans for enhancing the PDCC golf course, z;ir< lahouee, are'.neighborhood. Further, according to the "P ®CC Preservation Societe' websiie, 'she leaders of this group have threatened tr the Homeowners Association because the 'Board voted to suppo4 n the Project in essence, the "i7 Preservation Society" is threatening to use the courts to overturn the vote of the PDCC Homeowners. Despite the "PDCC Preservation Society's" st.ggresssve and litigious style, ply !mow that we are. fully conic to going the distance with this Project and accomplishing the best for the PPaira Desert Country Club ar! residents. We hope that you and your neighbors understand that we are here lei' the long Ewe 5, i`g�l committed to putting millions of dollars into your golf course and community. We thank you for your support. If you have any questions or concerns, please visit our updated project web: or contact us at (3 r) 75 -PDCC or vie the email addresses below. Sincerely, Larry J. Kosmon't, CR.E iVianaging Partner Randy Case Partner & Project Ma- a;;,.. • S - srry Ryan =apt"er City of Palm Desert DEC 15 2017 Community Development 7ECEMBER 19, 2017 TO: THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, PLANNING COMMISSION MY NAME IS CHUCK POWERS . I RESIDE ON KENTUCKY AVE IN PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB. I PURCHASED OUR HOME IN 1983 AND MOVED HERE PERMANENTELY IN 1992. I HAD 30 YEARS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT WHEN I RETIRED. IN 1992 THERE WERE 14 RETIRED LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS THAT LIVED WITHIN OUR STREETS.. THAT IS NO LONGER TH CASE. THERE ARE A FEW OF US LEFT. SINCE 1992 OUR THREE STREETS, TENNESSEE, OKLAHOMA AND KENTUCY HAVE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. WE KNOW WHO BELONGS ON THE GOLF COURSE OR NOW OPEN SPACE. WE HAVE CLEAR VIEWS OF EVERYONE'S BACKYARDS. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT DURING THE SUMMER AS MANY HOMEOWNERS ARE SNOWBIRDS. IF THIS PROJECT IS APPROVED THIS ABILITY WILL DISAPPEAR. ACCORDIINGG TO NATIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH , THEY RECOMMEND HARDING OF ONE'S HOME THROUGH ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN. PALM DESERT POLICE RECOMMEND THE SAME. TRACY AUSTIN IS THE COMMUNITY SERVICE OFFICER THAT I5 IN CHARGE Of NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH. THIS MEANS NO TREES OR BUSHES BLOCKING THE VIEW OF THE HOMEOWNER, NO SOLI❑ FENCES THAT BLOCK OBSERVATION OF THE AREA BY THE HOMEOWNER. THERE ARE MANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS. THE NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH BLOCK CAPTAINS AND HOMEOWNERS NEED TO HAVE A CLEAR VIEW TO PROTECT THEIR HOMES FROM PREDITORS. I AM ASKING YOU NOT TO APPROVE THIS PROJECT AS PRESENTED. CHUCK POWERS Ceja, Eric From: Ruth DeGeorge <randde767@aol.com> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 3:39 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: PDCC former executive golf course Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, City of Palm Desert: My name is Ruth DeGeorge and I am a homeowner on California Drive in Palm Desert Country. I am concerned that the proposed project for the above project will mean increased traffic on California Drive resulting in delays at Fred Waring intersection. California Dr. bisects our whole community resulting in noneresidents using it as a shortcut to get from Fred Waring to Washington St. In addition, we have homeowner traffic from Kentucky Ave., Oklahoma Avenue, Tennessee Ave„ Virginia Street and Florida who need to travel onto California to get access to Fred Waring. Also the residents of the gated Oasis Country Club have a gate from their club onto Virginia in PDCC to travel to Fred Waring. The addition of 69 Condominium units each with a two -car garage in this western area of our community will mean increased noise for our community and delays at the traffic light at Fred Waring. I understand a traffic study was made but for how long? With all due respect, 1 would like to know how many days , what days of the week and what month was the study conducted and what criteria was used to the conclusion that would be no significant impact on the increased traffic in our community. Your answer to these questions would be appreciated. Ruth DeGeorge 1 Ceja. Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Friday, December 15, 2017 9:32 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendeli, Ryan Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Good morning, Eric. We received the message below yesterday afternoon from a resident regarding development of the former Palm Desert Country Club executive course. Thanks very much for any information that Planning can provide to Mr. Harrod. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760.776.6411 Direct: 760.776.6380 dhermann@cityofpalmdesert.org From: webmasterCaicitvofoalmdesert.ora fmailto:webmaster(citvofoalmdesert.oraj Sent: Thursday, December 14, 2017 3:08 PM To: Information Mail Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 12/14/2017 3:07 PM Response #: 775 Submitter ID: 7876 IP address: 47.158.94.119 Time to complete: 23 min. , 48 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Larry Last Name Harrod Email Address harrodlarrv@gmail.com Phone Number 7606363065 Address 76848 Kentucky Ave Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 1 I am a: (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: 76848 Kentucky Ave I am contacting you concerning the proposed condo project on the old Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course. When I bought this home over 20 years ago one of the primary reasons was the golf course off the back yard and the views it provided. If condos are to be built on this property l would expect the developer to construct at least a 6 foot block sound barrier wall between their street and condos and my back yard/ l certainly do not want to view a street and condos from my back patio. I also understand that the condos will be time shares, making traffic and noise on weekends unpleasant. Thank you for your consideration Larry Harrod Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management SystemTM. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 December 17, 2017 ilavJgciLA City of Palm Desert DEC 18. 2017 Community Development To: CITY OF PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION RE: Palm Desert Country Club Proposed Development -Former Executive Golf Course From: Sharon Laskin, 76974 California Drive, Palm Desert, CA 92211 I, like many others, are against this new condo project. I read someone reference this condo project as a "change"....and went on to say that "people have a hard time with change." I resent the fact that this was so trivialized. One cannot call this a mere change...and to get used to it! We are not talking about new stop signs, new speed bumps, etc. We are talking about our Lives! Gone will be the days we can open our windows that currently face the course and hearing silence at night and birds in the morning. Instead we will listen to the cars driving by, leaving dust and dirt in their trail, the car's beeping for entry (or exiting), car alarms, garbage trucks, delivery trucks, etc. Yikes! How can one call this a mere change??! I can guarantee that not one of us would purchase a home preferring to be surrounded by these noises. As a realtor, I predict our homes will suffer discounted prices being purchased only by those who cannot afford homes with the nicer, quieter environments. We are collateral damage. Why should all of us suffer at the hands of a developer only looking out for his own personal interests? Why were other options for this open land that were suggested to the developer by the homeowners not even considered? This is an insensitive move by a developer who is just plain greedy. Why has this been allowed to go on for so long? Why doesn't the city understand our viewpoint? I guess money is the issue here, not our happiness. Ceja, Eric From: Barbara powers <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 7:31 PM To: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric; 5abby Jonathan Subject: STAFF REPORT AND DECEMBER 19, 2017 PLANNING MEETING. WE ARE ASKING THAT YOU POSTPONE THIS MEETING/ OR SCHEDULE IT AT A LATER DATE. For one solid week we were trying to get a report and only last night at 5pm was the report available. 165 pages is a lot to consume. There are many errors and I am only on the first few pages. It is also a very bad time to schedule this meeting as probably half of our residents are gone for the holiday. I have been gettingynany emails that state they can't come because they are out of town. Hopefully they are sending you their objections. EVEN IF YOU READ IT ASK FOR A 1ST READING AND GIVE US TIME TO CHECK THE REPORT OUT AND SCHEDULE AN OTHER MEETING. Barb Powers, Secretary for Open Space. Barbara Powers i Ceja, Eric From: Jack Fleming <flemingjamf@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, December 16, 2017 11:14 AM To: Barbara Powers; Ceja, Eric; CityhallMail Subject: [SPAM] - Re: OpenSpaceAction Committee: Planning Commission Public Hearing/Agenda Item Barbara, I would love to be there. But it is extremely apparent that the City has no intentions of hearing our concerns. They need the $$$ in their pockets and are not concerned about the citizens in the PDCC area. Even though property values for us will go down. Sadly we dont have the $$ to file a lawsuit. So this way they win. Good luck but it is useless to waste more time on an uncaring City. But we will remember this at election time for sure. On Fri, Dec 15, 2017 at 4:48 PM, Barbara Powers <ooenspaceaction @ gmail.com> wrote: Just a reminder about the Plannin: Commission Public Hearing for the Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course. Scroll all the w a ' down Please attend this hearing and help us fight to save our Open Space and our quality of life. CITY OF PALM DESERT REGULAR MEETING OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA TUESDAY, DECEMBER 19, 2017 — 6:00 P.M. COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE. PALM DESERT. CA 92260 Listed Agenda Item for Hearing: C. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION of a recommendation to the City Council to rezone three parcels from Open Space (OS) to Mixed Residential (R-2) and approve Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241, and 37242 for the construction of 69 condominium units on approximately 30 acres located on the former executive golf course at Palm Desert Country Club; and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, & 37242 (McFadden Architects, Palm Desert, California, Applicant). Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715, recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, & 37242 i Rec: Waive further reading and adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 2715, recommending to the City Council approval of Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP/EA 16-280 and TTM 37240, 37241, & 37242. Action: X. MISCELLANEOUS None XI. COMMITTEE MEETING UPDATES A. ART 2 Ce;a. Eric From: Stendell, Ryan Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:38 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: O'Reilly, Monica Subject: FW: PDCC EXECUTIVE COURSE Ryan Stendell Director of Community Development Ph: 760.346,0611 Direct: 76d, 776.6386 rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org From: Home [mailto:rculver@dc.rr.com] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 7:16 AM To: CityhallMail; Stendell, Ryan; Planning Subject: PDCC EXECUTIVE COURSE Raymond & Kathryn Culver 43505 Oregon Cir Palm Desert, CA. 92211 City of Palm Desert Architectural Committee Zoning Committee Planning Committee City Council December 16, 2017 RE: PDCC Executive Course To Whom It May Concern We object to the proposed rezoning of PDCC Executive Course from OS to R-2 for the following reasons: 1) No one in PDCC bought next to speculative land. In 1974 when John & Virginia Culver purchased this house they did so because it was on a cul de sac, so road expansions would not effect them, and on a golf course. since they knew there would be no construction immediately behind them. Most, if not all, of the 300 effected homeowners paid extra in the purchase price of their homes and understood their property taxes would reflect that they did not buy next to land that would be developed as anything but open space. Treating the property and loss of views to the homeowners as if we should have expected the possibility of the land being developed after 40+ years of it being open space is unreasonable. r 2) Zoning changes are either a natural progression or require extraordinary reasons behind them. These reasons include: City's need for Revenue Increase Property Value Shortage of Housing Shortage of Land for Development Repurposing an Abandoned Property This is not a natural progression zoning change. City has no need for this revenue According to public records Palm Desert is running a considerable surplus. But the city is beginning to have a shortage of open space. The property value of property next to zoned open space is considerably more than next to zoned R-2 which could allow for any kind of future development. There are no shortage of condominiums in Palm Desert or the valley, a current search of Trulia shows the number of 538 for sale. There is no shortage of speculative land. A simple drive around shows numerous lots for sale and even more that have been developed over the last 4 years that the golf course owners missed out on. The property is NOT abandoned. We know who the owner is because they are making this petition. The owner has the property patrolled They do repairs to water sprinklers, and do minimum maintenance. So it is not actually abandoned in the true sense of the term. The course owners purchased a 27 hole golf course with a newly renovated club house While they maintain in good condition the clubhouse and 18 of the 27 holes. they choose to maintain in a blighted condition the 9 hole course. The analogy of someone killing their parents and then pleading mercy because they are an orphan comes to mind. So NO obvious extraordinary circumstances exists to justify the zone change. As stated by a member in the Architectural Committee "A project like this has NEVER been done here." Many homeowners translate that as "this is an experiment." An experiment is not an extraordinary reason and should not be sufficient reason for reducing the value of approx 300 homes in favor of 69 condos. 3) This has created an unnecessary division in the PDCC community and will create an even bigger division. The golf course has been the only thing that makes PDCC a group. Previous owners of the golf course always understood this and respected it. These owners have not. They have divided people with a golf course view from people without. Divided the 18 hole home owners from the 9 hole home owners. HOA members against non-HOA members, in fact this project is even pitting HOA members interests against each other. Making promises regarding the 18 hole if the HOA abandons the HOA members on the 9 hole. 2 The course owners have used the City of Palm Desert as a club to beat the home owners over the head. Instead of resolving the issues within the community as soon as they heard "no" they went to the city. There has been no legitimate attempt to address our concerns. They have repeatedly made promises they have reneged. If the project proceeds it will only create bigger divides. It will not bring us together as a community. If you remove the golf course we are on, we will not be part of PDCC. What will we be? Will it also change our property tax designation of PDCC zone 13? 4) Palm Desert Country Club and in particular the Executive Course have been the victim of shortsightedness for decades. Most of the people on the Executive Course are not part of the Home Owners Assoc. This is because when the expansion was proposed the HOA did not want the "new people" using the pool. Short Sighted. When the last owner made all the renovations he did not anticipate the housing bubble. Short Sighted. When Palm Desert could have taken over PDCC and made it the city's golf course they only saw "free" money for building on undeveloped land. Short Sighted. Changing the zoning on a golf course simply because the owner sees a way to make "easy money" is incredible short sighted. One Final point. There is a dog leg on Hovely and Kansas. After numerous cars crashing into the home on that corner the city finally had the house removed. This project creates a similar situation with the proposed placement of the roads. There is a house on California and Kentucky with a young family. The proposed project puts a road directly behind them. I'm sure the home owners had not expected to be surrounded by roads on three sides but in addition this new roadway will be an access road to and from party condominiums while their children are playing in their backyard. PLEASE DO NOT BE SHORT SIGHTED ON THE POTENTIAL TRAGEDY. Refuse the project or at least insist the road be removed or buy out this house. This is a water shed decision with potential affects for the entire valley. It should not be taken lightly. The valley is a vacation destination for golfing but if you set the precedent that a developer can buy up a smaller golf course, let it go to seed, cry poverty and then turn it into speculative land, the valley will not be a golf Mecca in the future. Sincerely, Raymond Culver Kathryn Culver 3 Ceja, Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 8:52 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: 5tendeli, Ryan Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Good morning Eric, We received the message below over the weekend from a resident regarding PDCC. Thanks very much for any assistance/information that Planning can provide to Mr. Herrell. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760.776.6411 Direct: 760.776.6380 d herma nn @cityofpol mdesert. org From: webmasterCa7citvofoalmdesert.ora rmailto:webmasterfa}citvofoalmdesert.oral Sent: Sunday, December 17, 2017 2:10 PM To: Information Mail Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 12/17/2017 2:09 PM Response #: 778 Submitter ID: 7884 IP address: 67.49.94.162 Time to complete: 11 min. , 3 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Michael Last Name Herrell Email Address JamiacomoPvahoo.com Phone Number 760-777-0274 Address 76946 Kentucky Ave Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 I am a: (0) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: Planning, I am a resident negatively affected by the proposed development of 69 Condo's at Palm Desert Country Club Zone Change.f Just received from you a 165 page document to review last Friday December 15th @5pm.l am requesting a second meeting with the planning commission so we can thoroughly and accurately review this document. Please advise to me ASAP Thank You, Mike Herrell Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System'''. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 L. 1-25-2016 RE: RETENTION PONDS/DETENTION AREAS I posted all the grading plans on a large board and counted 39 retention areas on PDCC plans. I wanted you to know there are many more negative comments on the Internet. 1 have enclosed Several of the articles. Has PDCC FILED THE BMP REPORT, we don't know. The two major items, negative about these areas are: 1. Children are drawn to these areas like a magnet. Very dangerous health wise for them to play in and around these areas if not fenced in. 2. Health hazards where animal feces and other debris remain in the area. 3. Mosquitoes and other insects. 4. Of course we do not want any building on the Executive Golf Course but to have any of these Fenced it would be horrible to view. 5. In speaking with Eric Ceja, the water in these areas would not be pumped into the street And CVW will not let them discharge in the sewer system. They must just drain in Place. The current owner doesn't even take care of the weeds and other items now, even When Code is contacted. Why would you think it would be any different for them to follow the laws on the books and keep the area clean and safe. 6.We rarely get rain but in the past two years we have had our share. If any of these Areas would flood on to neighbors property there is no insurance from the owners, Or HOA when it is released to them and unless the home owner has flood insurance they are not covered. I know our side of Kentucky near Tennessee has had it's share In flooding during these rains. One household claimed they had $7000. In damage. SO THESE ARE OBJECTIONS OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE (Secretary, Barb Powers) Ceja, Eric From: Lisa Theodoratus <lisatheo@msn.com> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:58 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Jonathan, 5abby; Harnik, Jan; Kelly, Kathleen; Weber, Susan Marie; Nestande, Gina Subject: RE: Theodoratus - Formal request to treat resolution 2715 as a lst reading on December 9 Hi Eric Thank you for sending these, they had not previously been provided to me. One has the building marked as B-12 which I will assume is C-12. That section also is noted "resident site improvement encroach onto condo units". I had my property professionally surveyed about 15 years ago and know that my walls do not encroach outside of my property. Unless they are talking about overgrowth of my oleander hedge this statement is incorrect. Pertaining to this section unit C-12 is shown as a maximum building height of 10 feet on the site plan . Is this correct? On the other section the pool building is also shown as 10 feet high. On page 6 of the report the pool buildings height is shown as 15 feet 6 inches. If the actual height of the building is not 10 feet then the cross sections are incorrect, deceptive, and do not reflect the reality of the proposal to the planning commission. The site section that is still missing is the cross section to unit C-4 from my backyard which is one of the two I requested many month ago. That unit is much closer to my home and appears to be elevated on the site plan I am looking at which will block my mountain views. i noticed that a letter from the Palm Desert Country Club Association dated November 3, 2017 is included in the planning documents. PDCCA has not formally asked the opinion of impacted home owners on this project prior to sending the letter nor has the PDCCA polled or carried out a special ballot measure on this project. The PDCCA board has, I believe entered into a contract with the developer detrimental to some members of PDCCA and benefiting other members without the knowledge or consent of the PDCCA members. The PDCCA board of directors has no right to speak for members without their consent and has i believe misrepresented the association and their fiduciary duty to protect all of their members. As you know I will not be able to attend the meeting tomorrow and request that this update be sent to the planning commission for review. 1 do believe that many affected homeowners have yet to see the documents released at 5pm Friday for Tuesdays meeting much less respond. Given that this meeting should be treated as a first reading to give everyone the chance to absorb the gravity on the lives of those affected. Sincerely, Lisa Theodoratus 77040 Utah Circle From: eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org [mailto:eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org] Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 4:05 PM To: lisatheo@msn.com; rstendell@cityofpalmdesert.org Cc: jharnik@cityofpalmdesert.org; sjonathan@cityofpalmdesert.org; kkelly@cityofpalmdesert.org; sweber@cityofpalmdesert.org; gnestande@cityofpalmdesert.org Subject: RE: Theodoratus - Format request for treat resolution 2715 as a lst reading on December 9 Hi Lisa, 1 Thank you for your email. As we discussed, your correspondence will be provided to the Planning Commissioners at their meeting tomorrow. In regards to your particularly question, attached are "sections" that show the grading and elevations for the rear of your property. Please contact me with any other questions. Thanks, Eric Ceja Principal Planner Ph: 760.346.0611 Direct: 760.776.6384 eceja@cityofpal mdesert.org From: Lisa Theodoratus jmailto:lisatheo{@msn.coml Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 9:22 AM To: Ceja, Eric; Stendell, Ryan Cc: Harnik, Jan; Jonathan,' Sabby; Kelly, Kathleen; Weber, Susan Marie; Nestande, Gina Subject: Theodoratus - Formal request for treat resolution 2715 as a 1st reading on December 9 Hi Eric I am making a formal request that the planning commission treat resolution 2715 (Palm Desert Country Club) as a first reading at the December 18, 2017 meeting. The document was only made available Friday December 15 at approximately 5 PM. My reason for this is that the affected residents of Palm Desert Country Club have not been given a reasonable amount time to read the 165 page document, much less determine their own opinion of the document and notify the City of Palm Desert in writing of potential personal damages. Many months ago when we spoke at length at the planning counter I requested that you obtain an additional elevation for my property as "H P5S2" strategically misses the dwelling (C-4) closest to my home which I believe will block my view of the mountains. I also requested an elevation to unit C-12 which will also potentially block my mountain view and for relief of the walking path and retaining wall which is currently only 2 feet from my property line. I have currently not received the requested information from you. There are many issues that I plan to address later on the staff report, one of which is that my property value will decrease if this project is allowed to proceed. I plan on having a appraisal of my property both currently and if the proposed building are built and believe that my personal damages will exceed $20,000. I am also making this claim for Christine Sampson 43400 Tennessee Avenue aged 92 who is currently in the hospital and unable to respond for herself. If each of the 290 affected homeowners has a property value loss of $5,000 which I believe is a very low estimate for many this amounts to 1.5 million in loss to homeowners of Palm Desert Country Club many living off of a small social security check. Please reply to this message today as otherwise I will need to stay up all night tonight preparing a full response as 1 am working until 5pm today and also tomorrow! Kind Regards, Lisa Theodoratus, Owner The Cruise Experience 415 457-7186 Lisa PTh ecru ise Exoe rie nce.com 2 Ceja, Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Monday, December 18, 2017 5:51 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Hi Eric, We received the message below today from a resident regarding Palm Desert Country Club and the proposed development of the former executive course there. I am forwarding for your information/follow up as appropriate. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760.776.6411 Direct: 760.776.6380 d hermann@cityofpalmdesert. org From: webmasteracitvofoalmdesert.ora fmailto:webmasterCacitvofoalmdesert.ora] Sent Monday, December 18, 2017 5:21 PM To: Information Mali Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 12/18/2017 5:21 PM Response #: 782 5ubmitter ID: 9886 IP address: 67.49.64.58 Time to complete: 18 min. , 27 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Mary Suzanne Last Name Tracy Email Address mstretdC?a me.com Phone Number 17603453746 Address 77-020 Utah Circle Address Z Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 lama: (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: Palm Desert City Council Members: Palm Desert Planning Commission: Dear Sirs and Madams: I have lived at 77-020 Utah Circle, Palm Desert, California, 92211, since 1970. I was part of a small group who objected to the first development which occurred in the early 2000s. We lost on that issue and were told that the remaining land would be zoned Open Space in perpetuity. I understand that even though the land became Open Space, it was not in perpetuity. What a disappointment to find that the people we voted to represent us do not care about our interests. I am now facing further development in this area. I hope the City Council and the Planning Commission will vote against this development. My issues include: loss of privacy, Tight pollution, noise pollution, and loss of view. There are many other reasons to object to the development and I am sure you have heard them all. Please do NOT condone this development. I decided to stay here in retirement because I thought this was a wonderful place to retire. I also thought Palm Desert had great leadership. But my opinion is changing when I see that the Council and Planning Commission do not care about what happens to its residents. Please consider what you are doing to some of the people who voted you into your position. I hope to be able to say in the future that the Palm Desert City Council members really do care about their citizens. Sincerely, Suzanne Tracy 77-020 Utah Circle Palm Desert, CA 92211 Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management 5ystem1 '. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 December 19, 2017 Good Evening Madam Chairman, Commissioners and Staff My name is Jack L Forney, I live at 76831 Kentucky Ave., Palm Desert, Ca. Initially let me state that I am opposed to any construction on the Former Executive Course. Open Space Development is Open Space lost forever. On December I lth I deposited with the Planning Department a written statement of my concerns and compromise suggestions for the Proposed Development of the Former Executive Course for each Commissioner and Staff. In the interest of time and redundancy I will summarize the main points of the statement. I am not an Architect, Engineer or Contractor therefore I can't comment on the structural integrity of the Proposed Units, but as an interested owner (my home abutts the former course) I believe the proposed project could be made more community friendly by some compromise adjustments. PDCC is a community of single family homes primarily occupied by retired senior citizens who purchased their homes for the majestic mountain views and the open area of the golf course for their golden years. They take pride in the community, maintain their property, respect their neighbors and are an asset to the City of Palm Desert. This project as I pointed out in my written statement should be revised to insure compliance with Article 5 of the Project Application Development Plan. Compromises should be made to protect, views, minimize noise and pollution, provide privacy and security for the surrounding residents. I believe my written suggestions for the Overall Proposed Plan for unit location, height, elevation, walls, fences and landscaping would help achieve these objectives. On a personal basis the proposed road is 16' from my rear property line. Attached are sketches showing the proposed and requested 90 degree relocation of Units B8, B9, B 10 and B 11 to allow the units and the road to be moved 30' or more feet toward the south property line. Sheet 1 is the now proposed location and sheet 2 is the desired requested location. The former owners of Palm Desert CC in applying for a change of zone to allow construction on the former driving range and other areas of the course, provided several amenities: ie. automated sprinkler system, new club house with modem kitchen, dining room, bar and pro shop as well as a new water line, covered golf cart parking, practice facilities, putting green, facility for maintenance equipment and most importantly the Right to Vote on the development by adjacent property owners. This Quid -Pro -Quo offering was met with approval by the club members, adjacent property owners and the community resulting in a change of zone and construction of the "Horton Homes" at Palm Desert CC. Mr. McFadden thus far has not made any significant changes to the original design of the project and Palm Desert Holdings, the current owner of the project has provided a Quid -Pro -Quo that includes, Dust, Dirt, Visual Blight, Pollution, the loss of property value to the 188 home owners abutting the Former Executive Course and no opportunity to play 9 holes of golf of this 27 hole course.. The construction of the project will provide additional problems for the area. I believe some cash compensation to the property owners who have suffered 4 years is appropriate from the 6 to 8 million dollar profit that the course owners will achieve from this project while still owning the 18 hole course and club house. In closing as I have previously quoted Abraham Lincoln -Who once said "Public Sentiment is everything, with Public Sentiment you can't fail, without it you can't succeed. The only way to measure Public Sentiment is to Vote." Let the surrounding affected property owners vote on this project as was allowed the affected owners prior to a change of zone and construction of the Horton Homes. Thank you for you time and consideration. (EX. FF: 605.3Q±) FP: O 4.70±) --J r. ,'' 7^ / 1 1 \'� wng'�iV Ij-Q �@ fl/IJt ]f �ri `� % L L'•/'1t' xiI .`i m V A33HS 3313 3N11 I11V1l1 } x I ‘/' 1 im i I / \ 1 N i 1 1 ; 41 I I 00 0 09 I I`T7' *E 1 I �) x 1 N__ ti— �I� DRAWING 4t i \r J 41 0 OREGON ❑RIVE (0 ZO )f CO CO Cs CO CO CO (0 J 0 0 CO 1- z W • W aLu w 0 ©> ❑ F- w� 0w mpw cc oaw 00cc w❑0 U)0_w NOT TO SCALE REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY 12/19/2017 OBJETION TO TREES FOR PALM. DESERT COUNTRY CLUB 69 CONDO PROJECT ON EXECUTIVE COURSE J_ r J d,J, q at U t..11w.. O 4f64?- Sete 444 .tea WY 1r PROXCT OEr PLAV PLANS BETWEEN KENTUCKY AND OKLAHOMA, SHOWING TREES IN BACK OF RESIDENTS HOMES AND ON THER OTHER SIDE OF THE ROAD 1 12/19/2017 WEATHER HISTORY OF THE AREA Since owning on Kentucky since 1984 , comments about the weather for this Area are very relevant. The wind blows from the NW usually during the winter And it blows from the NE during Santa Ana conditions. The golf hole that was r: 3 used to have pine trees and a number of palm trees Shading the green, Over the years, prior to this owner, the trees were lost to the wind. On July 3'd , 2015 there was a terrible storm and two houses Were destroyed from Eucalyptus Trees falling on the homes. WE DO NOT WANT ANY TREES ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE ! At least not these Trees. Thew trees would be terrible for anyone with allergies. It would terrible for our pools and spas , as the trees shed flowers and pods and Are their branches are very weak and snap in the wind. '11 1E4.31117144151411771 pal•tax_'D0 ! Temaa rs }i Ran -hoarr.+r !i wn-e a+rYew ;esermarraa [ w.+e wr y,,,l n. ra+s sm EMrm I Ora Porr kp7•an+. ! a7�aDg0 h) F7�rc Jan 744 Mir rml] 'LW. 511] 1014 3113 Ty 12 1 51 331/4 311011 pot 554 aaob 3144 u.. 41 a x y T 11 u 1_44—t14 64— rl 45 �i -`u is a ]] I 33 N N a Sr M 41413 a4 07 K ]7 M ss u s] 3/ u n Ink xMEMli 71 MEMx ]4r er x as a 40 41 41 ]6 ]7 )7 p N 41 46 q NO• V .l((lll • IIIIIIE.rs N M /7 •0 N N N 4 x • A 13 n u N rmax I iVLATs Vr it iLd Jr LtI) L'.iU i c NOTICE - PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB GETS WIND FROM THE NORTH WEST AND WIND FROM NORTH EAST DURING SANTA ANA WINDS. OVER THE YEARS HAVE UPROOTED MANY TREES ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE" JULY 3') • 2015 THERE WASA MIRCRO BURST THAT DESTROYED 100'S OF TREES AND CAUSED EXTENSIVE DAMAGE TO MANY HOMES. 2 12/19/2017 Average Maximum Wind Speed (mph) MEIN-- 1111111.1--- -• 5 h 8.., 20 25 15- I 17 f. 21 i 23 334 314 ! — 11 4. I 29 a 23 2.7 I 29 i 31 - I 30 1 �__ 124 21 ---28 .3 29+ ]ii 1 351 291 14 4 I 21 1 26 4 i' 35 ; ..-1- 32 3 -..32 s _r.__ 28-4 .174 - 221 1 54 - 1 29 . -...-343 33 } * -.22 1 29 t 36 1 341 361 30$ 17 1 31 1 0 351 371 351 18 351 36* 28 a 26 4 30t EfraillIZEI 20 22• t - 331 21a 25 • 30 a 21' 14 4 17 4 15 26 ^. I 27 1 1 35 s 351 21+ 29s ... - 5 i 33 { 31 15 1 2 20 ..JI "31 4 19+ ' 211 j 28= 341 7= - 27 . _ 32 1 34 351 74 1 ]9 i SS 1 294 a 26 25 23 13 28 30r Say 28 r� 28 1 29 r 256 ! 28a 287 264 2 6 Nov" to 11 . 18 : ]1 ' 20 1 24- 20' 167 22. 23 7i 25 . 22.'- --le, .. 28 0 25 t 23 261 281 181 251 21 . _20f 301 26 : la r 261 271 21 t 29 t 26 1 14 l 21 ! T10 23 19 Palm Desert Country Clue Executive Course Residents, get all the leaves, twigs, detns and sand when the wind Mown from either the ploy lh West Or North East. Ressi dents are continuing to clean their patios and pools. WAS CREATED TO PROVIDE UP TO DATE, ACCURATE WEATHER INFORMATION FOR THE COACHELLA VALLEY AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, LIVE DATA 15 PROVIDED BY HIGH QUALITY SENSORS LOCATED IN THOUSAND PALMS, CALIFORNIA WEATHERUNDERGROUD ID: KCATHOUS8 3 Slide 6 Bp1 Barbara powers, 3/5,/2017 12/19/2017 Great shade tree. Semi -evergreen with small apricot -yellow flower in summer, followed by pea -like seed pods im abundance. A rapid grower to 25 feet in a few years from a 24" box. Ultimately the tipu tree reaches 40 to 50 feet with a large arching crown. The fruit is a legume (pod). It sheds all of it leaves and "helicopter' seed packets from January to May each year. It produces masses of seeds most of which succeed I germinating. Invasiveness: It is known for having a very aggressive root system. The tree roots can easily lift up concrete and asphalt. Caution should be taken when planting near buildings, homes , or pools. WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE IN OUR OPEN SPACE! Information from Wikipedia and Arizona Landscaping.... On line. TIPU TREE (ACACIA) 4 12/19/2017 TIPUANA (Tipu) Tree -In bloom ACACIA WILLOW TREEPLANNING ON 24" BOX • 12/19/2017 Wi I ow Ar Willow Acacia, evergreen tree, grows to reach 20 to 40 feet. ► Spans 15 to 20 feet in width. Contains no thorns. Grows 3 feet a year with water. Branches break easy in the wind. • Prone to falling over if water is shallowly. ► Unexpected cold could kill the tree. ► Abundent production of flowers and seed pods produces extensive litter that may be undesirable around swimming pools. Roots spred looking for water. Beautiful to watch in a breeze , but makes a terrible mess. ► Sources: Home & Garden Landscape, Amazon, Wikipedia. ► WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE PLANTED IN OUR OPEN SPACE! 6 12/19/2017 Acacia Aneura Mutga ► Upright 8 Very Stiff,evergreen , 20 to 25 feet. Wood is brittle. ► Mulga flowers are red/yellow stamens. Fruit in Spring small flat pod. ► Mulga flowers during warm season, heavily during fall, s Needle -like ,silvery gray foliage, bright yellow,rod-shaped flowers that ► give away to pods 4 times a year. ► Sores: Wikapedia, SF Gate and others. ► WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE PLANTED IN OUR OPEN SPACE. WOULD YOU LIKE THIS IN YOUR POOL OR ON YOUR PATIO? ACACIA SHOESTRING; 7 12/19/2017 ArariP Chn'tr'" )11" Pr"' 1)17—ned i Size: 30 ft High by 20 Feet Wide, spreading with age to 40 feet. Long, very narrow drooping, pale green. Flowers cluster of small'/7" cream colored balls. • Flowers Et Fruits: November to January, pods 8" long ► Flowers in late fall and winter. ► Fruit: Seed Pod ► Comments: Moderate litter. No Torns. • Maintenance: some, pod cleanup. ► Needs aggressive training. ► SOURCE: ARIZONA , EDU. ► WE DO NOT WANT THIS TREE IN OUR OPEN SPACE. MESSY! HONEY MESI UITE TREE-36" Box Panned g 12/19/2017 Flowers £t Pods From Honey Mesquite HONEY MESQUITE TREE Big and floppy branches with feathery foliage ,paired spines on twigs, reaches 20-30 feet but can grow as tall as 50 feet. Flowers March to November with Pale yellow elongated spikes and yellow seedpods. r Supports: r Native pollinator species of bees and other insects. SOURCE: Wikipedia NO TREES IN OUR OPEN SPACE , PLEASE 9 12/19/2017 SONORAN PALO VERDE 36" BOX PLANNED SONfRA: PA! fl VFRPF TPEt P. ALSO KNOWN AS PARKINSONIA MICROPHYLLA 00 Mostly planted on slopes. Slow growing 16 to 23 feet tall. Flowers are found on the end of a branch. They occur late spring. Seeds will appear in 4-8 cm long. Soft poss. They Ripen in July. Rodents often carry and store seeds underground, some Wilt germinate. SOUCE : Wikipedia. 10 12/19/2017 DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE 36" BOX PLANNED DESERT MUSEUM PALO VERDE TREE 12/19/2017 PFSFRT AEI! ISFI IM PAI._O VFPNN Upright shade tree. Lage yellow blossoms in spsring tasting longer than other species. May re -bloom in summer. After flowers fall truck and stems remain green. Produces very few seedpods. Fast grower to 25 feet and width. SOURCE: MONROVIA LANDSCAPE ON WEB. NO TREES UNLESS PALM TREES ON OUR OPEN SPACE. VIEW NORTHSIDE OF MARRIOT SHADOW RIDGE WE WOULD LOOSE OUR VIEWS.NO TREES. SAME TYPE TREES IN BACKGROUND. 12 12/19/ 017 NORTH SIDE OF MARRIOET SHADOW RIDGE. �p ACACIA TREES. NOT MUCH VIEW. ACACIA TREES. NOT MUCH VIEW. REQUEST OF ARCHIETUAL COMMITTEE 10 IT 15 BAD ENOUGH THAT WE WILL LOOSE OUR VIEWS WITH NEW CONDO'S ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE, WE DO NOT WANT TO BE DIVIDED WITH FENCES . WE DO NOT WANT TREES OUT IN THE OPEN SPACE , ESPECIALLY ALL OF THE TREES LISTED IN THIS PRESENTATION. OUR WINDS AT TIMES HAVE TAKEN OUT MANY TREES, THE FLOWERS , SEEDS AND PODS WILL NOT ONLY FILL OUR POOLS BUT FOR THOSE THAT HAVE ALLERGIES IT WILL BE A NIGHTMARE. WE HOPE YOU WILL LISTEN TO OUR COMMUNITY. THANK YOU. OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE. 13 December 11, 2017 To: City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Commissioner Lindsay Holt Commissioner Ron Gregory Commissioner John Greenwood Vice Chair Joseph Pradetto Chair Nancy DeLuna Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development Eric Ceja, Principal Planner, Community Development Department City of Palm Desert OTC 2011 Community Dov&&upmsnt Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Proposed Development of the PDCC Former Executive Course Madam Chairwoman, members of the Planning Commission and staff My name is Jack L. Forney, I own and reside at 76831 Kentucky Ave, Palm Desert, Ca, which abutts the former 8th tee box of the closed Executive Course of the Palm Desert CC. Let me state that I am opposed to any construction on the Former Executive Course! Development of open space is open space lost forever, however I am a realist and believe that the property will never be a golf course again and will not be open space forever! Property owners have rights to utilize their property within limits of established zoning laws. This property development infringes on some rights of existing home owners abutting the proposed development ie., noise, traffic, view and air pollution. An equitable way to minimize these problems is to compromise. A recent definition of the word COMPROMISE is "A settlement of differences in which each side makes concessions. Existing home owners have made numerous suggestions for utilization of the property and all have been met with the same response "The golf course is closed". This infill project is unique in it's application to build condominiums down the middle of an area 95% comprised of single family homes. A change of zone to allow development of this project as currently proposed will do irreparable harm to the 188 owners abutting these former fairways. They have already suffered 4 years of dust, dirt and visual blight due to the lack of proper water and maintenance of the property. They have lost green grass and the convenience of living on a golf course and most importantly the loss of 1O% of their property value as reported by the Riverside County Assessor's Office: "A property abutting a golf course is typically appraised 1O% higher than a similar property not on a golf course". The applicant has shown total disregard for the surrounding property and their owners. I have reviewed the minutes of the March 14, 2017 Architectural Review Commission meeting and the summary of the minimal changes made. Compliance with Article 5 of the City of Palm Desert Precise Application Plan Development Standards should be addressed as follows: A. Site Access and Circulation Standards: Single road in and out of the project • does not appear to meet this standard. 1 B. Site planning shall occur that minimizes obstruction of scenic views of adjacent properties: 15' to 18' planned structures does not minimize obstruction of scenic views of surrounding properties. C. Site planning shall be compatible with existing terrain: Gentle sloping area as opposed to current hilly conditions in some areas. D. Site planning shall occur in a manner that does not expose unattractive areas or activities to the detriment of adjacent properties. Swimming pools, pickle ball courts, 30" high walls to screen headlight intrusion does not meet this criteria. E. Tree selection should be carefully considered as to family type, maximum height and spread of canopy: Messy trees of the Acacia Family as proposed grow to 30' to 40' in height with similar size canopies. In an effort to provide compromise suggestions that can be applicable to the entire project on these 200' plus wide fairways, I have offered in writing and oral presentations to the Architectural Review Commission on May 23, 2017 as follows: A. No structure, portion thereof or recreational facility shall be closer than 80'from the closest adjacent property line. B. No structure or appurtenance thereon shall exceed 10' above the elevation of the nearest adjacent property line and a distance of 100' in each direction along said property lines. Relocating air conditioning units and the surrounding screen fence to the ground would help. C. All roadways shall be a minimum of 60' from existing property lines. The currently proposed roadway is 16' from my rear property line. D. All roadways shall be a minimum of 3' below the elevation of adjacent property lines. This will eliminate the need for 30" segmented walls. E. All exterior fencing should be constructed of material selected by adjacent property owners from 3 choices; Stucco block wall with wrought iron on top Solid stucco block wall Wrought iron For consistency no less than 3 adjoining properties (180') shall be of the same construction type. F. No exterior fencing shall be permitted 1' away from existing permanent property line fencing. No double fence line where existing permanent fence is in place. G. Maximum height of mature trees shall be 30' and canopy diameter 30'. Trees shall be located 100' from structures, other trees or property lines. H. All landscaped areas shall be a minimum of 50% green grass. In discussion with planning staff and review of the minutes of the May 23, 2017 meeting, none of my suggested compromises were included. Therefore at the July 25, 2017 meeting of Architectural Review Commission Meeting I again offered written and oral presentations specific to my home and those of my immediate neighbors that could be applicable to other locations in the development where the proposed roadway is 16' or less from existing property lines. PROBLEM: Proposed roadway is 16' from my rear property line. SOLUTION: Rotate the structures for units B8, B9, B10 and B11 90 degrees making the long side (96') parallel with the edge of the former fairway and the short side (58') perpendicular to the edge of the fairway (fairway at the location is 210' wide) this will allow the structures and the proposed roadway to move 30' or more toward the south property line of the fairway providing safety, less noise and pollution from the roadway. PROBLEM: View obstruction and non -compatibility of proposed roof design. SOLUTION: Remove superfluous roof projections ie. dormers, air conditioning units and screening, provide for 4/12 pitch or flat roof for all structures which will be compatible with the roof design of existing surrounding properties. Lower pad elevations 12 to 18 inches. Mr. McFadden and Palm Desert Holdings(listed owner) have not made any significant compromises on their application as originally proposed for this project. This project as currently proposed does not conform to the structures or character of the surrounding community. A good faith effort of compromise and good citizenship by Palm Desert Holdings and a quid -pro -quo offering to the 188 homeowners abutting the former executive course for their suffering and Toss of property value would be a cash reimbursement equal to 10% of the assessed value as shown on their 2017 tax bill. This would be less expensive than the amenities provided by the former owners in exchange for the change of zone that allowed construction of the Horton Homes. I request this project be returned to the applicant to correct the flaws in the precise development plan I have outlined and provide a revised plan that includes the compromise suggestions I have made. Abraham Lincoln once said, "Public sentiment is everything, with public sentiment you can't fail, without it you can't succeed. The only way to measure public sentiment is to VOTE". Let the surrounding affected property owners vote on this development as was allowed prior to the construction of the Horton Homes at Palm Desert Country Club. Thank you for your time and consideration. Jack L. Forney 76831 Kentucky Ave. Palm Desert, California 760-345-8598 ERIC CEJA ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION MEETING MARCH 14, 2017 FROM MARILYN FORNEY 76831 KENTUCKY AVE. PALM DESERT, CA. TOPIC PDCC PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT "SCENIC VIEW" "STRUCTURE OBSTRUCTIONS" ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: PRECISE APPLICATION PLAN ARTICLE 5 THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS: SECTION B: SITE PLANNING STANDARDS 1. STATES: " SITE PLANNING SHALL OCCUR IN A MANNER THAT MINIMIZES OBSTRUCTION OF SCENIC VIEWS FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES". THIS PROPOSED PROJECT MAXIMIZES OBSTRUCTION OF OUR SCENIC VIEWS AS REFLECTED IN THE PHOTOS PRESENTED HERE. I AM ASKING THIS COMMISSION TO RETURN THE PRECISE APPLICATION PLAN BACK TO THE APPLICANT MARKED "UNACCEPTALBE" BECAUSE IT DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME! MARILYN FORNEY SCENIC VIEW OBSTRUCTIONS PERCENTAGES BASED ON PROPOSED UNITS (CONDO'S) HEIGHTS OBSTRUCTIONS: 18 FEET 4 INCHES 100% 15 FEET 6 INCHES 84.7% 12 FEET 55.2 %/© NOTE: PROPOSED PLANTING OF THE 7 DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF "LARGE" TREES REACHING HEIGHTS OF 30-40 FEET WILL FURTHER OBSTRUCT OUR SCENIC VIEWS. TIPU TREE CAN REACH A HEIGHT OF 50FT 70FT. EXISTING VIEWS Eme OBSTRUCTED VIEWS I CONSTRUCTED A POLE 18 FEET 4 INCHES HIGH, MAXIMUM HEIGHT FOR THE PROPOSED UNITS AND ATTACHED MARKERS AT THE 18 FEET 4 INCH, 15 FEET 6 INCH AND 12 FOOT LEVELS. WE PLACED THE POLE 60 FEET FROM OUR REAR PROPERTY LINES TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF PROPOSED GRADING AND RECORDED THE OBSTRUCTION OF OUR VIEWS WITH PICTURES DISPLAYED HERE. OUR VIEW AT THE 12 FOOT LEVEL WAS OBSTRUCTED 65.2 %, AT THE 15 FOOT 6 INCH LEVEL OUR VIEW WAS OBSTRUCTED 84.4% AND AT THE 18 FOOT 4 INCH LEVEL OUR VIEW WAS OBSTRUCTED 100%. jthilt tr:1:‘. Ali t • , • • .44 • Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Larry Last Name Harrod Email Address harrodlarryPgmail.com Phone Number 7606363065 Address 76848 Kentucky Ave Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 I am a: (a) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: 76848 Kentucky Ave I am contacting you concerning the proposed condo project on the old Palm Desert Country Club Executive Course. When I bought this home over 20 years ago one of the primary reasons was the golf course off the back yard and the views i provided. If condos are to be built on this property I would expect the developer to construct at least a 6 foot block sound barrier wall between their street and condos and my back yard/ I certainly do not want to view a street and condos from my back patio. I also understand that the condos will be time shares, making traffic and noise on weekends unpleasant. Thank you for your consideration Larry Harrod Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management Systemn". Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 For submittal to City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Meeting of December 19, 2017 City of Palm Desert DEC142017 Community Development My name is Ned Wilmot and I reside at 43631 Tennessee Avenue, Palm Desert. CA...within the PDCC, fronting directly on the subject land. I first came to this valley 25 years ago at the behest of a long time friend and member at Shadow Mountain Club. Tony Beck had been a senior executive for real estate operations at Carter, Hawley, Hale in Los Angeles, when I was president of Federated Department Stores real estate group, now Macy's. He asked me to analyze and undertaking development of Howard Ahmason land holdings...a full -undeveloped block on El Paseo and a SO -acre vacant parcel at Fred Waring and Hwy 111. That began my introduction to this magnificent valley. Soon after I acquired control, Saks Fifth Avenue pleaded to be taken out of Palm Springs and locate them the El Paseo site. In 1967 I was recruited from the Shell Oil Real Estate Group, and invited to join James Rouse in Baltimore to undertake the planning, design, and development of a New Town on 15,000 acres of beautiful Howard County land between Baltimore and Washington D.C... that town today is Columbia, MD, a pre -planned city of 100,000 people. The Rouse Company gained considerable notoriety from a Time magazine story in 1972 with Jim Rouse on the cover. Cities and towns from across the Country came to us for advise. They wanted to create New Town zoning on prime land holdings in their communities to attract developers. We advised every one of them to proceed with extreme caution. The zoning of large parcels of land for density mixed use development is a risky scheme. The act of creating comprehensive New Town zoning of strategic land holdings creates substantial land values. This invites an opening for abuse, and will tend to attract irresponsible developers. You must seek proven and successful developers first! In this instance, the City of Palm Desert is being asked to grant density residential development on long existing open space/golf course lands. The application for a major zoning change has severe implications for existing long-term residents who were originally attracted to and invested in properties directly abutting the property. This warrants careful consideration of several factors. Briefly, I will identify salient factors to for consideration. • Has the applicant suffered some economic hardship to warrant zoning relief? No. The subject Palm Desert Country Club grounds were acquired under attractive terms from an institution's that had received the property in bankruptcy. A nominal price was agreed to, just to remove the asset from their books. The nominal purchase price, just applied to the 18 hole course and clubhouse alone was extraordinary low. The 9 acre executive course and subject property were incidental to the purchase. • Will granting the applicant zoning relief result in a major financial windfall? Yes. With 69 new dwelling units created at $100,000 each ... value to a builder/developer is $6,900,000. • Will existing homes abutting the subject property incur a loss in value? Yes - modestly, this would be a ten to fifteen percent reduction in home value, which would constitute the approximate owners equity in their home. The 177 existing homes fronting the applicant land, at a 10% reduction in value, will equal in excess of $6,000,000. Dollars. Points for the City leaders to carefully ponder. Most of us sought homes located on the golf course for the extremely attractive views of the mountains, privacy, and a neighborhood of compatible folks living similar retirement years. It appears we are looking essentially at a transfer of wealth from existing long-term tax paying residents to a developer offering... what? A redistribution of wealth? l am stumped . The City must decide "The Right Thing" ... Country Club residents clearly harbor a negative view. Thank you, Ned Wilmot Professionally Marra ed by P RSONALIED P PM PROPERTY MANAGEMENT The (.rrrllrllrr [rrllr L'umannMiIi lbillogruarnr (;r+rrlprrns it Palm Desert lit Country Club Association Located in Palm Desert November 3, 2017 77-800 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 (760) 345-2331 Tel (760) 345-7413 Fax City of Palm Depart Community Developmon€ NOV 06 2017 SENT VIA EMAIL / CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT / FIRST CLASS MAIL City of Palm Desert c/o Ryan Stendell, Director of Community Development 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Settlement with PD Holdings, LP over the Proposed Condominium Project Dear Mr. Stendell: As you are aware, the Palm Desert Country Club Association {' Association") initially opposed the condominium project proposed by PD Holdings, LP ("Golf Course Owner") based on various legal and environmental concerns. The parties have met and have resolved their differences. Accordingly, please accept this letter as the Association's formal withdrawal of its opposition to the Proposed Condominium Project by PD Holdings, LP for Sites A, B and C contained within Proposed Tentative Tract Maps 37240, 37241 and 37242. Sincerely, PALM DES • RT COUN Y CLUB ASSOCIATION 411 Ron Crisp, Board Presid cc: Association Corporate Counsel let 44 111EIMit OF community ASSOCIATIONS INSTITUTE Ceja, Eric From: Bella <sparkle.giriz@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:46 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: KS READ BEFORE ARC MEETING RE PD EX COURSE on 7/25 To Eric Ceja/ARC This letter is in regards to the Palm Desert Country Club Executive Golf Course. To be very honest, at first I was opposed. After all desirable possibilities were exhausted, it seems this project is the most advantageous. I've been following the plans and ideas from the very beginning and it seems they are getting sharpened to perfection with great thought and detail to the consideration of privacy, noise, and tasteful landscaping surrounding the current residents. I frequent the PDCC web site to keep up to date with info and visuals. So far, I'm really impressed with what 1 see! Aesthetically pleasing on so many levels!! My husband and I have attended a few of the meetings here at PDCC regarding the Executive Course. I was absolutely astonished, dumbfounded, and terror-stricken. No real words can describe my emotions witnessing barbaric, vulgar, aggressive, cantankerous and discustingly rude people!!!! Closed minded, resistant to change even for the better, ignorant people!!! I i 1 Couldn't wrap my head around what I saw and heard. I was shocked some people (idiots) behaved so poorly. My husband had to leave because one guy wouldn't shut his mouth and let others express their opinions, 1 thought he was going to punch him! This behavior just evokes violence inside that normally isn't there! (enough of that!!) Despite the pessimistic, unfavorable, ignorant gainsay that some residents have, I truly feel this project/condos will enhance the neighborhood (better than it looks now) and create a desirable richness that will help increase our property value over and above! Change is hard, sign of the times and all that. Please, get this project going, get it done fast so we can enjoy our backyards again!! My husband and I are totally 100% in with moving forward. It's a win win al! around, sooner or later, others will agree. I wish to remain anonymous in fear of our house burning down and getting stoned to death!! Ceja. Eric From: Jim Krzyminski <jim@jameskrzyminski.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 11:39 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Barbara powers Subject: NO CONDOS" I strongly object to the proposed condo development at the PDCC. Approving a 24 foot street in back of my house is ridiculous. Palm Desert is going to end up looking like Los Angeles or worse. PIease vote NO! Jim James M. Krzyminski Law Office of James M. Krzyminski, P. C. 361 North Canon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 USA Phone (310) 777-7481 Fax (310) 777-8754 Email iim a( iameskrzvminski.com IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION: To insure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we advise you, unless otherwise expressly indicated, that any federal tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of: avoiding tax -related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or applicable state or local tax law provisions or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax -related matters addressed herein. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail contains information belonging to the Law Office of James M. Krzyminski, P. C., which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you think that you have received this message in error, please e-mail the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. I Ceia, Eric From: Barbara powers <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2017 1:55 PM To: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric Cc: Marilyn Forney; Serena & Charlie; Cindy Stevenson Subject: MEETING OF ARCHITECTURAL COMMITTEE 7-25-2017 Eric, Thank you for sending me the cross section for behind our home on Kentucky. ! am objecting to the 8 foot backyard, 5 foot dedication ( WHY 15 THAT BEING SLIPPED IN AGAIN. WE DISCUSSED THIS FROM THE VERY FIRST MEETING) WE DO NOT WANT THEIR 5 FEET, WE WILL NOT TAKE CARE OF IT AND WE WILL NOT PAY TAXES ON IT. ....AND A 6 FOOT WALL. , IT 15 BAD ENOUGH WE WOULD LOOSE OUR VIEW BUT THEN A 6 FOOT WALL. DON'T YOU THINK IT WILL HOLD THE HEAT IN . GRASS IS SO MUCH BETTER AND SCIENTIFICALLY KEEPS THE AREA COOLER (EVEN IF IT IS JUST SAND OR DIRT) What happened to the retention area behind Oregon Trail , draining down behind California where the road was two feet higher than the retention area. There are just so many things that are no right with these plans_ I CAN'T BELIEVE YOU REALLY THINK THIS IS THE BEST THING FOR OUR COMMUNITY. THE PLANS ARE SICK. What is really sick is having a meeting when 90 per cent of the homeowners are not in residence. One other thing, adding 6 inches to keep lights out of homeowners backyards is not helpful. People that have SUV's and Trucks are much higher. I submitted pictures at a prior meeting. By the way the file we were talking about still will not load on the web site. I sent these objections to the Architectural committee on the city's web site but I don't know if it will reach them in time. I guess one of the biggest complaints was about the Landscape Architect saying he would be glad to meet with the homeowners, as suggested by the the Architectural Committee, then telling us he would not meet with anyone unless the City Council Approved the Project, because he was not getting paid until then. I am sure there are many more items to object to. I am in St. Louis and will not be able to attend. Barb Powers 76918 Kentucky Ave Palm Desert, CA 92211 Ceja, Eric From: Marilyn Forney a Feathr7@dc.rr.com a Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 10:39 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: from Marilyn Forney, 5 ft dedication PDCC Original Message From: Marilyn Forney To: eceia@citvofoalmdeseri.orq Cc: Ryan 5tendell Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 5:13 AM Subject: Fw: PDCC 5ft proposed dedication Hi Eric Per your email below,the City has scheduled an Architectural Review Commission hearing for the proposed development for Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:30 in the Council Chambers. I again ask has there been a decision on the proposed 5ft Dedication. This would or should be an arguable item to be brought up at the scheduled meeting. Many residents feel the 5ft Dedication would have a depreciating effect on the surrounding area and degrade individual properties abutting the former Executive Course particularly with a proposed wall at the 5ft inner perimeter of PDCC property. Even considering a possible Use/Access Easement doesn't seem to have lessened the tensions regarding this area of contention. Pending your answer I remain, thank you for your time. Marilyn Forney From: eceiaPcitvofoalmdesert.olg <eceiaPcitvofpalmdesert.. Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:00 PM To: eoi:rdoower(a msn.com Cc: rstendellCa7citvofoalrndesert.org Subject: RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. Hi Barbara, Thank you for the letter expressing the Open Space Committee's concerns regarding the retention areas. These areas are shown on the precise grading plans and are available for viewing on the City's webpage. In review of the plans there are numerous retention areas which range in depth from 1A-foot to 2-feet. The intent of having numerous retention areas is so that they blend more into the landscape and are incorporated in to the landscape design, as opposed to a single larger retention area that would be out of place with the residential character of the neighborhood. Aside from the research you have found, I will say that this City, and cities throughout the Coachella Valley and region, often integrate retention areas in to park space. This is the case with the Hovley Soccer Park, Freedom Park, and Adams Park in La Quinta. I believe that if these areas remain dry for extended periods that insects and mosquitoes are not major issues. That said, the retention areas for the proposed development are nowhere near the scale of those larger retention facilities at local parks. ! think you're correct that the builder will maintain these area until the HOA takes over, which will probably happen in phases. I will also look into the flood issue and liability further. 1 We have scheduled an Architectural Review Commission hearing for the proposed development for Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:30 in the Council Chambers. I will also post this schedule online. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Community Development Department eceia@citvofpalmdesert.org P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760) 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 From: Barbara powers [mailto:gourdpower@msn.comj Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:37 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. couldn't believe that there at least 39 areas that are proposed on the grading plans for retention areas, seven of which are behind us. I have been researching this subject. Their are many, many articles on the web from engineers to Realtors, and people that have purchased homes next to one of these areas. MOST ARE NEGATIVE. FROM INSECTS, MOSQUITOES, AND ESPECIALLY ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN TO PLAY IN. From what you told us before these will be dry and not pumped into the sewer system , nor out to any street, but just left to drain in place. I know we usually don't get that much rain but the last two years we have had it all at once. Question when does the builder file the BMP AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY? I have been watching the one the City owns at Hovely/Kansas. Yesterday it still had water in the bottom from the frain on Friday and Saturday. I also observed, dog tracks, human tracks and during the dry part over the last two months , dogs are being allowed to defecate and walk with" humans around the area. I assume the Builder will be responsible to clean and maintain those areas until a HOA Takes over. How can we rely on this owner to maintain anything. They do a terrible job as it is now. We always have to call code and then it takes days to clean it up. It took 3 years to get the dead tree on Kentucky next to the new house cut down. Looks so much better when you enter our area. 2 If one of these areas happens to flood on to a neighbors property, who pays. The builder doesn't have insurance for that , the HOA will not carry insurance for that, and if the person owning the damaged property does not have flood insurance , they are out of luck. WE would be interested to see any drawings , showing the area's depths, etc. are their any yet? Thanks, for reading. I will look forward to your answers and I hope they will be soon. Barbara Powers No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.cor Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13884 - Release Date: 02/02/17 3 Ceja, Eric From: Marilyn Forney rFeathr7@dc.rr.com> Sent: Friday, February 03, 2017 5:14 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: [SPAM] - Fw: RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. Hi Eric Per your email below,the City has scheduled an Architectural Review Commission hearing for the proposed development for Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:30 in the Council Chambers. I again ask has there been a decision on the proposed 5ft Dedication. This would or should be an arguable item to be brought up at the scheduled meeting. Many residents feel the 5ft Dedication would have a depreciating effect on the surrounding area and degrade individual properties abutting the former Executive Course particularly with a proposed wall at the 5ft inner perimeter of PDCC property. Even considering a possible Use/Access Easement doesn't seem to have lessened the tensions regarding this area of contention. Pending your answer I remain, thank you for your time. Marilyn Forney From: eceia@citvoloalrndesert.org <eceia@cityofpalmdesert.orp> Sent: Thursday, February 2, 2017 3:00 PM To: gpurdpower@msn.com Cc: rstendell@citvofpalmdesert.org Subject: RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. Hi Barbara, Thank you for the letter expressing the Open Space Committee's concerns regarding the retention areas. These areas are shown on the precise grading plans and are available for viewing on the City's webpage. In review of the plans there are numerous retention areas which range in depth from A -foot to 2-feet. The intent of having numerous retention areas is so that they blend more into the landscape and are incorporated in to the landscape design, as opposed to a single larger retention area that would be out of place with the residential character of the neighborhood. Aside from the research you have found, I will say that this City, and cities throughout the Coachella Valley and region, often integrate retention areas in to park space. This is the case with the Hovley Soccer Park, Freedom Park, and Adams Park in La Quinta. I believe that if these areas remain dry for extended periods that insects and mosquitoes are not major issues. That said, the retention areas for the proposed development are nowhere near the scale of those larger retention facilities at local parks. I think you're correct that the builder will maintain these area until the HOA takes over, which will probably happen in phases. I will also look into the flood issue and liability further. We have scheduled an Architectural Review Commission hearing for the proposed development for Tuesday, February 28, 2017 at 12:30 in the Council Chambers. I will also post this schedule online. Please let me know if you have any further questions. Thanks, 1 Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Community Development Department eceia@cityofpalmdesert.org P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760) 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 From: Barbara powers [mailto:gourdpower.Pmsn.com] Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:37 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. I couldn't believe that there at least 39 areas that are proposed on the grading plans for retention areas, seven of which are behind us. I have been researching this subject. Their are many, many articles on the web from engineers to Realtors, and people that have purchased homes next to one of these areas. MOST ARE NEGATIVE. FROM INSECTS, MOSQUITOES, AND ESPECIALLY ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN TO PLAY IN. From what you told us before these will be dry and not pumped into the sewer system , nor out to any street, but just left to drain in place. I know we usually don't get that much rain but the last two years we have had it all at once. Question when does the builder file the 8MP AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY? i have been watching the one the City owns at Hovely/Kansas. Yesterday it still had water in the bottom from the frain on Friday and Saturday. I also observed, dog tracks, human tracks and during the dry part over the last two months , dogs are being allowed to defecate and walk with" humans around the area. I assume the Builder will be responsible to clean and maintain those areas until a HOA Takes over. How can we rely on this owner to maintain anything. They do a terrible job as it is now. We always have to call code and then it takes days to clean it up. It took 3 years to get the dead tree on Kentucky next to the new house cut down. Looks so much better when you enter our area. If one of these areas happens to flood on to a neighbors property, who pays. The builder doesn't have insurance for that , the HOA will not carry insurance for that, and if the person owning the damaged property does not have flood insurance , they are out of luck. WE would be interested to see any drawings , showing the area's depths, etc. are their any yet? Thanks, for reading. I will look forward to your answers and I hope they will be soon. Barbara Powers No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - \A. ww.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7998 / Virus Database: 4756/13884 - Release Date: 02/02/17 1-25-2016 RE: RETENTION PONDS/DETENTION AREAS I posted all the grading plans on a large board and counted 39 retention areas on PDCC plans. I wanted you to know there are many more negative comments on the Internet. I have enclosed Several of the articles. Has PDCC FILED THE BMP REPORT, we don't know. The two major items , negative about these areas are: 1. Children are drawn to these areas like a magnet. Very dangerous health wise for them to play in and around these areas if not fenced in. 2. Health hazards where animal feces and other debris remain in the area. 3. Mosquitoes and other insects. 4. Of course we do not want any building on the Executive Golf Course but to have any of these Fenced it would be horrible to view. 5. In speaking with Eric Ceja, the water in these areas would not be pumped into the street And CVW will not let them discharge in the sewer system. They must just drain in Place. The current owner doesn't even take care of the weeds and other items now , even When Code is contacted. Why would you think it would be any different for them to follow the laws on the books and keep the area clean and safe. 6.We rarely get rain but in the past two years we have had our share. If any of these Areas would flood on to neighbors property there is no insurance from the owners, Or HOA when it is released to them and unless the home owner has flood insurance they are not covered. I know our side of Kentucky near Tennessee has had it's share In flooding during these rains. One household claimed they had $7000. In damage. SO THESE ARE OBJECTIONS.. ...... OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE (Secretary, Barb Powers) Ceja, Eric From: Barbara powers <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 4:37 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: RETENTION/DETENTION AREAS ON THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. Attachments: OBJECTIONSTORETENTI:ONAREAS.docx Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed I couldn't believe that there at least 39 areas that are proposed on the grading plans for retention areas, seven of which are behind us. have been researching this subject. Their are many, many articles on the web from engineers to Realtors, and people that have purchased homes next to one of these areas. MOST ARE NEGATIVE. FROM INSECTS, MOSQUITOES, AND ESPECIALLY ATTRACTIVE TO CHILDREN TO PLAY IN. From what you told us before these will be dry and not pumped into the sewer system , nor out to any street, but just left to drain in place. I know we usually don't get that much rain but the last two years we have had it all at once. Question when does the builder file the BMP AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY? have been watching the one the City owns at Hovely/Kansas. Yesterday it still had water in the bottom from the frain on Friday and Saturday. I also observed, dog tracks, human tracks and during the dry part over the last two months , dogs are being allowed to defecate and walk with" humans around the area. I assume the Builder will be responsible to clean and maintain those areas until a HOA Takes over. How can we rely on this owner to maintain anything. They do a terrible job as it is now. We always have to call code and then it takes days to clean it up. It took 3 years to get the dead tree on Kentucky next to the new house cut down. Looks so much better when you enter our area. If one of these areas happens to flood on to a neighbors property, who pays. The builder doesn't have insurance for that , the HOA will not carry insurance for that, and if the person owning the damaged property does not have flood insurance , they are out of luck. WE would be interested to see any drawings , showing the area's depths, etc. are their any yet? Thanks, for reading. 1 will look forward to your answers and I hope they will be soon. Barbara Powers I Ceja, Eric From: Barbara powers rgourdpower@u msn,com> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 10:19 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Re: PDCC GRADING UPDATE Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed MERRY CHRISTMAS, I am having my property surveyed again. The figures 1 gave you were from the time when Kosmont, Randy Case and your employee by the name of Brown were here when they added 4 feet to the golf course in the rear of my yard. They agreed to remove two feet , which they did. It was 200 feet above sea level before they took away the dirt. It was a government GPS MAP . Your employee Brown also stated the County of Riverside survey was incorrect and they showed me the property line at the top of my hill. PDCCS SPRINKLER 15 ON THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THEIR PROPERTY. That is now 98 feet above sea level. An engineer drawing up the grading plans must have the GPS figures. If you find out please let me know., Also their are several apps in Google that can do this. My neighbor across the street did this on my property and told me the previous figures I had from the last HORTON go around were correct. I was just concerned because if they build , we will have no view. Anyway, hope you have a great Christmas and Happy New Year. Barb Barbara Powers From: ecelaCa7citvvofpalmdesert.o g <eceia@citvofoalmdesert.org> Sent: Friday, December 23, 2016 8:36 AM To: Rourdoower@msn.com Cc: feathr7@dc.rr.com Subject: RE: PDCC GRADING UPDATE Hi Barbara, I am not sure where you find that information. I can see if there is a grading plan which would show some of the elevations of your property. Of course the surest and most accurate way to obtain this information is to have your property surveyed. In the mean time the grading plan for the condos are now online and can be reviewed at the City website. Please let me know if there are any other questions. 1 Thanks, Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Community Development Department eceia@citvofi almdesert.org P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760) 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 From: Barbara powers [niailto:gourdpower@msn.com] Sent: Friday, December 16, 2016 1:00 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Marilyn Forney Subject: PDCC GRADING UPDATE Eric, Where would I find the actual figures for the GPS ALTIMETER readings , FOR MY PROPERTY, READS 88 FEET ABOVE SEA LVEL ON MY PATIO BUT 98 FEET AT THE TOP OF MY SLOP, PROPERTY LINE. WHAT IS THE READING FOR THE CONDO'S BEHIND US OR WHERE ❑O WE FIND OUT THIS INFORMATION. Thanks, I know it is Friday so no hurry but I would like to know. Thanks. Have a good weekend. Barb Barbara Powers 2 Ceja, Eric From: Marilyn Forney <Feathr7@dc.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 7:45 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan Subject: Fw: From Marilyn Forney Follow up to your 11/15/16 email) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hello Eric I have a few questions that follow up your email response dated 11/15/16 and a accuracy check. Has PDCC be advised that they will need to complete a survey of the former executive course and identify any improvements that cross property lines? If so, has a deadline for the survey been given? Will the survey include all 27 holes of the PDCC golf course? PDCC has stated "there are encroachments all over the golf course" and not to single out just the property owners abutting the former executive course. Has the 5ft Dedication Proposal been written that might be offered to the property owners? If so, may I have a copy? You stated that the public hearings are not anticipated for several months, April/June. Will you be adjusting that time frame? This is not a fair time for the homeowners of the PDCC community, as man y of our seasonal residents 1xj n c, Accuracy Check: It is my understanding that Wilf Weintrauf, General Manager of PDCC initiated a conversation with a member of the Open Space Action Committee Board. Mr. Weintrauf stated "I want you to know that the 5ft Dedication Proposal was not PDCC's idea it was the city's". I am trying to confirm the accuracy of Mr. Weintraufs statement. Thank you so much for your time, I remain, pending your responses. Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Marilyn Forney Original Message From: eceia@citvofoalmdesert.org To: Feathr7@dc.rr.com Sent: Tuesday, November 15, 2016 8:16 AM Subject: RE: From Marilyn Forney Hi Marilyn, 1 To my knowledge the PDCC ownership has not identified any individual properties that encroach into the former executive course property. The ownership will need to complete a survey of the executive course and identify any improvements that cross property lines. This 5 foot proposal has been met with some resistance and City staff will be relaying the comments to the applicant. Thanks, Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Community Development Department ece is @citvofpa lmd ese rt.o rg P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760) 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 From: Marilyn Forney [mailto:Feathr7Ca7dc.rr.com] Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 8:48 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: From Marilyn Forney Hi am sorry to bother you again forgot one other question. How many of the 188 properties abutting the Executive Course has the PDCC ownership declared encroaching on the Executive Course property. This is in regard to the 5 ft causing a dilemma. I appreciate your time and thank you. Marilyn No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - 44 4418 (2.coin Version: 2016.0.7859 / Virus Database: 4664/13414 - Release Date: 11/15/16 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 2016.0.7924 / Virus Database: 4739/13585 - Release Date: 12/13/16 2 Ceja, Eric From: Dianna T adianna.t@paimdesertgolf.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2016 9:46 AM To: Bella De Cou; Heather Clarke; Kay Adamson; Phyllis Harkins; Shawna; Shirley Hotwagner; Wilf W Cc: Ceja, Eric; Stendell, Ryan; Chris Mc Fadden (cmcfadden@mmarc.com) Subject: Executive Course update Hi Everyone, I wanted to send out a link to information the city has placed on their website from the application we submitted for the Executive Course Project. There are links on the right that will open up maps for each of the areas. Share this link with your friends and neighbors so the community is as informed as possible regarding the project. You may need to hold • down the CTRL key as you click on the link below to open it. http://cityofpa lmdesert.com/our-city/depa rtments/planning/palm-desert-country-club-executive-course Update on the status of the application — The city has reviewed the application and has asked for some additional information and clarification. We will be responding with the information as soon as possible so we can move forward to the architectural review. This is an internal process with in the city but once completed, we can move to the planning commission and city council where the public review process begins. We are hoping to be at the last stage in March/April time frame, Happy Holidays to all, I will continue to send out information as I have it, Dianna i Ceja, Eric From: maria van maele <marlavm1066@gmail.com> Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 10:03 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Al Van Maele Subject: Re: Palm Desert Country Club Thank you for sending this so quickly. Currently the primary issues of concern from this homeowner are: the structure heights (including Ditched roofs and/or other vertical structures), possible reassessment of property values (if the property owner decides to accept the 5' property dedication) and possibly invasive street lights from the new development's roads. Looking forward to the next public meeting. Hopefully the City will speed up the processes so more impacted homeowners may attend (before the part-time residents leave for the season). I'm sure the City will agree that it's important that all homeowners' voices be heard. Thanks again - Marla Van Maele On Mon, Nov 21, 2016 at 8:57 AM, <ecejaCcityofpahndcsert.or2> wrote: Hi Maria, Attached is the Environmental Report prepared for the PDCC Executive Course proposal. This report is in review with City staff. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks, Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Community Development Department eceia@cityofpalmdesert.org P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760) 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive 1 Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 From: maria van maele [maiito:marlavm1066@gmail.com] 4 Sent: Monday, November 21, 2016 8:32 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: maria van maele; Al Van Maele Subject: Palm Desert Country Club Hello Eric -- We are property owners whose home sits on the PDCC former Executive Course. Will you please email me a copy of the Environmental Impact Report/Assessment that was prepared with regards to the proposed construction on the Executive Course. Thank you, Marla Van Maele 818-378-9013 Ceja, Eric From: Jack Fleming <flemingjarnf@gmail.coma Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2016 7:10 PM To: Ceja, Eric; Jack Fleming Subject: PDCC Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Eric, I have a question regarding the future development if the Executive Course for Palm desert Country Club. Is these areas; what is the density restrictions for this area? It would seem to me that density would be greatly exceeded if the condos are allowed to be built. What does the "General" plan indicate? Or is this undecided? PD should have a General Plan in place by now. Or is this being done as it happens? depending on how much money is given to city officials? This seems on the surface to be half haphazardly put together and the residents are not being considered. Only the property tax gained is more important than the residents. Thank you in advance for your response. Art Fleming i Ceja, Eric From: Marilyn Forney <Feathr7@dc.rr.com> Sent: Friday, November 11, 2016 8:48 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: From Marilyn Forney Hi am sorry to bother you again forgot one other question. How many of the 188 properties abutting the Executive Course has the PDCC ownership declared encroaching on the Executive Course property. This is in regard to the 5 ft causing a dilemma. I appreciate your time and thank you. Marilyn i Ceja, Eric From: Barbara powers <gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2016 12:01 PM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Marilyn Forney; Cindy Stevenson; katznbookz; Serena & Charlie; Charlie and Beth Ash Subject: PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB COMPLETED ZONING APPLICATION, Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Eric, It seems like today is the end of the 30 day period of review by your department to see if all items have been met on their application We are interested in the WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN , WAS THAT COMPLETED? Our concerns are regarding the retention areas. It is my understanding, after contacting Jerry Rodrigez at Coachella Valley Water Department, THE RETENTION AREAS CAN NOT BE PUMPED IN TO THE CVWD SEWER SYSTEM. The current CVWD drains are to clean out and service to remove grease,remove dirt, oil and weeds from the current sewer system. NOT FOR STORM WATER. He said the city is responsible for storm water. Is there a plan to put in a separate storm water drain or is it the plan for the retention areas to be pumped out on the street and let the water drain down our streets and flow down Fred Waring to the White Water Area? We are concerned that if the water stays in the retention areas ( say after a 100 year rain etc.) and slowly drains in to it's self, that rodents and other nasty residue could be a problem for our homeowners. 5O WHAT IS THE PLAN? Please also let us know any new time line that applies to this zone change. Thank You. BARBARA POWERS, SECRETARY, OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE. 1 Ceja, Eric From: Heather Clarke <h-clarke@hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, November 04, 2016 9:24 AM To: Aylaian, Lauri; dianna.t@palmdesertgolf.com; Ceja, Eric; Stendell, Ryan; CityhallMail Subject: Executive course proposal To All It May Concern, Hello, my name is Heather Clarke, 77470 New Mexico Dr, I live on the first tee box of the now defunked executive course at Palm Desert Country Club! Although I fought long and hard to try to have the executive course reopened, I came to realize that this was never going to happen! That being said, I decided to join forces with the Executive Course Project group, to ensure my input would be heard! I, at no time have had any opinions forced on me, I have sat in on a few, polite, interesting meetings, where I felt the country club was completely interested in what I had to say, as well as the others that were in attendance! I am anxious for this project to get underway! We will never have the "little" course back I would prefer to look at some kind of maintained buildings/projects than a dirt, ant filled, doggie walking park, where no one cleans up after their puppies! I also am thrilled to be offered the five extra feet of property and if comes with additional taxes so be it! It is inevitable that change is coming, let's be pro active, let's stop procrastinating and get this plan in place! It will raise our land values and bring in more support for our course and community! Thank you for your time, Respectfully yours, Heather Clarke Sent from my iPad 1 May 21, 2017 Palm Desert Architectural Committee Re: Proposed infill at Palm Desert Country Club Dear Sirs: I would first like to express my opinion that the proposed infill before the committee is prohibited by the declarations of restrictions on the open space land in Tract 2283 as well as variance case #409 in the County of Riverside. I plan to exercise the rights of the two above mentioned items if approval of the existing tract map is granted by the Palm Desert Architectural Committee. I am unable to be at the 12:30pm meeting on May 23rd and believe that the residents of PDCC should receive notice of any meeting related to this project with enough advance notice to request time off from work. It is extremely frustrating to learn of an important meeting with so little advance warning. Had a neighbor not emailed me I would not have even know that revisions had been returned to the city or this meeting scheduled! Upon reviewing the proposed tract i have objections to the following items related to my home at 77040 Utah Circle — • The proposed 5-foot dedication has been granted to all of my neighbors but is missing in front of my property. This needs to be changed and added to plans. • The proposed retaining wall is only 2 feet from my property line, this is much too close and intrusive • The proposed walking path is within 7 feet of my property line and intrusive. I would suggest this path be removed. There is a mistake on the plans showing the path at 20 feet which is not to scale of any other item on the plan. • The proposed road is within 18 feet of my property line and is intrusive to my enjoyment of my backyard. The road needs to be moved toward the center of the area. • The community pool area is adjacent to my property and would cause noise pollution to my home. I would suggest removing the community pool area entirely. If this is not possible I am requesting that the block wall granted on the other side encircle the entire pool area to mitigate noise. • Cross section H on page PSP6 fails to cross unit C-4 which is extremely close at only 37' to my property line and only 5 feet lower in elevation. Unit C-4 will completely block my view of the mountains from my pool and patio. The unit should be removed or lowered in elevation to restore my view. • I am also troubled by the lack of elevation toward the proposed road from my backyard in the plans. Currently my property is approximately 12 feet in elevation above the area of the golf course where a road is proposed meaning that any retaining wall would need to be 12 feet high, the plans show the retaining wall to be 4'6" high and 3 feet from my property line. I am requesting that a cross section be produced cutting through unit C-12. • No soil should be allowed to be moved to elevate the proposed road, path, or retaining wall. The plans show a 6 foot drop from my property lime to the proposed road which is incorrect, the drop is approximately 12 feet. • On cross section H a 5 foot high "security wall" is noted. I do not want a 5 foot wall further blocking my view from my pool area I would also like to point out that the City of Palm Desert has yet to officially notify the residents of Palm Desert County Club of the current infill proposal. Many of our residents are elderly and do not use a computer making it very hard' for them to even know about the proposed infill or that this architectural plan has been submitted. I would highly suggest that the committee move to postpone any approval until all owners of affected property have been legally notified of this proposal. Sincerely Lisa Theodoratus Owner 77040 Utah Circle Ceja, Eric From: Lisa Theodoratus < lisatheo@msn.com> Sent: Monday, May 22, 2017 6:15 PM To: Information Mail; Ceja, Eric Subject: PDCC proposed infill _ Letter with requested changed for Architectural Committee meeting May 23 Attachments: PDCC Architectural Committee .pdf Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Hi Eric I have looked all over the city's website and am not locating an email address for the Architectural Committee so 1 am sending this to you to forward to them Tuesday morning. i am very concerned about some of the drawings and have found several errors most importantly of elevations behind my home in regards to the proposed retaining wall, path, and road. I told my new neighbor who recently purchased the house to the right of mine about the meeting tomorrow and he had no idea that it was happening and could not take the day off from work to attend. I will also say an his behalf that the 5' dedication needs to be added on his property as well as only our 2 homes have not been granted it. My letter to the Architectural Committee is below and also attached. I am also trying info@ in the hope that it is a working email address for the city. As you know l was unable to stay for the meeting as I had a work commitment that could not be changed with such short notice. Kind Regards, Lisa Theodoratus, Owner The Cruise Experience 415 457-7186 Lisa@TheCruiseExperience.com May 21, 2017 Palm Desert Architectural Committee Re: Proposed infill at Palm Desert Country Club Dear Sirs: I would first like to express my opinion that the proposed infill before the committee is prohibited by the declarations of restrictions on the open space land in Tract 2283 as well as variance case #409 in the County of Riverside. I plan to exercise the rights of the two above mentioned items if approval of the existing tract map is granted by the Palm Desert Architectural Committee. I am unable to be at the 12:30pm meeting on May 23rd and believe that the residents of PDCC should receive notice of any meeting related to this project with enough advance notice to request time off from work. It is extremely frustrating to learn of an important meeting with so little advance warning. Had a neighbor not emailed me i would not have even know that revisions had been returned to the city or this meeting scheduled! Upon reviewing the proposed tract I have objections to the following items related to my home at 77040 Utah Circle — • The proposed 5-foot dedication has been granted to all of my neighbors but is missing in front of my property. This needs to be changed and added to plans. • The proposed retaining wall is only 2 feet from my property line, this is much too close and intrusive • The proposed walking path is within 7 feet of my property line and intrusive. I would suggest this path be removed. There is a mistake on the plans showing the path at 20 feet which is not to scale of any other item on the plan. • The proposed road is within 18 feet of my property line and is intrusive to my enjoyment of my backyard. The road needs to be moved toward the center of the area. • The community pool area is adjacent to my property and would cause noise pollution to my home. I would suggest removing the community pool area entirely. If this is not possible i am requesting that the block wall granted on the other side encircle the entire pool area to mitigate noise. • Cross section H on page PSP6 fails to cross unit C-4 which is extremely close at only 37' to my property line and only 5 feet lower in elevation. Unit C-4 will completely block my view of the mountains from my pool and patio. The unit should be removed or lowered in elevation to restore my view. • I am also troubled by the lack of elevation toward the proposed road from my backyard in the plans. Currently my property is approximately 12 feet in elevation above the area of the golf course where a road is proposed meaning that any retaining wall would need to be 12 feet high, the plans show the retaining wall to be 4'6" high and 3 feet from my property line. I am requesting that a cross section be produced cutting through unit C-12. • No soil should be allowed to be moved to elevate the proposed road, path, or retaining wall. The plans show a 6 foot drop from my property line to the proposed road which is incorrect, the drop is approximately 12 feet. • On cross section H a 5 foot high "security wall" is noted. I do not want a 5 foot wall further blocking my view from my pool area I would also like to point out that the City of Palm Desert has yet to officially notify the residents of Palm Desert County Club of the current infill proposal. Many of our residents are elderly and do not use a computer making it very hard for them to even know about the proposed infiil or that this architectural plan has been submitted. I would highly suggest that the committee move to postpone any approval until all owners of affected property have been legally notified of this proposal. Sincerely, Lisa Theodoratus Owner 77040 Utah Circle 2 1-25-2016 RE: RETENTION PONDS/DETENTION AREAS I posted all the grading plans on a large board and counted 39 retention areas on PDCC plans. I wanted you to know there are many more negative comments on the Internet. I have enclosed Several of the articles. Has PDCC FILED THE BMP REPORT, we don't know. The two major itemsnegative about these areas are: 1. Children are drawn to these areas like a magnet. Very dangerous health wise for them to play in and around these areas if not fenced in. 2. Health hazards where animal feces and other debris remain in the area. 3. Mosquitoes and other insects. 4. Of course we do not want any building on the Executive Golf Course but to have any of these Fenced it would be horrible to view. 5. In speaking with Eric Ceja, the water in these areas would not be pumped into the street And CVW will not let them discharge in the sewer system. They must just drain in Place. The current owner doesn't even take care of the weeds and other items now , even When Code is contacted. Why would you think it would be any different for them to follow the laws on the books and keep the area clean and safe. 6.We rarely get rain but in the past two years we have had our share. If any of these Areas would flood on to neighbors property there is no insurance from the owners, Or HOA when it is released to them and unless the home owner has flood insurance they are not covered. I know our side of Kentucky near Tennessee has had it's share In flooding during these rains. One household claimed they had $7000. In damage. SO THESE ARE OBJECTIONS OPEN SPACE ACTION COMMITTEE (Secretary, Barb Powers) Ceja, Eric From: Jack Fleming <flemingjamf@gmail.com> Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2017 6:34 PM To: Barbara Powers; Ceja, Eric Subject: [SPAM1 - Re: lOpenSpaceActionCommittee Urgent Message so what happened to the zone change? Do they not need area residences to approve? Are they raming this through? Paying off City officials? Get approval before they know they can build? Sounds like the City is hard on cash. On Fri, Feb 3, 2017 at 7:38 PM, Barbara Powers <openspaceaction@gntail.com> wrote: WE NEED YOUR HELP! PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB RESIDENTS: On February 28, 2017 at 12:30 p.m. The City of Palm Desert, Architectural Review Commission is holding a hearing to approve 69 Condo's to be built on the Executive Course. PLEASE COME AND TELL THEM WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THE PROJECT! Your appearance at this meeting is extremely important. Meeting to be held at: City of Palm Desert Council Chambers 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Architectural Review Commission reviews the building design and landscaping of all commercial and multiple dwellings to assure compatibility with the City's long-range objectives of being a community of quality, broad vistas, and taste. As of May 2012 also reviews and makes recommendations for the landscape elements of any given project, assuming responsibilities formerly performed by the Landscape Beautification Committee. When more information is available we will notify you. Please share this information with your friends and neighbors. Thank you for your continued support, Open Space Action Committee Barbara Powers, Secretary openspaccaction C' gmail.com http://www.openspaceaction.com 1 Ceia, Eric From: Bella asparkle.giriz@yahoo.com> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2017 4:46 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: PLS READ BEFORE ARC MEETING RE PD EX COURSE on 7/25 To Eric Ceja/ARC This letter is in regards to the Palm Desert Country Club Executive Golf Course. To be very honest, at first I was opposed. After all desirable possibilities were exhausted, it seems this project is the most advantageous. I've been following the plans and ideas from the very beginning and it seems they are getting sharpened to perfection with great thought and detail to the consideration of privacy, noise, and tasteful landscaping surrounding the current residents. I frequent the PDCC web site to keep up to date with info and visuals. 5o far, I'm really impressed with what I see! Aesthetically pleasing on so many levels!! My husband and I have attended a few of the meetings here at PDCC regarding the Executive Course. I was absolutely astonished, dumbfounded, and terror-stricken. No real words can describe my emotions witnessing barbaric, vulgar, aggressive, cantankerous and discustingly rude people!!!! Closed minded, resistant to change even for the better, ignorant peoples " t " "" Couldn't wrap my head around what I saw and heard. I was shocked some people (idiots) behaved so poorly. My husband had to leave because one guy wouldn't shut his mouth and let others express their opinions, I thought he was going to punch him! This behavior just evokes violence inside that normally isn't there! (enough of that!!) Despite the pessimistic, unfavorable, ignorant gainsay that some residents have, I truly feel this project/condos will enhance the neighborhood (better than it looks now) and create a desirable richness that will help increase our property value over and above! Change is hard, sign of the times and all that. Please, get this project going, get it done fast so we can enjoy our backyards again!! My husband and I are totally 100%a in with moving forward. It's a win win all around, sooner or later, others will agree. I wish to remain anonymous in fear of our house burning down and getting stoned to death!! 1 Ceja, Eric From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Jim Krzyminski <jim@jameskrzyminski.com> Monday, July 24, 2017 11:39 AM Ceja, Eric Barbara powers NO CONDOS" 1 strongly object to the proposed condo development at the PDCC. Approving a 24 toot street in hack of my house is ridiculous. Palm Desert is going to end up looking like Los Angeles or worse. Please vote NO! Jim James M. Krzyminski Law Office of James M. Krzyminski, P. C. 361 North Canon Drive Beverly Hills, CA 90210 USA Phone (310) 777-7481 Fax (310) 777-8754 Email iim@iameskrzvminski.com IMPORTANT TAX INFORMATION: To insure compliance with U.S. Treasury Department regulations, we advise you, unless otherwise expressly indicated, that any federal tax advice contained in this correspondence was not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of: avoiding tax -related penalties under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, or applicable state or local tax law provisions or promoting, marketing or recommending to another party any tax -related matters addressed herein. CONFIDENTIALITY NOTE: This e-mail contains information belonging to the Law Office of James M. Krzyminski, P. C., which may be privileged, confidential and/or protected from disclosure. The information is intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above, If you think that you have received this message in error, please email the sender. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, distribution or copying is strictly prohibited. 1 Ceja, Eric From: Tim 011om atallom@tigerelectric.com> Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 10:30 AM To: Ceja, Eric; Stendell, Ryan; Aylaian, Lauri Cc: Wilf Weinkauf Subject: PDCC Executive Course To whom it may concern, I am sending this e-mail in support of the executive course development on PDCC property. My Name is Tim 011om and live on the executive course at 76764 Kentucky Ave. Although it pains me to see the course closed, I understand economics and fully understand why it will never be a golf course again. I have seen the plans for the development and think the Developer has done an exceptional job on the layout in regards to spacing, open areas etc. In closing I would like see the project proceed, feeling it will do nothing but improve the value of my property. Feel free to contact me with any questions or concerns about my previous comments. Thank you, Tim 011om 'METRIC, l Tim 011om Project Manager Tollom@Tigerelectric.com Tiger Electric Inc 9291 9th Street Rancho Cucamonga CA 91730 (714) 529-8061 Cell # (760) 883 7392 1 Ceja, Eric From: Marilyn Forney <Feathr7@dc.rr.coma Sent: Sunday, March 12, 2017 5:04 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: From Jack Forney: Development Entry Eric I am unclear as to why the entry to the development for PDCC was changed from a gated to an non -gated community. An non -gated community increases the security risk to our rear property lines. Please let me know, Jack Forney 1 Ceja. Eric From: Barbara powers <gourdpower@msn.coma Sent: Tuesday, February 28, 2017 6:05 PM To: Stendell, Ryan; Ceja, Eric Subject: MEETING TODAY I would like to thank you and the Arch. Committee for listening to our tired and boring comments. I am sorry if you feel personally attacked. I have tried to calm our residents but some are so old and this has been their lives for many years and they feel they are going to loose their way of life. i know you both are working hard to please everyone and that is a very hard job. Just sitting here , I was thinking about something Chris Said when he was asked a question by one of the Arch. Members. Chris said they had the HOA out there to look where the homes would be built. QUESTION , WHAT HOA, THERE IS NONE THAT I KNOW OF. PDCCHOA CERTAINLY WAS NOT OUT THERE. THEY ARE TAKING NO STANCE. If Chris was referring to the committee that Wilf formed ( hand picked) this is not an HOA. SO WHO WAS THIS HOA. The HOA would not be formed until the homes are sold. Is he talking about the owners that would be responsible before an HOA took over. THIS WAS VERY CONFUSING TO ME. tHANKS, bARB Barbara Powers 1 Ceia, Eric From: Barbara powers gourdpower@msn.com> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 8:10 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: RE: PLANS FOR RETENTION./DETENTION PLANS I have those you said you were going to give me plans for the actual retention Plan individual, i checked all the forms for building a retention area that would be required to be filed Even in public works, could not find what is required to build one. Feds have plans ,type of sand. Drains etc. Surely the city has one too. Thanks. Get Outlook for Android From: eceia@citvofpalrndesert.org aeceia@cityofpalmdesert.org> Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2017 7:49:21 AM To: gourdpower@msn.com Subject RE: PLANS FOR RETENTION./DETENTION PLANS Hi Barbara, The City's website has all the grading plans associated with the project for viewing. If you click on the grading plan sheets you will see areas on the plans identified as "retention". The attached grading plans are posted on the website. Thanks, Eric Ceja, Principal Planner Community Development Department eceia Pcitvofoalmdese rt.org P: (760) 346-0611 F: (760) 776-6417 City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 From: Barbara powers [mailto:gourdpower@msn.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2017 2:47 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: PLANS FOR RETENTION./DETENTION PLANS i Eric, I am having trouble finding these plans anywhere on the City's web site. You said you were going to post them. I haven't been able to get to City Hall take take a look at these (because of the 24 hr caregiver that I am to him). If possible could you send me that file. Thanks. Barb Barbara Powers 2 City of Palm Desert 7\ DEC 11 2017 Community Dovelopment October 9, 2017 Jan Harnik, Mayor City Hall 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mayor Harnik: James C. Evans 76827 Oklahoma Ave. Palm Desert, California 92211-7704 ge-te7 01,4 e bvp) (4, r4 4 RCfx Y CLERK $ EOFF let1/1 PALM DESERT. 2017 NOY -3 AM 8= 20 My name is James Evans and I live at 76827 Oklahoma Ave, Palm Desert. I request my letter be read at any hearing concerning the change of the Palm Desert Golf Course. My home abuts the proposed housing development by the P.D. Holding, LP. It is a wonderful home and I enjoy sitting on my back patio enjoying the view of the mountains that surround the desert valley. This is what makes my home different than most of my neighbors that don't abut the golf course, the view. My property will be devalued, as will the quality of my life, with the construction of the proposed housing development. My wife, Jeanne and I specifically selected this property because of the view and to be on the golf course. My home is a two bedroom, unremarkable house but will sell because of the location. We did not purchase the home with neighbors immediately on our property line. We are now faced with losing our view and quiet enjoyment of our property. There will be two or three additional homes next to ours and with that more people and noise. The owners of the golf course also knew what they were purchasing — a golf course. The developers will tell you about all the additional income generated from property taxes. There are additional costs as well including more roads, school classrooms, garbage pickup, police, fire fighters, etc. The desert has a severe water shortage. Houses will use much more water than the recycled water a golf course will use. These are all costs to our society that cannot be neglected when considering a housing development. My wife and 1 respectfully request you not approve any housing developments on the existing golf course. We request it remain as open space which is very needed in our community. Sincerely, rS`lVLf2._. James C. Evans CO YTQ 6IT`/ r1FlN,i;ER DATE I am a: (o) Paim Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: Attention: Planning Commission Re: Palm Desert Country Club Meeting December 19, 2017 Dear Sirs and Madams: My wife and I have owned our home since 1997. 1 purchased it in anticipation of retirement from the Aerospace Industry. I am a golfer, and was thrilled to locate a home on the golf course. I had a quiet neighborhood, no traffic, privacy with terrific views! As you know the course has gone through many ownership changes and now we have a group that are requesting a zone change to build more homes! This is going to create a lot of problems for the subdivision and community. Increased street traffic, security, over loaded utilities which are necessary for quality of life. Please consider this matter carefully. If approved, our backyard and bedroom window will face the new road and parking lot. If you believe it is wise, please, please require a 6' sound solid block wall to buffer us from this new complex. Remember you are voted to represent the residents of Palm Desert not the developers. Best regards, Fredric H & Cherlyn L. Grant -Simmons Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System"". Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 Ceja, Eric From: Hermann, David Sent: Monday, December 11, 2017 8:19 AM To: Ceja, Eric Cc: Stendell, Ryan; O'Reilly, Monica Subject: FW: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission Good morning, Eric. We received the message below over the weekend from Palm Desert Country Club residents addressed to the Planning Commission. Thank you and your staff very much for ensuring that Commission members receive it. David David Hermann Public Information Officer Ph: 760.776,6411 Direct: 760,776.6380 dhermann@cityofpaimdesert.org From: webmaster@cityafpalmdesert.orci [mailto:webmaster@citvof ,almdesert.orgl Sent: Sunday, December 10, 2017 7:04 PM To: Information Mail Subject: City of Palm Desert: Website Contact Us Form Submission A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted. Form Name: Contact Us Date & Time: 12/10/2017 7:03 PM Response #: 770 Submitter ID: 6867 IP address: 67.49.90.208 Time to complete: 19 min. , 49 sec. Survey Details Page 1 Your Contact Information First Name Fredric H & Cherlyn L Last Name Simmons Email Address Fredpdkids@gmail.com Phone Number 760-772-1850 Address 76862 Kentucky Avenue Address 2 Not answered City Palm Desert State California ZIP Code 92211 1 I am a: (o) Palm Desert Resident Comments or Concerns: Attention: Planning Commission Re: Palm Desert Country Club Meeting December 19, 2017 Dear Sirs and Madams: My wife and I have owned our home since 1997. I purchased it in anticipation of retirement from the Aerospace Industry. I am a golfer, and was thrilled to locate a home on the golf course. I had a quiet neighborhood, no traffic, privacy with terrific views! As you know the course has gone through many ownership changes and now we have a group that are requesting a zone change to build more homes! This is going to create a lot of problems for the subdivision and community. Increased street traffic, security, over loaded utilities which are necessary for quality of life. Please consider this matter carefully. If approved, our backyard and bedroom window will face the new road and parking lot-. If you believe it is wise, please, please require a 6' sound solid block wall to buffer us from this new complex. Remember you are voted to represent the residents of Palm Desert not the developers. Best regards, Fredric H & Cherlyn L. Grant -Simmons Thank you, City of Palm Desert This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System'. Please do not reply directly to this email. 2 Ceja, Eric From: dixnal@aol.com Sent: Thursday, December 07, 2017 10:36 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: Fwd: ❑riginal Message AS A LONG TIME RESIDENT AN❑ HOMEOWNER IN THE PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB, I WOULD LIKE TO OFFER MY COMMENTS REGARDING THE CONDO PROJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR THE EXECUTIVE COURSE. I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT, AS THE EXECUTIVE COURSE PROPERTY IS ZONED FOR RECREATION AN❑ SHOULD NOT BE CHANGED. IF THE PROJECT IS APPROVED, MY LIVING ROOM AND TW❑ BEDROOMS WILL BE WITHIN A FEW FEET OF A ROAD, AND 1 WILL BE SUBJECTED TO CARS TRAVELING UP AN❑ DOWN THE ROAD WHICH WILL CREATE NOISE AND CAR LIGHTS SHINING INTO MY HOUSE.MY HEALTH COUL❑ BE AFFECTED DUE T❑ CAR, TRUCK, MOTORCYCLE NOISE AND MY INABILITY T❑ GET THE SLEEP I NEED AT NIGHT THE OPEN SPACE BEHIND MY HOUSE WILL BE GONE AND MY VIEW WILL BE ELIMINATED. I BELIEVE THE EXECUTIVE COURSE SHOULD BE REOPENED AND MANAGED PROPERLY TO ALLOW ALL RESIDENTS TO USE IT FOR RECREATION PURPOSES AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED. NOT EVERYONE WANTS TO PLAY GOLF ON A CHAMPIONSHIP 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE,AND SOME OLDER AND YOUNGER PEOPLE COUL❑ AND WOUL❑ USE THE 9 HOLE COURSE. I THINK WE NEED MORE ❑PEN RECREATION SPACE FOR THE YOUNG AND THE OL❑ IT IS MY HOPE THAT THE CONDO PROJECT WILL NOT BECOME A REALITY. ALBERT L WOMACK 76806 KENTUCKY AVE, 1 December 6, 2017 Eric Ceja, Principle Planner, eceja@cityofpalmdesert.org City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Reference: Palm Desert County Club — Executive Course Proposed Condo Development Subject: Formal Comments to Case Nos. CZ/PP/CUP 16-280, TTM 37240, TTM 37241, TTM 37242 As owner and resident at 43305 Arizona Street (Lot 48} adjacent to site C of the proposed development, we have concerns about the impact to our southern view of the mountains in La Quinta. To minimize the impact and provide some compensation for the premium that we paid the golf course and mountain view, we suggest the following: 1. Drop proposed units C-10 and C-11 vertically a minimum of 16 inches. 2. Eliminate tree planting and high vegetation that would obstruct existing southerly mountain views throughout the proposed development, particularly trees and high vegetation between our residence south property line and the proposed walking path. Reference landscape plan L- 3. 3. Increase the proposed property transfer to adjacent property owners from 5 feet to a minimum 10 feet. Reference paragraph 4 of the McFadden Architects letter to the City dated 9/28/16. Sincerely, 16-6 I Marsha & Stephen Pare 43305 Arizona Street Palm Desert, CA Cell: 714.726.2489 Ceja, Eric From: Marilyn Forney a Feathr7@dc.rr.com> Sent: Tuesday, December 05, 2017 7:08 AM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: From Jack Forney Eric, thanks again for taking your valuable time to meet with Bob, Lynn and me. Just to restate my compromise suggestion to relocate units B8, B9, B 10 and B I 1 the primary reason was to enable movement of the units 30' or more away from the north side of the proposed road location and severely impact the residents on the south side of the fairway. Thank you Jac i Ceja, Eric To: Subject: Stendell, Ryan RE: [SPAM] - Fwd: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: Planning Comrnission Hearing From: Jack Fleming [mailto:fieminctjamf@gmail.com] Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 3:38 PM To: CityhailMail; Jack Fleming Subject: [SPAM] - Fwd:OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: Planning Commission Hearing It would be interesting to see what the overall general plan is for this area. To add 119 residential units to such a small area, which would equate to about 238 automobiles up and down California Drive and at the corner of California Drive and Fred Waring, seems a bit excessive and would only delay traffic. As an owner on California drive, they already do not obey the 30 mph speed limit right now. V Sheriffs is aware of this and say they have no control over it. Cant wait for the first child to be hit and/or elderly person killed. I will be first in line to sue the crap out of PDCC and the City. Its time to use common sense. Ask yourself, would you like to have it in you r backyard when you bought on the premise fo open space. I know we did. . But then the City only does what is inits best interst not the Citizens that they serve. $$$ Forwarded message ---------- From: Jack Fleming <fiemingjamf@gnial1.co m> Date: Fri, Dec I, 2017 at 2:45 PM Subject: Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: Planning Commission Hearing To: Barbara Powers <opensraceaction@gmail.com>, eceja@cityofpalmdesert_org Barbara, you have to be joking. Like the City and the Planning gives a rats ass about what we think. All they see is $$ for tax revenue. Screw the citizens. They dont matter. PDCC is giving the City what they want. I am sure this was agreed upon long time ago when they purchased the golf course. Typical gov. Its all about money. They get a Christmas bonus for this. While we lose property values. But then who cares about us. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Barbara Powers <openspaceaction@gmail.corry wrote: Hello Neighbors The City of Paim Desert Planning Commission Public Hearing for the PDCC Former Executive Course has been scheduled for December 19, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. at the City of Palm Desert. Those property owners within 300 ft. of the proposed development should receive a mailed notice from the City of Paim Desert regarding the Legal Notice. A copy of the Public Hearing Notice that was posted in the Desert Sun on November 30, 2017 is attached. t Our voices and attending the public hearings are our most powerful political tools. You simply have to speak up and attend if you disagree, it is the most important thing you can do as a citizen. We will continue to update all of you as information becomes available. Thank you for your continued support. Barbara Powers, Secretary 2 Ceja, Eric From: Jack Fleming <flemingjamf@gmail,com> Sent: Friday, December 01, 2017 2:46 PM To: Barbara Powers; Ceja, Eric Subject: [SPAM] - Re: OpenSpaceActionCommitteeUpdate: Planning Commission Hearing Barbara, you have to be joking. Like the City and the Planning gives a rats ass about what we think. All they see is $$ for tax revenue. Screw the citizens. They dont matter. PDCC is giving the City what they want. I am sure this was agreed upon long time ago when they purchased the golf course. Typical goy'. Its all about money. They get a Christmas bonus for this. While we lose property values. But then who cares about us. On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 4:02 PM, Barbara Powers <openspaceaction@2mail.com> wrote: Hello Neighbors The City of Palm Desert Planning Commission Public Hearing for the PDCC Former Executive Course has been scheduled for December 19, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. at the City of Palm Desert. Those property owners within 300 ft. of the proposed development should receive a mailed notice from the City of Palm Desert regarding the Legal Notice. A copy of the Public Hearing Notice that was posted in the Desert Sun on November 30, 2017 is attached. Our voices and attending the public hearings are our most powerful political tools. You simply have to speak up and attend if you disagree, it is the most important thing you can do as a citizen. We will continue to update all of you as information becomes available. Thank you for your continued support. Barbara Powers, Secretary i Ceja, Eric From: Bella De Cou alagosi57@yahoo.com> Sent: Thursday, November 30, 2017 4:58 PM To: Ceja, Eric Subject: PL5 READ BEFORE MEETING RE PD EX COURSE on 12/19 > > > > To Eric Ceja >>> > > > This letter is in regards to > the >> Palm > > > Desert Country Club Executive > Golf > > Course. > > > To be very honest, at first I > was > > > opposed. After all desirable > > possibilities were exhausted, > > > it seems this project is the > most > > advantageous. > > > I've been following the plans > and > > ideas > > > from the very beginning and > it > > seems they are getting > > > sharpened to perfection with > great > > thought and detail to the > > > consideration of privacy, > noise, > > and tasteful landscaping > > > surrounding the current > residents. > > I frequent the PDCC web > > > site to keep up to date with > info > > and visuals. So far, I'm > > > really impressed with what I > see! > > Aesthetically pleasing on >>> so many levels!! > > > > > My husband and I have > attended a > > few of > > > the meetings here at PDCC > > regarding the Executive Course. I > > > was absolutely astonished, > > dumbfounded, and terror-stricken. > > > No real words can describe > my > > emotions witnessing barbaric, > > > vulgar, aggressive, > cantankerous > > and discustingly rude » > people!!!! > > > Closed minded, resistant to > change > > even > > > for the better, ignorant >> peoples+"""+ Couldn't wrap my > head > > > around what I saw and heard. > I was > > shocked some people > > > (idiots) behaved so poorly. > My > > husband had to leave because > > > one guy wouldn't shut his > mouth > > and let others express their > > > opinions, I thought he was > going > > to punch him! This behavior > > > just evokes violence inside > that > > normally isn't there! > > > (enough of that!!) » > > > > Despite the pessimistic, > > unfavorable, > > > ignorant gainsay that some > > residents have, I truly feel this > > > project/condos will enhance > the > > neighborhood (better than it > > > looks now) and create a > desirable > > richness that will help > > > increase our property value > over > > and above! > > > Change is hard, sign of the > times > > and > > > all that. Please, get this 2 > project > > going, get it done fast > > > so we can enjoy our > backyards > > again!! My husband and I are > > > totally 100% in with moving > > forward. It's a win win all > > > around, sooner or later, > others > > will agree. >>> > > > I wish to remain anonymous in > fear » of > > > our house burning down and > getting > > stoned to death!! » > >> 3 NORMA. VIEW SFENCE VIEW VIEW FROM MY PATIO WITH 6 FOOT FENCE BLOCKING VIEW Picture taken from my patio, obviously the pole isn't standing up right, probably more like 5 five feet The only view I would have is the top of the trees.