Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTT 19640 CUP 21-83 IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB 1984 PRE.CISE PLAN TENTATIVE TRACT ZONE CHANGE H PAR"EL MAP - VARIANCE U.U.P.REFFIR TO: mot' Q t-tS --- APPLICANTT r— � LOCAT ION: s- REQIJcr,"T - EXISTING ZONE PREPARATION PROGRES,Z) DATE BY COMMENTS 'APPLICATION RECEIVED ci 3 es 7,/ LEG/}I_ PUBLICATION SENT �{ - --NOTICES SENT FIELD INVESTIGATION DEPTS. NOTIFIED_ BUILDING AJ 12 ° 1 -ENGINEERING t� FIRE r� POLICE _RECREATION & PARKS I _ S_CM)OL DISTRICT TDIVISION OF HIGHWAYS _FLOOD CONTROL of •. PRELIMINARY MEETING STAFF F;EPORT — 1 p) Zi p,1- FINAL PLAN APPROVAL _ PRECISE PLAN (6) LANDSCAPING PLAN (5) PLAN_ DIRECTOR MOD. (6) HEARINGS & ACTIONS DATE ACTION VOTE REVIEW BOARD HEARING RC. HEARING PUBLISHED �PC. PUBLIC HEARING APPLICANT NOTIFIED C.C. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NO. RESOLUTION NO. FFFWTIUF nATF - y 73-477 Irontree Drive Palm Desert, California April 3, 1984 Chairman Ralph Wood Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE : C:�TT 19640'and CUP 21.83 1-ronwoodCountry Club Dear Chairman Wood: As part of the testimony which I introduced at your last meeting on March 6th, 1984 and at which the Commission granted a second continuance to April 3, 1 mentioned the fact that I had some "before" and "after" photos of the "exaggerated" land fill being conducted in the vicinity of and primarily "on" Lot 9 of the subject amended tentative tract. You indicated then that you woad like to see them. It is my pleasure to present them tonight as Exhibits in support of my contention that Silver Spur has no logical reason - physical, environmental, economical or financial for having elevated the pad height of Lot 9 to anything higher than the grading plan which you approved last October and that would have been approximately 505' - 506' at its Northwest corner. There are three 8 x 10 photos - I, 11, III ; I (a) This photo shows the area in front of (south) of the Sales Office with the rough fill and grade and dried out vegeta- tion cover which was placed there prior to my residential purchase. (b) The small photo stapled to it shows the new land fill over the "orig" area. It is now higher than the Cadillac roof on the North side of the road cut and about 3 times that height on the South side of the road cut (Lot 9) . (c) The fire plug is 30" high and using that as a scale, I have drawn in the height of an 18' roof elevation, which is plan- ned for- this lot. Chairman Ralph Wood April 3, 1984 Page two trat II This photo clearly demonstrates h exaggerated the "fill" on Lot 9. Again, the fire plug is 30" from bottom of flange to top of bell, and using this as scale, a vertical measure from top of fill to top of picture would be only 15' . . . three feet short of ridge elevation of homes planned. III This photo, taken from my living room patio, looks directly at the N .W. corner of Lot 9 . .(contrary to Mr. Spicer's letter of 3/27/84, c.c. to Mr. Diaz) . Roof ridge elevations of 18' (as planned) on Lots 9 and 8 as requested will obscure view of South Course to that which literally lies South of the "Wash". This area can be identified in this photo by four tall palm trees. The course at this distance is so far away that the green fairways have disappeared under the "green" of the short trees. Q. What did Silver Spur gain by super elevating Lot 9 ---higher retail value? A. NO. With Lot 9 having a pad elevation of 515' . . . .assume an owner whose eye level is 5'6". . . . .this equates to a level sight outlook of 520' 6': All of the residences across the street or on adjacent lots are pad elevations of 506' to 508'. Add an 18' roof elevation on these lots and the owners of Lots 8 and 9 will be looking at ridge elevations of 524' to 526'. They will be 4' to 6' short of seeing over their neighbor's houses. Q. Silver Spur had a problem getting all these lots to have proper sewer fall into sewer connection at Mariposa. A. TRUE - Insofar as lots fronting on 18th fairway were concerned, but only if laterals were taken to the street by gravity flow. All fairway pad elevations could have been lowered, if design. had taken laterals to collection line in easement to be granted at edge of lath fairway and then pumped back into an existing line on Mariposa or even perhaps gravity feeding into Irontree Drive access to Club. In any event, a pumping station to handle 6 - 8 homes could have pro- bably been installed for approximately Ten Thousand dollars, per Engineering Department, Coachella Water District. Q. Did this sewer problem in any way influence or require the "exaggerated" land fill? Chairman Ralph Wood April 3, 1984 Page three A. NO. These lots could have been properly sewered with pad elevations as approved in Grading Plan in October, 1983. Q. Was there an Invironmental reason for Silver Spur to construct these "exaggerated" fills on these Lots 8 and 9? A. Quite the contrary. The fill did not enhance the view from these lots to provide vistas of the golf course over the roof tops of their neighboring residences. . . . but did create a very negative impact on established real estate values of neighbors on the North- westerly side of Mariposa. In summary, no one yet has been able to provide a valid reason for this action. I am not sure that the Department of Public Works can be excused for issuing a Grading Permit on January 20th which allowed pad elevations of 10° in excess of a tentive plan that had gone through public hearings, received an approval based on information submitted (including a grading plan) without referring it back to other Departments for approval. I am not sure that all the conditions of approval of Case No. ITT19640 were met prior to the issuance of a Grading Plan on January 20, 1984. 1 am not sure that Silver Spur has not far exceeded the grading plan allowed under the permit issued by Palm Desert on January 20, 1984. In fact, the further that I have allowed myself to become involved in a "dispute" which I consider an intrusion on the "quiet enjoyment" of my personal property which, I hope, is still to be considered an cQ inalienable right. 601 1 respectfully request that Silver Spur be limited to pad elevations of 4JOU on Lot 9 and 512' on Lot 8. Inasmuch as Mr. Spicer offered me the consolation that there were 20' spacings between the houses and I could use this as my "view" corridor, 1 would respectfully request consideration of height limitations on any plantings made in the "view" corridor between or around the residences on Lots 9 and 8. Yours very truly, Dick Willard A(AR 2 9 .1984 E�VIRONMENTAE SERVIC March 23, 1984 try Of PAW OESE 'ES Planning Commission Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen : I am a homeowner in Ironwood Country Club. My home address is 73-463 Iron Tree Drive. On March 6, 1984, 1 attended the Planning Commission, meeting where the pro- posed tentative Tract Map No. 19640, which showed approximately 40 lots to be developed by Silver Spur Associates, was discussed. As I understand, the outcome of the meeting was that property owners within a radius of 300' of the proposed development would be re-noticed to conform to the Palm Desert requirements and that the exact status of Area Q would be determined before further action was taken. A 30-day continuance was authorized by the Com- mission for these purposes. The vast majority of homeowners, 90% of whom are not permanent residents, have no knowledge of this proposed development by Silver Spur Associates, inasmuch as they have not received a notice, and consequently, have not been able to express their opinions on this development for your consideration. By ihis letter, I am urging the Commission to consider the rights of all Ironwood homeowners to express their opinions on this development prior to taking further action, due to the fact of the great importance of the golf courses to Ironwood, and the fact that the tentative Tract Map does not address itself to the severe dislocation of the 17th and 18th holes. Arbitrarily redesigning three holes on a golf course without notifying or consulting the homeowners is a grave injustice, particularly when the existence of the fine golf course was a prime reason that most owners purchased at Ironwood and is a materiai factor in maintaining the value of their homes in Ironwood. More important, to me as an individual resident, is the exaggerated land fill which Silver Spur has placed on Lot Numbers 8 and 9. Lot dumber 9 has a pad elevation at its Northwesterly corner of approximately 13 feet above street crade. The residence which Silver Spur intends to build on this Lot will have a ridge elevation of 18 feet, or approximately 33' above street grade. Surrounding trees will eventually exceed even this. All of the above will seriously impact the value of our view in a negative manner, for now we will lose our view of the South Course, for which we paid a premium. Y Planning Commission March 23, 1984 Page two No one told us that these Lots would be "filled" in this manner and we strongly object to its affect. In the interest of time, perhaps the Homeowners' Association could be contacted by the Planning Commission, so that they could circulate among their members, for their reaction to this development, and the results given to the Commission for their consideration. Sincerel , Peter A. Devlin PAD/vc 1 c f VANCE C. MAPE 73-163 Silverleaf Court Palm Desert, CA la Planning Commission 4,4AR 26 4 Palm Desert eryv1&C)/V 9fNT City of Palm Desert, California city C1 EIV rAL AI SF��fS Gentlemen: I am a homeowner in Ironwood Country Club. The address of my home is 73-163 Silverleaf Court. I attended the Planning Commission meeting on March 6, 1984, wherein the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19640 showing some forty lots to be developed by Silver Spur Associates was discussed. The outcome of the meeting, as I understand, was that property owners within a radius of three hundred feet of the proposed development would be re-noticed to conform to the Palm Desert requirements and that the exact status of Area Q would be determined before further action was taken. A thirty-day continuance was authorized by the Commission for these purposes. One item not discussed, but very important to all Ironwood homeowners, was the fact that if this development is allowed to go through, holes 16, 17 and 18 of the North Course would have to be materially changed. One of the major considerations of home buyers in Ironwood was the existence of the golf course and the homeowners' use of same. In fact, each homeowner has a vested interest in the golf course and the vast majority are members of the golf club and have paid substantial membership fees to join the club and continuing monthly dues for the use of the courses. They truly do have a vested interest in the courses. The current plans do show to some extent the realignment of the sixteenth hole, which is a definite down grading of the existing hole, but nothing as to what happens to the seventeenth and eighteenth holes. The vast majority of homeowners, ninety percent of whom are not perma- nent residents, have no knowledge of this proposed development by Silver Spur Associates inasmuch as they have not received a notice, and consequently have not been able to express their opinions on this development for your consideration. The golf courses are important to all of us at Ironwood. Those homeowners, some 200 as I understand, who rent their homes through Silver Spur are obligated as a condition of renting to be members of the Country Club as well as the tennis facilities. Inasmuch as the plans do not show what happens to the golf course and because of the extreme importance of the courses to the Ironwood homeowners and their vested interest therein, it is my opinion that all Ironwood homeowners should be noticed of this proposed development prior to proceeding further. i It further appears to me that the development of Lots 25 through 40 is being forced to the detriment of the natural terrain that exists. Why carve up a mountain with its natural beauty for the benefit of a few lots? As late as last year I.was told by Roger Lightfoot, a member of the Ironwood"Sales.Staff, that there would be no further development of homes in Ironwood other than the area now being developed east of Portola at the extension of Irontree and the lots along Mariposa which I understood to be Lots 1 through 24 showing on the Tentative Tract Map. By this letter, I am urging the Commission to take into consideration the rights of all Ironwood homeowners to express their opinion of this develop- ment prior to taking further action due to the fact of the great importance of the golf courses to Ironwood and the fact that the Tentative Tract Map does not address itself to the severe dislocation of the seventeenth and eighteenth holes. Arbitrarily redesigning three holes on a golf course without notifying or con- sulting the homeowners is a grave injustice, particularly when the existence of the fine golf courses was a prime reason of most owners in purchasing at Ironwood and is a material factor in maintaining the value of their homes in I ronwood. In the interest of time, perhaps the Homeowners' Association could be contacted by the Planning Commission so that they could circulate their members for their reaction to this development and the results given to the Commission for their consideration. Yours truly, Vance C. Mape VCM:jm /�- 7f�1�9�1G 50ff (r e t. ) 3/22/84 City Planning Commission 'c26 + ; City of Palm Desert £ryv� '92q City Hall City°N114, Palm Desert, CA 9226o OF 41 s� v Q4"S4&r Gentlemen: Per the controversy at Ironwood Country Club, and the Silver Spur Association request for almost unlimited expansion of single family home lots, the emasculation of a beautiful golf course, and a desire to destroy the natural beauty and habitat of the mountain areas surrounding the 16th & 17th fairways, I respectfully ask that your Commission deny all segments of the Silver Spur request . Not only has Silver Spur falsified their building programs to homeowners like myself, as to all future developements, but I feel they are actually in "contempt" of your own Commission. Despite the Commission having delayed a decision for the past 2 months, Silver Spur has gone merrily on it 's way bull-dozing, surveying, etc ., as if nothing can stop their expansion at all. I sincerely hope your Commission will unanimously disapprove this autocratic and greedy display of power, as generated by the officers of Silver Spur, and their Eastern manipulators. Very truly yours, A e aLn R. B fel H. L. SWARTZENDRUBER P.O. BOX 16206 WICHITA, KANSAS 67216 PH. 316.522-1842 March 9, 1984 U " LSD IAR 2 �0 '984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY, OF PALM DESERT City Planning Commission Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California Subject: Case #TT19640 & #CUP21-83 Gentlemen: A golf course could be compared to a family. Like children, each hole has a different personality and character. Holes 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the back nine on the north course of Ironwood Country Club excel in personality and have very strong character. They are excellent holes to play and are prized by every golf player of Ironwood. The highlights of 16 are the tee boxes located on the mountain and a ridge running perpendicular across the fairway that is a challenge for the golfer to. drive over. If the golfer fails to drive over the ridge, he is penalized with a blind shot to the green. If he drives over the ridge, he is rewarded with a relatively short shot to the green. If an errant shot finds its way into the wash, the golfer has a different set of problems. Number 17 has high elevated tees with the challenge of driving between a natural rock knoll in the middle of the fairway and the mountain extending into the fairway on the right. If the golfer is successful in driving be- tween these two natural obstacles and over the ridge between them, he is rewarded with an opportunity to put his second shot onto the green. If he fails to clear these natural obstacles, it is not possible to reach the green in two, and a resulting high score is to be expected. The 18th hole is a long par 5 that taxes the average golfer's ability. Three excellent shots to the green on a wide fairway can reward the golfer with par. Shorter shots with the possibility of going into the lake may cause the golfer to run up a high score. The substantial changing of these three holes to accommodate the building of fourteen additional houses on the mountainside of 16 and 17 fairways is ob- jectable to this golfer and homeowner. Page 2 To leave both tees on 16 in their present locations by eliminating house site 40 would reduce the damage to this hole. However, to remove the ridge and replace it with a valley for water to drain down the fairway will reduce the quality of the hole dramatically. It changes the 16th fairway from a beautiful exciting fairway to a drainage canal subject to the whims of the weather. On 17, the natural rock knoll, mountain to its right and the ridge between them would be leveled and replaced with #30, #31, and #32 house sites. The five house sites on the right side of 17 will replace three-fourths of the width and length of the present fairway. The tees will need to be moved a substantial distance to the left and the natural obstacles outlined above removed. This will change the present fairway from a beautiful challenging golf hole to "just another hole." The above relocation of the 17th fairway will be at the expense of the 18th that parallels it. The approximate 200 feet taken off the right side of the 17th fairway will squeeze the 17th and 18th fairways together. At the Home- owners meeting on Friday, February 17, 1984, held in the City Hall, Mr. Spicer said they were considering adding a three-par hole between the pres- ent 17th and 18th. If this was done, it would reduce the 18th hole from a five-par to a four-par hole. This would reduce the present short par 70 north course to a par 69. I object to such changes as it would reduce the quality of the course. While playing 15, 16, 17 and 18, I have seen coyotes (two one time crossing the 17th fairway), quail can be heard or seen on most rounds, and a pair of roadrunners were observed just off the cart path after playing the 17th green last week. Numerous other animals and birds are heard and seen on every round. The proposed fourteen houses will eliminate most of this enjoyment. Holes 15, 16, 17 and 18 are the most beautiful and exciting holes on the north course. I object to the changes in these holes to accommodate the creation of seventeen additional house sites #16 and #25 through #40. I do not object to changes which improve or enhance the area. In this case, it reduces the quality of one-third of the back nine of the north course. When I purchased our condominium at 73-448 Mariposa in February 1981, the sales agent for Ironwood, Sill Ramsey, told me there would be fairway houses built across the street where the pads had been rough-graded. There would be no more building beyond that area. The twenty-four additional house sites, #12 through #16 and #22 through #40, are a misrepresentation of what he told me. I would ask the Planning Commission to consider the following: 1. Substantial changes that will need to be made in the golf course which would reduce its quality, personality and character; Page 3 2. This club member and owner was told by an Ironwood agent there would be no houses built in the area now proposed to create house sites #12 through #16 and #22 through #40; 3. The environmental change created by these additional house sites; along with the other problems that have come before you and deny the subject. Very tiuly yours, L. Swa�Etzendruber HLS:vmb F 4� IRONWOW MAR 2 9 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES I CITY OF PALM DESERT March 27, 1984 3 Mr. Dick Willard 73-477 Irontree Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 i Dear Mr. Willard: I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss your concerns about the grading of lots on Mariposa Drive, this area being a portion of Tentative Tract 19640. You pointed out that while you were advised at the time of your purchase from the previous owner (Mr. Ward) that these lots would be developed, you assumed the lot elevations would remain d essentially unchanged. Further, you mentioned that your "view corridor" is mostly over Lot 8 and partly over Lot 9 of Tract 19640. In reviewing the rough grading plan together, I believe you agreed with me that Lot 9 has received fill varying from five feet j in depth at the north edge to zero at the south edge and that Lot 8 received one foot of fill on the north and was cut two feet on the south. Thus, the average change on Lot 9 is 2.5 feet higher and on Lot 8, 0.5 feet lower. However, after I talked with you our civil engineer pointed out that he has lowered Lot 9 by 1 .5 feet and Lot 8 by 1.0 feet as indicated on the precise grading plan dated iiarch 6, 1984, to improve the driveway design. Thus, the new elevations of Lots 8 and 9 are 515.0 and 513.5, respectively. We then discussed that when a house is built on Lot 8, its roof line would be substantially higher than the line of sight from your home on Irontree Drive which is about 550 feet distant to the northwest. If the elevation of your home is 522.6 as in- dicated on the plot plan and the elevation of Lot 8 is 515 feet, then an 18 foot roof height on Lot 8 would be at elevation 533, or more than 10 feet above your floor level . Thus, it seems to 1 IRONWOOD 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 346-0551 E 1 Mr. Dick Willard March 28, 1984 Page -2- me that lowering Lots 8 and 9 to even below the previous elevations would not be especially helpful . Nevertheless, I did want you to know that Lots 8 and 9 are at least somewhat lower than you thought they would be. Again, thank you for the courtesy of a meeting. ncerely, R. L. S icer President RLS:sb cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert Cj IRONWOOD March 15, 1984 Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred !darin❑ Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Ray: 1I am in the process of preparing for the April 3 continued hearing for, Amended Tentative Tract 19640. 1 I have itemized what I perceive are the new objections raised by the opponents at the public hearing on March 6, and I wish to offer my responses to you in advance so that Staff will have time to evaluate them for the Planning Commi Sion. They are as follows: Legal Notice. All owners appearing on the tax rolls who own property not only within the 300 foot distance requirement but also many more with property beyond this boundary who might also be affected by the development, have been identified. Address labels have been prepa'reo and provided to Staff. Area Q and C.U.P. 1382. The legal opinion I have received is that the adoption of the Palm Desert General Plan in 1975 makes the General Plan the controlling document. The relevance of C.U.P. 1382, approved by the County Planning Commission on March 8, 1972, to Tentative 10 p No. 11640 is subject to further, question because of Condition No , 10 which states that "This permit shall become null and void on June 30, 1982 as to any undeveloped portion of the project. " �. Disclosure of Potential Development in Area Q. Some opponents have asserted that they were told by an Ironwood salesman that there would never be any development south of the sixteenth fairway in Area Q. (A portion of Lots 32 to 39 lie in Area Q) . I can only say that if such statements were made, they were speculations made in good faith because the homes were offered for sale well before anyone knew the. Palm Valley Channel would be built and the Water District, would trade this land for needed flood control work in Deep Canyon. IR NWOOD 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (6"I9) i346-05a1 Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services Citylof Palm Desert March 14, 1984 Pagel-2- If a prudent buyer of a home in Tract 5565-3 on the end of Poinciana Place or Quercus Lane wanted to investigate whether development in Area Q was legally possible, he could have referred to the Palm Desert General Plan which clearly shows "medium density residential , 5 to 7 units per acre. " More easily, he could read the Department of Real Estate Final Subdivision Public Report, File No. 42401, page 3, fifth paragraph, which reads as follows: "You will also become a member of the Ironwood Master i Maintenance Association, an incorporated association. This Association is proposed to eventually include 1801 residential lots in a location described as areas D, E, H, J, K, L, P and Q, of the map: included as Exhibit "A" to the Conditional Use Permit No. 1382. This association has the right to levy assessments against you for maintenance of Mariposa Drive and Portola Avenue meridian, for operation of security j gates, and for operation of other security services in this area. There is no assurance that all 1801 residential lots will be completed as planned." 4. Elevation Lots 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18 of Tentative Tract 19640. The Planning Commission received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. McArthur and heard testimony from Mr. Willard, alleging that the elevations of these lots was being substantially increased to the detriment of their views. The approved grading plan and tentative map clearly -indicate only nominal changes, as follows: Pad Elevations Prior Elevation Grading Plan Lot No. Low Point High Point _ 11-3-83 _ Change Ft. 8 515 518 516 +1 to -.2 9 510 515 515 +5 to 0 17 504 506 506 +2 to 0 18 504 507 506 +2 to -1 Mr. and Mrs. Mc:Arthur' s concerns may be somewhat mitigated when they realize that there will be at least. 20 feet of separation between the new homes on these lots and that their home is still 9 to 10 feet. higher than Lots 8 and 9. i In the case of Mr. Willard, his home is more than 500 feet distant from Lot 8. At elevation 522.6, it is doubtful that he would be able to see over the roof of a home on Lot 8 even if it could be lowered. Both Mr. Willard and Mr. and Mrs, McArthur acknowledge they knew that I homes would be built on Mariposa Drive before they purchased. i j Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert March 15, 1984 Page -3- i I6. Drainage. Our engineer, Leonard Czarnowski , made a presentation to the Planning Commission and his analysis was supported by the City Engineer, Barry McClellan. I believe the foregoing facts and analysis create for the Planning Commission a reasonable basis for approving this amendment. In addition, this proposed amendment is clearly a superior land plan to the previously approved tentative tract map. While both plans contain 39 residential lots, the amended plan provides lower density, more open space and a wider sixteenth fairway. Sincerely, '/ Ya'u R. L. cer Preside RLS: sb Enclosure: Public Report No. 42401 � ICI i i ---------------- J. K. McARTHUR 73-488 Poinciana Place Palm Desert, California 92260 7 oil A V, March 30, 1984 ENVIRONMENFAL SERVICES MY OF PWA DESERT Mr. R. L. Spicer, President IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB 49-200 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Spicer: I have received your letter of March 29th. I believe your letter implies to the Planning Commission and the Director of Environmental Services that I am accepting and concurring with the grading plan elevations for Tentative Traci: 19640, Lots 8, 9, 17 and 18. That is definitely not the case and is a mis- representation of my views . The facts remain and I believe you will concur with me in this: 1. A substantial portion of Lot 9 is being re-graded from an original elevation 510 at the east side to elevation 515, a fill of at least five feet (and I believe photographs indicate more) . 2. The east half of Lot 8 was originally at elevation 515 and now has received a foot of fill to elevation 516. 3. Lots 17 and 18 are receiving respectively I foot and 1-3/4 feet of fill above the original elevations . When we purchased our property at 73-488 Poinciana Place we were assured by the Ironwood sales agent that the proposed new construction would be on the elevations of the original graded pads, Such obviously will not now be the case. Following construction we believe our view will be seriously impaired as per our letter to the Planning Commission of February 29, 1984. Very truly youps-) r loe( J. K. McArthur JKMcA/lam cc : Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Service Palm Desert Planning Commission THE DELMA CORPORATION 2 7 1994 March 22 , 1984 ENCITY Of pA..LM DESERT Ey Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Silver Spurs Proposed Plat of 40 Residential Lots in Ironwood Gentlemen: Approximately three years ago my wife and I acquired an Ironwood condominium at 73471 Irontree Drive. In addition to my other business responsibilities, I am a California licensed general contractor and one of the divisions of my company is also a licensed general contractor. Because of this background and experience, I was concerned and inquired about the undeveloped property along Mariposa. I was informed by the sales staff that there was a plan to build residences there in the future and that, while some obstruction might occur, it would be minimal. I agreed with that observation, and we went ahead with our purchase. As a matter of fact, I liked the idea so much I put my name on a waiting list for the purchase of those new homes. My concern in writing you is that the developer has raised the grade substantially above the grade I saw originally--I would estimate some 12 to 14 feet. I feel this is unfair to the property owners including myself who will have their views seriously impacted. Certainly it goes without saying the values of our properties will be impacted adversely as well. As a developer, I am puzzled as to why the pads were raised in the first place since the slope of the terrain provided excellent views for the new homes. The increase in height is unnecessary and it is unwarranted. Please be assured I am not opposed to the development, but I feel in the interest of reasonableness and fairness, your commission should reevaluate any approvals given the Silver Spurs which raise the pads to such unnecessary height and reduce them at least ten feet. Thank you for your attention. Siqj s, Robe 18800 Delaware Street Suite 1100 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 (714) 842-7724 MINUTES ��TO MEN GOLFERS OF IRONWOOD Ofi The first annual meeting of Men Golfers of Ironwood was called to order at 3 : 10 p .m. in the Ironwood Country Club dining room on Saturday, February 18 , 1984 , by L. Strong on behalf of the organizing committee. It was determined that a quorum, as defined in the draft of the by-laws , was not present. However , the election of officers and the adoption of the by-laws could officially proceed due to the number of proxies received. All other business was discussed informally . The election judges , H. Hoffman and F . Crockett , report- ed that an overwhelming vote was cast in favor of the election of the officers , and the adoption of the by-laws as proposed by the organizing committee. The following members were elected to office , to hold office for a period of one year : President - L. Strong Vice President A. Roskin Secretary - R. Bender Treasurer - R. Magnier Tournament Director T. Niles The Treasurer ' s report was submitted and discussed by R. Magnier , and was approved as submitted. The proposed by-laws and additional amendments were discussed, and it was decided to resubmit the ammended by- laws to the membership for adoption. Informal discussion was held on New Business items , including a review of the Wednesday tournaments and possible hole-in-one insurance and/or a $5 . 00 hole-in-one pool . It was unanimously decided to hold a stag awards lunch in April . It was announced that we now have 251 members , and that dues for the 1984-1985 season would be maintained at 2 Considerable discussion was held regarding the planned revisions to some of the back nine holes of the North golf course by Silver Spur Associates , particularly , the changes planned for the 16th, 17th, and 18th holes . It was strongly felt by all members in attendance , that these changes would seriously detract from the uniqueness and playability of these holes , and that the Men Golfers of Ironwood should do everything possible to convince Silver Spur Associates to reconsider their plan. It was suggested that all members of Ironwood Country Club be contacted by letter , urging their support and attendance at the March 6th meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission , where this matter will again be considered. !t w s also suggested y a member t at we coordinate any future activities in this matter with local homeowners most directly affected , who have engaged legal counsel to represent them. Further , extended discussion was held regarding the announced sale of memberships in Ironwood Country Club by Silver Spur Associates . It was strongly felt by most present that legal counsel should be engaged to research the prospectus and suggest a course of action , such course of action to be coordinated with all Homeowner ' s Associations . However, at a subsequent meeting of the Executive Committee on February 20 , it was decided that no official action could be taken on behalf of the M. G. I. on the last two items unless a majority of the membership make their wishes known , and it is determined that action on these two items should be a function of Men Golfers of Ironwood. There being no further business , the meeting adjourned at 5 : 00 p .m. Robert B . Bender , Secretary S �c 73-477 Irontree Drive •,�, Palm Desert, California April 3, 1984 Chairman Ralph Wood Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 RE : TT 19640 and CUP 21.83 Ironwood Country Club Dear Chairman Wood : As part of the testimony which I introduced at your last meeting on March 6th, 1984 and at which the Commission granted a second continuance to April 3, 1 mentioned the fact that I had some "before" and "after" photos of the "exaggerated" land fill being conducted in the vicinity of and primarily "on" Lot 9 of the subject amended tentative tract. You indicated then that you would like to see them. It is my pleasure to present them tonight as Exhibits in support of my contention that Silver Spur has no logical reason - physical, environmental, economical or financial for having elevated the pad height of Lot 9 to anything higher than the grading plan which you approved last October and that would have been approximately 505' - 506' at its Northwest corner. There are three 8 x 10 photos I (a) This photo shows the area in front of (south) of the Sales Office with the rough fill and grade and dried out vegeta- tion cover which was placed there prior to my residential purchase. (b) The small photo stapled to it shows the new land fill over the "orig" area. It is now higher than the Cadillac roof on the North side of the road cut and about 3 times that height on the South side of the road cut (Lot 9) . (c) The fire plug is 30" hiah and using that as a scale, I have drawn in the height of an 18' roof elevation, which is plan- ned for this lot. Chairman Ralph Wood April 3, 1984 Page two II This photo clearly demonstrates the exaggerated "fill" on Lot 9. Again, the fire plug is 30" from bottom of flange to top of bell, and using this as scale, a vertical measure from top of fill to top of picture would be only 15' . . . three feet short of ridge elevation of homes planned. III This photo, taken from my living room patio, looks directly at the N .W, corner of Lot 9 . . . .(contrary to Mr. Spicer's letter of 3/27/84, c.c. to Mr. Diaz) . Roof ridge elevations of 18' (as planned) on Lots 9 and 8 as requested will obscure view of South Course to that which literally lies South of the "Wash". This area can be identified in this photo by four tall palm trees. The course at this distance is so far away that the green fairways have disappeared under the "green" of the short trees. Q . What did Silver Spur gain by super elevating Lot 9 ---higher retail value? A. NO. With Lot 9 having a pad elevation of 515' . . . .assume an owner whose eye level is 5'6... . . . .this equates to a level sight outlook of 520' 6". All of the residences across the street or on adjacent lots are pad elevations of 506' to 508'. Add an 18' roof elevation on these lots and the owners of Lots 8 and 9 will be looking at ridge elevations of 524' to 526'. They will be 4' to 6' short of seeing over their neighbor's houses. Q. Silver Spur had a problem getting all these lots to have proper sewer fall into sewer connection at Mariposa. A. TRUE - Insofar as lots fronting on 18th fairway were concerned, but only if laterals were taken to the street by gravity flow. All fairway pad elevations could have been lowered, if design had taken laterals to collection line in easement to be granted at edge of 18th fairway and then pumped back into an existing line on Mariposa or even perhaps gravity feeding into Irontree Drive access to Club. In any event, a pumping station to handle 6 - 8 homes could have pro- bably been installed for approximately Ten Thousand dollars, per Engineering Department, Coachella Water District. Q. Did this sewer problem in any way influence or require the "exaggerated" land fill? Chairman Ralph Wood April 3, 1984 Page three A. NO. These lots could have been properly sewered with pad elevations as approved in Grading Plan in October, 1983. Q . Was there an Invironmental reason for Silver Spur to construct these "exaggerated" fills on these Lots 8 and 9? A. Quite the contrary. The fill did not enhance the view from these lots to provide vistas of the golf course over the roof tops of their neighboring residences. . . . but did create a very negative impact on established real estate values of neighbors on the North- westerly side of Mariposa. In summary, no one yet has been able to provide a valid reason for this action. 1 am not sure that the Department of Public Works can be excused for issuing a Grading Permit on January 20th which allowed pad elevations of 10° in excess of a tentive plan that had gone through public hearings, received an approval based on information submitted (including a grading plan) without referring it back to other Departments for approval. I am not sure that all the conditions of approval of Case No. ITT19640 were met prior to the issuance of a Grading Plan on January 20, 1984. 1 am not sure that Silver Spur has not far exceeded the grading plan allowed under the permit issued by Palm Desert on January 20, 1984. In fact, the further that I have allowed myself to become involved in a "dispute" which I consider an intrusion on the "quiet enjoyment" of my personal property which, I hope, is still to be considered an inalienable right. S�oB ` :�y I respectfully request that Silver Spur be limited to pad elevations �`,✓ of � on Lot 9 and 512' on Lot 8. Inasmuch as Mr. Spicer offered me the consolation that there were 20' spacings between the houses and I could use this as my "view" corridor, I would respectfully. request consideration of height limitations on any plantings made in the "view" corridor between or around the residences on Lots 9 and 8. Yours very truly, Dick Willard C �/3� & A.N. Campbell Companies, Inc. n� 1361/2 North Larchmont Boulevard•Suite A•Los Angeles,California 90004•213-469-3540 March 23 , 1984 PALM DESERT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION c/o Concerned Ironwood Owners P. 0. Box 2915 Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: As a homeowner in IRONWOOD, I wish to express my opposition to the proposed Silver Spur Associates tentative Tract Map 19640 for the development of 40 lots on the North Golf Course. I would also like to express to you that the developers of IRONWOOD have lied to us about the development plans time after time. There is always something new which further crowds the area and takes away the open space which was their selling tool when we first bought there some 10 years ago. Unfortunately, I feel the Silver Spur Associates doesn' t give a damn about IRONWOOD, other than to line their pockets and then move on to pick someone elses ' pocket somewhere else. Yourss truly, Ale P N. Cam bell�(J`* 73417 Dalea Palm Desert COTTON/PARK VOLKSWAGEN • COTTON/PARK PORSCHE-AUDI • DOT DATSUN • MIRACLE MAZDA CAMPBELL PAINT AND BODY 0 COTTON/PARK DATSUN • NEWPORT PACIFIC LEASING 911- March 12 , 1984 I R O N W O O D H O M E O W N E R S On Tuesday , March 6 , 1984 at the regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission , the Commissioners heard the continued case for Silver Spur Association requests for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single-family lots in Ironwood Country Club. There were a number of concerned homeowners that spoke to the Commission opposing approval . After nnnc7.der- able discussion , the Commission delayed a decision , for the second time , for thirty days to give the homeowners more time to investigate the impact of this additional development on their property and the golf course . Manv homeowners were told by the agents of Ironwood there would be additional housing built along Mariposa on the roughly graded pads that were evident to everyone . There would be no housing beyond that area . Silver Spur ' s proposed plan enlarges that area . . House sites come almost to the cart path on the left side of the 16th fairway . Three house sites would occupy approximately half of the lake to the left of the 17th tee . House sites 22 , 23 , 24 and 25 extend beyond , and 19 , 20 and 21 come almost to the cart path on the left side of the 18th fairway . The proposed plan creates fourteen new house sites on the mountain side of fairways 16 and 17 . They plan seven house sites on the right side of the 16th fairway which would probably require the 16th tees to be re- located . The ridge running perpendicular through the fairway would be removed and the 16th fairway would become a valley to carry the water that formerly ran through the wash . As proposed , seven house sites on the right side of the 17th fairway would require the 17th tees to be moved substantially to the left . House sites would occupy approximately 200 feet to the left of the existing cart path. The rock knoll , part of the mountain to the right of it and the ridge between them would be graded down to accommodate sites 30 and 32 . House site 31 would extend below it . House sites would occupy approx- imately three-fourths of the 17th fairway , causing it to be squeezed into the 18th fairway . Pg . 2 At the Homeowners Meeting with Larry Spicer on Friday , February 17 , 1984 , held at City Hall , Mr . Spicer said they were considering adding a three-par hole between 17 and 18 . If this was done, it would reduce the 18th hole from a five-par to a four-par . This would reduce the present par-70 north course to a par-69 . If this plan was followed , they would probably put the present llth hole on standby . Many homeowners and golfers are unhappy about : 1 . Houses being built on the mountain side of fair- ways after they were told no more housing would be built beyond the original rough graded pad area . 2 . The pad area being expanded beyond the original graded pad area. 3 . Pads being raised approximately eight feet to ten feet above street grade on site 9, further restricting the view of the homeowners living in. the area across the street from the sales office . 4 . The Changes in 16 , 17 and 18 tees and fairways , leaving the 16th fairway a drainage canal , the. 17th just an ordinary hole after housing covers the natural rock knoll and the 18th squeezed by the relocation of the 17th fairway and houses on its left : 5 . The environmental change caused by the addition of a street and housing along the mountain . IF YOU OPPOSE THE ABOVE DEVELOPMENTS , PLEASE COMPLETE , SIGN AND MAIL THE ENCLOSED POST CARD WITHOUT DELAY . Concerned Ironwood Owners PALM DESERT CITY PLANNING COMMISSION c/o Concerned Ironwood Owners P.O. Box 2915 Palm Desert, California 92260 I (We) the undersiled , oppose the proposed 4 Silver Spur Associates tentative Tract Map 19640 for the development of 40 lots in the vicinity of the 16th & 17th fairways of the North Golf Course at Ironwood Country Club. (NAME) (IRONWOOD ADDRESS) LAyGcJT > � �2JP�Scu GoT3 L OT /O F6r T Eli SALES OFFICE fl �O/c 3r¢eEr L Cr r<Pk POINCIANA PLACE 9 /8 MARIPOSA -Y/�+ O !� DRIVE 0 - P� 4 5 / O AREA -. GA!•T GNTH i� ` J`4. B C V I¢ A I N /�LLf�/ ruS TFAD 7� Ri D Cr�_ y GOL GOLF F A COURSE AID: COURSE a N 36 / TiF A rL a la 3 V� / IN•-�f'1 'Ira.-/N / 7 C.ART I2F TH / FI/T�r f<c Ac YF<orrr.� r."r � pr 7 i 11�y g q 7 1L 7T 196 QP �d �ch� Ca.AT I id.� �V l.S� 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE:, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611------_—_— March 28, 1984 Mr. Edward C. Malone 9555 Genesee Avenue San Diego, CA 92121 Dear Mr. Malone. Staff was instructed by Chairman Ralph Wood to answer your communic:.:rtion of March 9, 1984. In reviewing your correspondence, it is necessary to separate twa .issues: flood protection and proposed h3rnes. As the .attached letters from the Coachella Valley Water District: illustrate the construction of this facility (Dead Indian Storm Channel) is a necessary link: to provide regional flood protection per the standards established by CVWD. The filing of this ma;- enables CVWD to require the applicant to make the necessary improvernernts"to e:ci.:;ting; drainage facilities to eliminate the weak link in the. regional flood protection pl.,an.. The grading that .is necessary is in conformance with the requirements of. CA'W'D the agency responsible for providing flood control in this area. The net result of this. action is to provide seater flood protection to existing residents and complete this Link t:c the regional flood control program. The channel realignment: will v✓iden and straighter, the present channel to prcrvice the greater le,/el of protection established by CVWD. Water will not always seeds i_s lowest level if a straight line is the path of .least: resistance. Section 25.46.040 of: the Palm Desert Sdunicipal Code does not apply in this case or any rase in which flood protection facilities are being constructed. This section of. th_e code relates to grading which will increase the clanger to downstream properties and not to programs which expand or improve drainage facilities by reduction: of flows tc appropriate fac:Uities. Indeed, if: is were otherwise the Palm Valley Channel or any other drainage structure would be prevented from construction. The cuts identified in Mr. Malone's letter are needed to expand the, channel as required by C;V t7D i:utd is being lone sole]), within the future channel area. Mr. Edward C. Malone March 28, 1984 In conclusion, the grading; work involving the drainage work would ultimately he necessary with or without the development of adjacent property. The second, and what appears to be the most pressing issue involves the development of six residential lots on the south side of the 16th fairway. The first matter raised in this issue was what was exactly approved in 1972 under CUP 1382 and is it relevant? Staff has investigated this matter and found the following: 1. On January 24, 1972, an application for a conditional use permit and variance covering some 894 acres was filed with the County of Riverside. The area was permitted 5355 dwelling units under the existing county zoning. 2. The conditional use permit was to allow the construction of a planned residential development: of 3148 units; while the variance was to reduce parking and improvement standards.. 3. A group called Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert retained legal counsel to oppose the development. 4. The original proposal would have called for 3148 dwelling units on 362.1 acres of the original 894 acres, 428 acres were shown as golf course, and .106 acres defined as P,Q,R were shown as having zero units. The staff report. stated "The attachcol conditions modify the density and height (,imitations." Among the conditions were: a. Permission for three story - 35' heights in area "k" with a 15 unit: per acre density. b. 22' two-story heights in area H at 10 units per acre density. C. Reduction in the total number of units to 2716. 5. A condition also se'; forth in the approval of CUP 1382 stated "This pern-,it Shall become null :md void on June 30, 1982, as to any undeveloped portion of the project." 6. Riverside County Planning Commission approved March 8, 1972, Board of. Supervisors on May 2, 1982, subject conditions. 7. Lawsuit •,vas filed by group called Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert. Silver Spur Associates and Riverside County prevailed in the 'f:irst: hearing; citizens appealed. Mr. Edward C. Malone " March 28, 1984 8. September 8, 1972, agreement reached between opposing parties. 9. Press release from Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert on September 19, 1972, revealed the following: a) An agreement reached brought an end to the litigation b) Agreement reduced density 28% (2530 from 2716) c) Permitting construction in hills if not visible from adjacent: properties. i 10. The agreement increased the area to be developed from 362.1 to 468.4 acres with describing how areas P,Q,R would be developed. 11. Riverside County Director of Planning, W.R. Livingstone asked Riverside County Counsel because of the agreement N want to know if you feel necessary for the county to now reverse the conditions of approval for the Silver Spur development. If not how should we treat any' future development plan which is constent with this agreement but not and future development plan which is consistent with this agreement but not in substantial conforn'rance with conditional use Case No. 1.382..." There.w'as no written response to this inernorandurn and no further official action taken by Riverside County Board of Supervisors.. To date all developments reviewed by the City of Palm Desert have been evaluated in terms of the limitations of the September 8, .1972, agreement; while said agreement was not recorded it is the opinion of the city attorney that its past: implementation constitutes revision of CUP 1382 as approved by Riverside County. It would appear that the original approval by the Country of Riverside did no.: envision the 106 acres within the areas described as P,Q;R. were to remain vacant fo ;;.11 time. Certainly the condition of approval stating "This permit shall become null. and void on June 30, 1982, to any undeveloped portion of the project" indicates that those areas were not to be under the control of: the permit: after June 30, 1982. In any event the limitations placed by the September 8, 1972, agreement: does control the development in those areas and staff would recommend that the agreemen: should continue to be impJemented. The issue: of the notification of hearing was resolved at the; last hearing. In terms of the requirements of CEiQA it: is staff opinion that they have been adhered to, unles,; there are specific alleged violations, Finally, the lake mentioned is not being eliminated by the project and the revision of three golf holes does not constitute a significant adverse impact on the environment as -3- Mr. Edward C. Malone March 28, 1984 defined within the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 as amended or its guidelines. In terms of any lease arrangements between Silver Spur Associates and the Coachella Valley Water District mentioned in the DRE report, the city does not have jurisdiction in this issue. I trust the above addresses the concerns raised in your March 9, 1984, communication. Sincerely, Yj RAMON A. DIAZ j DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RD/lr Enclosures cc: Planning Commission Joe Gibbs Dave Erwin .. R �� V• t/[�N4LV� ,(('per' (� 9555 GENESEE AVENUE. SAN DIEGO. CA 921,c�,r /( vf34 March 9, 1984 yyVii4 JCM 1� �iq�� � 3 1984 E01rV OF PALM D SiRIcfs Chairman Ralph Wood Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Chairman Wood, I appreciated the opportunity to address the Commission Tueday evening, and its action granting a continuance until April 3, 1984 on Case IT 19640 and CUP 21-83, Ironwood Country Club. As I mentioned, I represent the partners in our unit, 49236 Quercus Lane, however I have met with other residents, and Mr. Joseph Gibbs their attornery, and have agreed to share information. We bought our unit in 1980 having been awarded the first right to selection by raffle. Our home has an unobstructed view of the golf course and we were assured by Ironwood sales per- sonnel that no future development would occur in the drainage course or adjacent golf course. The Real Estate Report, brochure, master plan and model in the sales office all sup- ported this committment. Because of the restrictions and orientation we paid a substantial premium which we felt justified. Silver Spurs Associates present development proposal TT 19640 violates the committments made to us and others. At the Hear- ing I stated that I am a Developer and Architect, familiar with the subdivision process. I am not reacting to a negative impact on our unit but rather attempting to establish the facts and then deciding on appropriate action. Following the Hearing and in the interest of resolving the matter and not delaying Mr. Spicer, I visited the site of the proposed project, the City of Palm Desert's Engineering and Planning offices, Mr. Spicer's office (he was out, however, his staff helped me) , and the Ironwood Sales Office on Wednesday morning. Enclosed investigation. I trust our is a copy of this preliminary Y staff will review The Report and respond as expediantly as possible. Any information they develop which answers or clarifys the issues should be sent to me at least a week prior to the Hearing to allow time to prepare a presentation. Chairman Ralph Wood Palm Desert Planning Commission March 9, 1984 Page 2 Thank you for your continued cooperation andAwill appreciate having a copy of this letter and report sent to the other Commissioners. Cordially, Edward C. Malone /gf Enclosure Preliminary Investigation of IT 19640 and CUP 21-83 Ironwood Country Club The project is proposed to be developed in two phases, Phase I is north of the revised drainage channel, Phase II to the south. PhaseI is currently being graded under a Rough Grading Plan signed January 20, 1984 by the Director of Public Works. Improvement Plans have not been signed off. The grading currently in progress appears to go well beyond the limits of the approved plan. The prior grading in this area indicates that a cul de sac rather then a street was originally proposed, which would have limited develop- ment to the north side of the drainage channel and consistent with our under- standing of the limits of development. Staff has agreed to try and find the original grading plan, and map for this area to clarify this point. Negative declarations were determined by the Director, Phase II referenced to Phase I, . and Phase I simply stated the project would "not have a signicant adverse impact". It is hard to understand such a finding when a natural rock hill is going to be leveled by cutting it down 35 feet, three holes of a golf course are being substantially revised, a large lake is disappearing and a natural drainage channel rerouted into a graded channel. This also should be carefully reviewed by staff. Noticing of the Hearing was inadequate. The extent of the project affected by the proposed project is not simply the area of the lots but should include the area of the major revisions to the drainage channel westerly of the pro- posed project. Under CEQA this is required and is the reason our unit was not notified. Phase II and possibly a part of Phase I are currently owned by the Coachella Water District and under lease to Silver Spur Associates for. (originally 1972) twenty five years for "recreational use". The sales staff let me read the lease which is still in effect. Can this lease referenced in the Real Estate Report be voided or amended unilaterally or does a change require noticing of all property owners since it is part of the Real.Estate Report. The Report also references to "Exhibit "A" to the Conditional Use Permit No. 1382", a copy of which was shown me by a Silver Spur Associate employee in charge of answering questions on the Report. The map is the same as that shown the Commission on Tuesday night. I specifically asked if there were any amendments to the map and was told no. This exhibit specifically pre- cludes development of Area Q and the only document shown to buyers. The staff is investigating whether the map can be amended by a settlement of a law suit or must be legislatively amended also. The fact remains however, that if buyers relied on the Real Estate Report and asked to see the referenced exhibit they could only conclude that Area Q would not be developed. All other exhibits in the sales office also sup- port this conclusion. A portion of the project is in the PR-7-D overlay zone. Section 25-46-040 prohibits "Excavations that will tend to broaden the flood plain or direct flood flows out of the natural floodplain'f. Does this section apply? 1 of 7 Preliminary Investigation of TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 Ironwood Country Club Page 2 Why on the Tentative Map was Lot 42, open space restricted to only the easterly one third of Area Q. Is future developments contemplated on the balance? If not, shouldn't the map include all of Area Q. On one copy of the Tentative Map "C" Street was shown extending beyond the City's boundary. Does the water district propose additional development in the County? These are but some of the issues which should be investigated and resolved. It just may be a good time, since Ironwood is close to build out to review all future plans, update the master plan and have a document on which we call all rely now and in the future, it may save all of us time and money. pup 13`da. t��N��c„ G�mm��(a►J ColJblT}oIJS f ( Il 11 O fJ 1 .'!r•_; ai ^ :7:1.!:i I'i.4ii HNG C1;4i1..iS 0'. I:4$•--':f OFT.. ,.he by Cho mpplico", r'h; ['`1 rlll Ella vr, f7 1) (00 r md,, ...S2 An (:e1G: .:a.A,+..::.'.. Gr, Clio IZd.IO :'/.1 1. l.u,.y 7: nna ng ( Ll O , CO, r,LhnXwjma . _._:Idwd by thn M;ira(,f:.lY; ct2CLVi.;-lrma : 1 }.K: "bl.' "A" ShIll ha. i.av'sn" to .^.r,'"i°olm with Chot:P.}'..�.�'.Ph�.'i.• [�ea.'.::`L f,�7 r. .;:, 2.iiii. f _ f,h :r:e `,, rIL. TI �•dss T•:'tI , ' :, re.: thli.f;cl i1;;i.°: � �;; �<.;.;. SA vs 51J '1 Il 19 9 '21 elqq 51.6 6" i A 19 110 : 520 "•j:?:.6 . .,5 '.'`..,.. Cat. " ._a to ...... :di• ,S l :1^C.1lon 1 np Hall be rngovied . ango i'.1( ., ..:(b -'.:i.r l 3 y Fick -. ...-.- ),... s":an . r, that bui di.__3s }:^,Y..Il'_ta too �:'i: Mary , t. 1 SurLI :TE',.':_ : 1 .tL . ., r.c.:.;; , b _ J.i:aa1.:, for A OL3ri-S ti:"10:{' to such [4:OYC Ii.i_- nrt+. r_)in. ..)aen Z Tests""_ r P' f r r , r•�,11) ' r r � } t.t' 1 tl r. - t +. �. t. iri. c .. J,.. r.- .. Division of 7munry �t ! f[G:'lcslr• !1.%l .t l.lo [;It.....z5 Now .,. fh . UK UOO }):!.17.17K" q Il ' (''•.'p*'t�{:PBOL of IUi � t , , Alan +i '•C of l WHO; P-ZtX IJ!: ;-f>r tho U !u "C 1♦.r1.�+..t.;:•:cj The t i+:�� et OW 1r 7E..1•� s rG( 7+.<+;7 ui.71 tRC,: .Gal n� ::hr7 /,7C` ,'I.f}7 .fr ♦. 'Ik 1�,f7 , Mr{}..'i'f7.YEai. i il�fly lli! U1 tr t) ,,t sr yt' , ,I..j' ll ! . ka nL2 .t.. f that 1!LlC}] (J :1:4hti t(;:'F^),Lj",.!.r,� 14Jil�.V 1,tl7 ul'17:13 Fr- �c tC<t pw'po.., Ck' (.}ds: c; ttt f:.YG.C.i; 1xNCGaOiiA�C' }1,i,i:}(:. • t;(2E7i.:=Q$�i9li.•^:r�. .�i .'ES`LS;fS, !ilt4. r r£?O.".. to !'4,.,U7 C}a(;K UL- (L}l 4 Qi.i t7t t''1. t�J.0[I V)ti.):t•il' 7i'll}7f 7'�E!' 'r it(/' il l.t •. [. t1.F ,:J" ;l;1}� doO ;J:_LLC Ct t.•L%�i1!&r.C.xl $}t:?. eC�..0 r t . ' the na. iR!7�7:,f:,tl,017 Ofi..'6:hfl fygiY!8_L:rG34JIR that t}1" :::•f:i.). }J iai�C)Gi: `.r.t..)l.. .. '11ll.1'+1.ntri 7ned 'in hecardFuca k'AIII the intentfr"j. })I,RTLCI CZ'.^.7 GI. 'P.}TC Q}i�,i. .t % Thct i7i:^,Ltxers1: CQ nuarCI' AM<7 f b. COS I7t.'7 andkCJi7 i O e PC:C(!:<l:!:1 and m :i.2.a be ^]".h:v?,".'CCI ll"i.Cl..'.y:(.{:p: . J!!P'" ii'J C.t S. �itstan04fllli.ti @}1:1y.1. }7(:: i•@4.C[y C:17: i;i.1£: 3•TiL'.I i:."�iP:.•^. CI'�.".11: In, rczoQd;, r - o i ! < 1 r. r t f ♦f( 1 L f}lt r[,r gt 71 1 7t^ Ctflflt 1 1 f G t7 { 1)r . f to :�.CAAUSil llt unit : )a? trita 9.1 f LI'.i"I.y ba C. r.:C7)x , .: L An.; CU....LUt '7;b"l j Moir Q: t.Aca; 117 1.0 I !......,. t..a..,(7a,1iT frh.l.l. 1 ( i Ill r 1 +J3 1:iCt }7 G 'l-' Of i.tn.1 ♦7:'...nn . ,t.a ... f;G^ Un PlQ of Lha G':F:I C-?:� i {t0 CA'Ll'P7a.:. t , y .. fJ':`.tt .:. 1'.Z�L}I E)L:^,d7 tl"I{C �'tQ GLEr+q:G:. I It2C 1:? :: ? ?i:_i.!i1J::.'.lC' 11,., r.: t.h 1."] .:<."•" >, .i'i.(3 ii.:.t?t? :f:T `t`[r } Trost, 'i%}.G'NA. ad Ghat }i94 0f ♦ cd.>G '. C:{ C4 IAa} the WinCs ! ha 3'i anag ,r - 4r r�'Cllt. 'r Idi '(:}iL1 Sd y�,;1�.'L711' P9 U➢. 7. Ent , the Nola:'nC7.:.Q F'Ll kiE.Ca 1 l,)_/ t •'f:1 iC iS17wUT•:. C `. cry 't FG l;i IIi;t.t.i, r.�1R..•}: an A i.ltfyt,l,.IL ry [ P,1',...T,up � L.FI is, s for t.t[:G7.r: T. � F d r> .«...._,.,... .. ..ern,n,..,nrr.,m"n..........—,.-......._.,...,.r^r-.•,..w.,....r,.r.r•..,-..,.....r.."...................rr+�.•nn'fn vrrr.+mt...nnunr.',rmm.n.�t++..• Wah L, 1. VZOAM':J'(w c'Z of 6 mAr wwaW A. AnstmWea of 10 holes of poll and Akwya WrAvion of rawtolo AWs"m 0,017.?:W rAL Trail to AM to Amoc Dilhusy.e 8. Was traTo ATAX bu PIWA along oil cv-mT owl fannorgen in cocaUnn= i_ i:jj Strcnt Inc, PIcnaing GrAugnan No. 457 .11. A undAgr. AE1101, mianKticn, VVIkuny 113mo, MY 1wrigivow1 p0m 0013. bo qSKIAWYN'. to tha aammug mwmov for rpPrair, prim V Lcrurnm or 1 WAYina pow!%. The Xendamp3 Q-n A= fouluds a wuhnAMUS Y"Am Q WIWI= trzov; al TYARrops by thn URWOATU viwn HUMTOW CPO wan a ;Mau A 01n zj . 1!Wwal C9 vae ..on pow unit, nn 7w0m: thm Se i1wil"s A unit ndfaurw thwazo, chall he plowed W Pa az wallu %At. bw V0 lace Acm Chu Wight of my Aw COVAH"nAT mqw!;�UAQ oynaw on t4l mcol" C2 CIO MAU. The 011000 PulwAl ASW W000 Sri! 1±00201g, wnjj,;nyp, z,d lryAgntjon OyEZfj:,.- . 15 An"! FroorcHnn oK awan7nno.. AM Q g0am by Lha FAIdAn 0,01teM to this projW rMil Its *10ma- VVIAWS appmVad An no cad 00mma1,so1 shot! &VI bean complawK 9, Toz nowunnZa 61opcgol nyaonm AM 14. dswQnA an no to YaQiQ WAILLOW: ocrarnming with a conuumity txr7k b : wiYa by the Av"Apov, p:=W! plvo3 shnwf1--_. „:U;Wnnz OKI UPPY0711 0.", Unns janns AS! so CAMW ce kha WMIRS %Rnep Co... y ME:': DAUT00 PACO to giZ hi 10. This ny;n9val ACT., Le USA WhAn, I AS en a., vWx jow, as 00=001, cc AW W1=1 rmV, PR&A Anwounly. By "ORA" A mrnAn,lot W n SwISMISMw i f !6hasonjagW. oP07mmrmwa 0.0 thall b2cown null and void on J1;rc.n? :,A0j. 1�642 al to Z::.oy undeveloped portion A pwoject. AGIR I ant rgryo, Prior t-0 'A' th:i.s parvit or to -k":* "1' All CT &V canditim: Oct AM ani Unscruonj].-1 1,;11:1t, tllC W Wnty uIll wnh Acrya a Wildlay Amit, or C'Jn-w o-'. permittow mull AAR Q:PU3 in qyydruplyw .. aw" Datc: DoW MCI% 31gantum YOUNG, HENRIE & n""CARTHY ATTORN EYS ' R ICHARD T,YOUNG PLEASE REPLY TO HOMER M. HENRIEJOHN C. H 400 POMONh MAII K[ST BERT V , HUMPHRIES,JR, POMONA,CALIFORNIA 91I76 6 BARRY S. MASON TELEPHONE 17141 6i19.2521 SHELOON G.WELUNS 350 WEST FOURTH 51'RECT ALB ERT S.SCOTT,JR, CLAREMONT,CALIFORNIA 91111 OF COUNSEL TELEPHONE 17W 629-2S21 BY APPOINTM Ellr September 19, L972 Mr. William Livingstone Planning Director Riverside County Courthouse Riverside, California Re : Silver Spur Associates development in Palm Desert Dear Mr. Livingstone : Enclosed is a copy of the agreement reached be- tween Silver Spur Associates and my clients, Con- cerned Citizens of Palm Desert, Inc, and other citizens groups . Please place it in a proper file so that it will be available for reference in the future. The agreement substantially alters the proposed planned residential de velopment. If an applications .for permits or subdivision map approval are inconsistentp stan- dards in the agreement please hnotify finehimmediately. very truly yours, 'JOHNC McCART1T� for the firm JCM/j w Encl. . cc: (w/encl . ) County Counsel / j AGREEMENT This agreement is entered into on the 8th day of September, L972, by certain parties to case number. L02352 in the Superior Court of Riverside County entitled Con- cerned Citizens of Palm Desert, Inc. , and Bradley A. Walker, both Individu ally y and on Behalf of Clas ses of Persons Simi- larly Situated, Petitioners (herein called "First Party") vs Riverside County Board of Supervisors and Riverside County planning Commission, Respondents (herein called "County") and Robert M. Haynie and Jack A. Vickers , doing business as Silver Spur Associates, Real Parties in In- terest (herein called "Second party") . It. .is agreed by the First Party and the Second Party to resolve their differences in the public interest as follows . 1. That the matters agreed to herein relate to real property consisting of 896 .4 acres in the unincor- porated area of Riverside County known as Palm Desert and described as portions of Sections 31 and 32, T 5 S, R 6 E, S.B.B. & M. , County of Riverside, State of California. A conditional. use permit and variance were approved by the County on May 2, 1972, for development by Second Party of the subject property pursuant to applications #L382 and #11.75 . 2 . The average number of dwelling units for the subject property shall. be reduced from 7.5 per acre to 5.4 per acre. 3. The maximum number of dwelling units aLlow- able on the subject property shall be reduced from 2716 to 2530. 4• That portion of the subject property on which the maximum allowable 2530 dwelling units may be constructed shall be increased from 362 A developable acres to 468.4 developable acres. Such additional 106.3 acres shall consist of the following: a) 31.5 acres Lying northerly of blocks Q and R and southerly of blocks N, A and M on the map marked Exhibit A and approved by the County 1.ra application #L382 for a conditional use permit. b) 16 acres in block P on said map. c) 58. 8 hillside acres in block Q on said map. Dwelling units shall not be coast ' ructed on any portion thereof where grading of the. building pad or access would be visible from real property ad- jacent to the subject property. 5. Block r on said map consisting of 1.9. 9 acres shall be restricted 1:0 single-family detached dwelling units, the maximum allowable number of which shall. be reduced from 40 to 34 dwelling units on separate Lots. Each lot sha.Ll have a minimum of 10,000 net square feet. 6„ No residential unit, excluding those in Blocks J and K on said map, shall have an interior floor area of less than 1050 square feet, exclusive of porches, patios and automobile storage areas, The number of such minimum, _2. area units shall not exceed 20% of the total number of dwelling units, excluding those in Block s J and K. 7. No structure shall have more than es of living n two stories ' � g area. 1 8• Second Party for itself and in interest waives an its successors Y and a 1 right with respect to the subject property to apply to the Riverside County Board of Supervisors or Planning Commission or their successors to increase the density or number of maximum allowable dwelling units or to reduce the mini area of such dwelling units. 9• First Party agrees to dismiss or abandon the appeal of the action. Each party shall bear its. own taxable costs. 1.0• Second Party shall ay reasonable at fees for legal services incurred by First Party in ttie action. 11. This agreement shall be binding on and inure to the benefit of the parties and their successors in in- terest and shall be enforceable in a court of competent: Jurisdiction in the State of California. 12. This agreement may and shall be effective on September 8, 1972 executed in counterpart p 972, -3- �� CONCERNED CITIZENS OF JOHN C. MCCARTHY. PALM DESERT, INC, and SCOTT JR. YOUNG.. BRADLEY A . WALKER, an & McCARTHY' & YOUNG, HENRIE Individual By By, DW RD W-.—PECK-pres, (/ HN C. c RT _ of First Party Attorneys for Firs Party R-EID, BABBAGE & IL BRADLEY A. WALKER BY •a�� ::- I��� N RE Attorneys for Second Party First Party ROBERT M. HAYNIE AND JACK A. VICKERS, dba SILVER .SPUR ASSOCIATES B,4RUWA Cc% � Attorney in Fact for Second Party • a4w � zESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC ..GENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1U56 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMONO R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT LOWELL 0.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLS CODEKAS.VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SOTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POW ELL VICTOR B.HARDY,AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BUXTON January 11 , 1984 File: 0163. 11 0421. 1 0721. 1 s � { e. 9 t Department of Environmental Services ? 1� Citv of Palm Desert - Post Office Box 1977 b jgpq Palm Desert, California 92261 +tsar Gentlemen: T' JF �f'iMLOE�S("" Subject: Amended Tentative Tract 19,640 Portion of South half, Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth three feet on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. However, we expect the map to be revised due to the construction of the Palm Valley Stormwater Project. A portion of this tract is within the Dead Indian Stormwater Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This area shall be annexed to the Stormwater Unit of the Coachella Valley Water District . The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities . Yours very truly, Lowell 0. Weeks / General Manager—Chief Engineer CS: ra cc: Riverside County Department 'of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)3982651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS.PRESIDENT LOWELLO.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON.SECRETARY JOHN P.POWELL VICTOR B.HARDY,AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDW INE AND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS STEVED.BUXTON February 13, 1984 File: 0121.3094 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert ....... Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Ironwood Country Club Stormwater facilities in most areas including Riverside County require protection of residential developments against a storm with a recurrence interval of once every 100 years (100 year flood protection) . The City of Palm Desert in conjunction with the District has set the Standard Project Storm as the level of protection to be provided in the design of major flood control facilities. The Standard Project Storm is based on the greatest storm of record occurring in a hydrologically similar basin. In the Palm Desert area, the Standard Project Storm has the recurrence interval between 250 and 350 years. As a result of the construction of the Palm Valley Stormwater Project, the Living Desert Debris Basin and Deep Canyon Stormwater Channel Improvements within Vintage Country Club, the City of Palm Desert is protected from runoff from the mountains from the Standard Project Storm except for an area within Ironwood Country Club on the Deep Canyon floodway. Because of this, the District has insisted that Ironwood Country Club construct the Ironwood Dike and channel improvements in the Deep Canyon floodway. With this construction and construction proposed for the Dead Indian Channel and Ironwood Channel, the entire City of Palm Desert will be protected against stormwater flews from the mountains from the Standard Project Storm. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY I Planning Commission -2- February 13, 1984 We believe that the City of Palm Desert should be commended for providing this degree of protection for their residents. The City is one of the very few cities in the United States which have provided this degree of protection for their residents. Yours very truly, Low 11 0. Wee s General Manager-Chief Engineer TEL:ra cc: Carlos Ortega Assistant City Manager City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 cc: Larry Spicer Ironwood Country Club 49-200 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 cc: Ray Diaz Planning Director City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 r � J. K. McARTHUR 73-488 Poinciana Place Palm Desert, California 92260 March 30, 1984 Mr. R. L. Spicer, President IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB APR - 2 1984 49-200 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT. Dear Mr. Spicer: I have received your letter of March 29th. 1 believe your letter implies to the Planning Commission and the Director of Environmental Services that I am accepting and concurring with the grading plan elevations for Tentative Tract 19640, Lots 8, 9, 17 and 18. That is definitely not the case and is a mis- representation of my views. The facts remain and I believe you will concur with me in this: 1. A substantial portion of Lot 9 is being re-graded from an original elevation 510 at the east side to elevation 515, a fill of at least five feet (and I believe photographs indicate more) . 2. The east half of Lot 8 was originally at elevation 515 and now has received a foot of fill to elevation 516. 3. Lots 17 and 18 are receiving respectively 1 foot and 1-3/4 feet of fill above the original elevations. When we purchased our property at 73-488 Poinciana Place we were assured by the Ironwood sales agent that the proposed new construction would be on the elevations of the original graded pads. Such obviously will not now be the case. Following construction we believe our view will be seriously impaired as per our letter to the Planning Commission of February 29, 1984. Very truly your J. K. McArthur JKMcA/lam cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Service Palm Desert Planning Commission llth HOUR REPORT We have just been informed by Ironwood (Larry Spicer) that their plans have been changed. The 16th tee will remain as is, lot 40 of the proposed project has been eliminated and the placement of lots 38 and 39 adjusted to essentially satisfy our objectives. At this time we are basically satisfied and as a group plan no further resistance to the proposed development. Should you continue to have an individual problem be sure to voice your objection at the March 6th meeting. Board of Directors 0� i i i _f 9555 GENESEE AVENUE, SAN DIEGO. CA 92121 March 9, 1.984 Chairman Ralph Wood Palm Desert Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Dear Chainnan [good, I appreciated the opportunity to address the Comzd.ssion Tueday evening, and its action granting a continuance until. April 1984 on Case TT 19640 and CUP 21-83, Ironwood Country Club . As I. mentioned, I represent the partners :in our unit, 49236 Que.rcus Lane, however I have met with other residents, and Mr. Joseph Gibbs their attornery, and have agreed to share information. We bought our unit in 1980 having been awarded the first right to selection by raffle. Our home has an unobstructed view of the golf course and we were assured by Ironwood sales per- sonnel that no future development would occur in tae drainage course or adjacent golf. course. The Real Estate Report, brochure, master plan and model in the sales office all sup- norted this committment. Because of the restrictions and orientation we paid a substantial premium which we felt justified. Silver Spurs Associates present development proposal TT 1.9640 violates the conmlittments made to us and others. At the hear- ing 1. stated that I am a Developer and Architect, familial: with the subdivision process. I am not reacting to a negative impact on our unit but rather attempting to establish the .facts and then deciding on appropriate action. Following the Hearing and in the interest of resolving the matter and not delaying Mr. Spicer, I visited the site of the proposed project, the City of Palm Desert' s Engineering and Planning offices, Mr. Spicer's office (lie was out, however, his staff helped me) , and the Ironwood Sales Office on Wednesday morning. Enclosed is a copy of this preliminary investigation. I trust your staff will review The Report and respond as expediantly as possible. Any information they develop which answers or cl.ari.fys the issues should be sent to me ,:It least a week prior' to the Hearing to allow time to prepare a presentation. Chairman Ralph Wood Palm Desert Planning Commission March 9, 1984 Page 2 1' Thank you for your continued cooperation and,will appreciate having a copy of this letter and report sent to the other Commissioners. Cordially, Edward C. Malone /gf Enclosure Preliminary Investigation of IT 19640 and CUP 21-83 Ironwood Country Club The. project is proposed to be developed in two phases, Phase I is north of the revised drainage channel, Phase II to the south. Phasel is currently being graded under a Rough Grading Plan signed January 20, 1984 by the Director of Public Works. Improvement Plans have not been signed off. The grading currently in progress appears to go well beyond the limits of the approved plan. The prior grading in this area indicates that a cul de sac rather then a street was originally proposed, which would have limited develop-ment to the north side of the drainage channel and consistent with our under- standing of the limits of development. Staff has agreed to try and find the 1�1ori.ginal grading plan, and map for this area to clarify this point. Negative declarations were determined by the Director, Phase II referenced to . 3 Phase 1 , and Phase I simply stated the project would "not have a signicant adverse impact". It is hard to understand such a finding when a natural rock hill is going to be leveled by cutting it down 35 feet, three holes of a golf course are being substantially revised, a large lake is disappearing and a natural drainage channel rerouted into a graded channel. This also should be carefully reviewed by staff . c Noticing of the Hearing was inadequate. The extent of the project affected 1 by the proposed project is not simply the area of the lots but should include the: area of the major revisions to the drainage channel westerly of the pro- posed project. Under CEQA this is required and is the reason our unit was not notified. �s4 Phase Hand possibly a part of Phase I are currently owned by the Coachella (dater District and under lease to Silver Spur Associates for (originally 1972) twe••:Ity five years for "recreational use". The sales staff let me read the lease which is still in effect. Can this lease referenced in the Real Estate Report be voided or amended unilaterally or does a change require noticing of :1 property owners since it is part of the Real Estate Report. The Report also references to "Exhibit "A" to the Conditional Use Permit No. 1.382", a copy of which was shown me by a Silver Spur Associate employee in charge of answering questions on the Report. The map is the same as that shown the Commission on Tuesday night. I specifically asked if there were any amendments to the map and was told no. This exhibit specifically pre- cludes development of Area Q and the only document shown to buyers. The staff is investigating whether the map can be amended by a settlement of a law suit or must be legislatively amended also. The fart remains however, that if buyers relied on the Real. Estate Report and asked to see the referenced exhibit they could only conclude that Area Q would not be developed. All other exhibits in the sales office also sup- port this conclusion. A portion of the project is in the PR-7-D overlay zone. Section 25-46-040 v- prohibits "Excavat.ions that will tend to broaden the f.-•_ood plain or direct flood flows out of the natural floodplaina. Does this section apply? Preliminary Investigation of TT 1.9640 and CUP 21-83 Ironwood Country Club Page 2 I Why on the Tentative Map was Lot 42, open space restricted to only the easterly one third of Area Q. Is future developments contemplated on the balance? If not, shouldn' t the map include all of Area Q. On one ropy of. the Tentative Map "C" Street was shown extending beyond the City' s boundary. Does the water district propose additional development in the County? These are but some of the issues which should be investigated and resolved. It just may be a good time, since Ironwood is close to build out to review all future plans, update the master plan and have a document on which we call all rely now and in the future, it may save all of us time and money. —�rvZ,�►,t� w�r� -�o w��.2. scc2� �tVav�e.. ;2��:1.�"� 5' IA February 13 , 1984 Dear Fellow Homeowner: On January 30 , 1984 , we advised you of a Palm Desert Planning Commission Meeting scheduled for February 7 , 1984 to approve plans submitted by the developer of Ironwood for adding homes on the south side of Ironwood. The letter urged you to attend the meeting. We would like to inform you that the Commission delayed any decision on the matter for thirty (30) days giving us all time to learn more about the developer' s proposal. At 10 : 00 A.M. on Friday, February 17 , 1984 , in the new Palm Desert City Hall, there will be a meeting, open to all, to hear more about the proposal. Also, we are advised time will be devoted to hear input from Ironwood owners protesting the additional development. Should you be interested in this project and its impact on Ironwood Country Club, please attend the meetinq. Very truly yours , IRONWOOD OWNERS ASSN. #8 BOARD OF DIRECTORS lb I SCHLECHT. SHEVLIN & SHOENAERGER c _. SCILEC1.7 A L4W CCrtPORATION o-q_< cwp[ Wz _C—nC _-EY;s, LAWYER$ iCtC c�C CC F.Y.0.:161 jC1 t CES_E=CC. 10EL o „ 111-W POST OFFICE eC% I906 7.104 "ECI EOI EAST SLHOUITZ-MCCCLLJM. WAn SUITE LOG' 1 11' c[e,. .1'IF K "`EErl S E_E PALM SPRINGS, CALIFORNIA 9 2 2 6 3-19 06 ✓sac A4 "O's February 27 , 1984 Ms. Sheila Gilligan t � City Clerk 73- 510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Calif . 92260 ;i,,,;,:•.0 s ..l;v+c!s Ell' Re : PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT, AND A 45 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP . CASE NO. TT19640 CUP 21-83 APPLICANT: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES APPLICATION : APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE AND FINAL TRAC" MAP NO. 19640 AT THE IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OCTOBER 18 , 1983 Deal" Ps . Gilligan : We represent certain residents of the Ironwood Country Club in connection with their claim that they did not receive adequate and reasonable notice of the public hearing wherein the Palm Desert Planning Commission approved the above-described application. The Planning Commission approval of the application violater. Palm Desert Municipal Code section 2586 . 010 . Palm Desert Municipal Code section 2586 . 010 (c) _provides in rele- vant Dart: "Notice of a public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the nearing by publication, in a newspaper of general circulation :in the city, and mailing notices to all persons whose names appear on the latest adopted tax roll of Riverside County as owning property within 300 ' of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing. " On or about August 31 , 1983 , Silver Spur Associates tiled an application for approval of the tract map with the Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services . Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of saV applica- tion. At or about this time, the Silver Spur Associates supplied to the city , a list of all Of the Persons whose names al_legedl,y a_-neared on the latest adopted tax roll of Riverside County , as owning property within 00 ' Of the exterior boundaries of the SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN & oHOENBERGER LAW co4Po�AIicn- LAWYE.15 Ms . Gilligan Pace Two February 27 , 1.984 property that was the subject of the hearing . Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference is a list that was supplied by the Silver Spur Associates to the City of Palm Desert. On October 7 , 1983 , Ramon A. Diaz , secretary of the Palm Desert: Planning Commission, published a legal notice of the hearing on the above-described application . Attached hereto as Exhibit 'C" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said notice. Prior to October 7 , 1983 , the city allegedly mailed a similar notice to the individuals identified on Exhibit "B" . The following_ individuals did not receive notice of the public hearing , even though their names appeared on the latest adopted tax roll of Riverside Count.17, as owning property within 300 ' of the exterior boundary of the subject property : Assessment No. Name and Address 631-550- 025-5 Arthur M. and Olga Atterbury M/T 28 McKinley Place Gross Pointe Farms , Mich. 48236 631-550-030-9 Edgar P". and Karin Stewart, 1115 Crestview Drive Fullerton, CA 92693 631-550- 026-6 R. E. Hazard , Jr . Trustee, and Dorothy Hazard 145 Security Life Bldg . Denver, Colo. 80202 631-556-029-9 Hary Anthony Collins , Trustee , et al . Raymond V . Knowles , et al . Walter W. Dorem, et al . Edward C . Haline , et al . P . 0. Box 2388 La Jolla, CA 92038 631-550-026-8 N. S . McGregory Investments , Ltd . 9915 108th St . Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5!Z 2GS 631-550-027-7 Constantine and Rosemary Kuneli.s , Trustees 2740 Terraza Place Fullerton, CA 92635 SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN �. SHOENEE GER L LAW COF PGgA`.IG'N LA JJYC RS :.is . Gilligan Pagc! Three February 27 , 1984 in sddition, Palm Desert Municipal Code section 2586 . 010 (ci , recuires that notices must be mailed to "A1.1 persons whose names appear on the latest adopted tax rol.l . " t7hen th?, City mailed the notices , only one of the owners of record of each lot received written notice of the public hearing even though the ordinance rccuires notice to all persons . The following . individuals did not receive notice of the public hearina, even though their Name= appeared on the latest adopted tax roll of Riverside Co,:nt:y a owning property within 300 ' of the exterior boundary of the sc;b- ject property: Assessment No . Name 6;1-550-048-6 Lockwood Ha.ir.ht 631-550-048-6 Joyce Haicht 631-5S0-048-6 r,n `1 a:. Patsy R. Howard ,631-550-049-7 Anthony A. Trutanich , et -al . 631-550-09-7 Sporre2: Saehz 631- 55!)- 049-7 nk ur I,s.•. I^; ia.m T: Baird, et al. ore T-631-611-013-1-, C=_.rmelsK. Meyer, Trustee 631-61l- 013- Z ,11 Elizabeth D . Toolson , Ben. . 631-610-0.35-9 .7G4,n x 'l Nancy A. Weber. t631-517-0i Melvyr Albert, et al 631-610-03< a Iv1rSCV fl t•lelvyr,' F. New.haff , et al . �tH .ut " 1,;'•w;YlE 631-610-03 8. U4(w ' Thomas V. Burr , et` al , . 631-611-004--, hl� x'.4et "^J P•laryc ] y MCCarten i631-611-00°-5 a Heaen B . Mape +II I} 631-61.1 006-C 1 Pear joule Pud Bird 631-611-007-"1 Velma P. Dodd -y 631-611-008-t1 .Y w (i,:;,r .ti •_ Dorothy May Bowen , Trustee - 631_611-Oi0 ? P9elba Je an n 5w artzehduber 631-611-011-0 „ i: • •' eontcine S . MacDona'1c 631-611-0'2-1 Sharrone M. Salisian r C31-611-013-2 r2le-,A'>OHeidi. Ann Ludders Cnly A%Wg' Itr —e legal notice (Exhibit " ; published by the city' dj.d' not pro•:ide adequate Fni d reasonable notice of the subject mate, the i.earing. - ='2Vle1J__ng -.he diagram that apse a:rs on ti-le }ro will observe that: the notice fails to identify the exact location of the s:i.ngle family lots . The diagram. on the notice a_Li ars to create the impression that all of the 'single family '_=: s would be located north of the area designated "chana'el . " The s,;sidents of the lronwocd County Club who recei�jed this notice did no ever believe a,at lots would be located either w-tbin the; ci. nnel or soul:.h of i:he: channel . C:: anuar y 27 19�;4 Ramon r, , Diaz secretary of Desert � y the Pal;, _. ?.' anning Comrnission, published a. second notice relating to a re 'uest by the Silver Spur A550(:.11 1;F5 fqY approval o:f_ an a7(1e.!nd➢lenti SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN & _ HOENBERGER A LAW CORPORATION !AWYE95 Gilligan Page Four February 27 , 1984 to the previously approved conditional use permit. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said second notice. In this second notice, the lot loca- tions are specifically delineated, and it is clear that the lots are located within the area designated as the channel. , and south of the channel. . If the residents of the Ironwood County Club had received the required legal notice , and if the notice clearly designated the lot locations and the total property encompassed by the conditional use permit, the residents would have introduced substantial evidence in opposition to the Silver Spur Associates application . We hereby request that the City of Palm Desert rescind the Planning Commission approval of the herein described application of the Silver Spur Associates . We would also request that the city reschedule a hearing on the original application and provide the appropriate legal notice pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code section 2586 . 010. Time is of the essence since a public hearing for approval of an amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit has been scheduled for March 6 , 1984 . If we do not hear from you within five days after your receipt of this letter , we ::ill have no alternative but to pursue the appropriate legal remedies . 'xo ,rs very truly , JOSEPH A. GZBBS JAS : cp Enclosures CC : Bruce Altman, City Manager Dave Erwin , Esq. , City Attorney P.ay Diaz k�;9u u tr'ZP,LU`J'J 996L HI k:Dhl>�° Gym. ZJPP LDCA41 H FORN : dsps umam d tint a.vu euvbCce a .porn 6ngl dMeten a SUN - RAY ENGINEERING Appliconl (dens print) 125 1A ST GREEN STREET (213) 4'19-122E Aloilinq Gad reu li.AreuTelephone p D CALIF 91105 Cl ty State ZIP-Code REOUEST: (Des vibe sp>clfle nofun of oppraval repuesred). APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE AND FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 19640 FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. PROPERTY DESCRIPT)ON: - Portion of the South one-half of Section 32 Township 5 South Range 6 East , San Bernard.ino,Base & Meridian . GSSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. _Book 631 . Pace 27 Parcel 52 & portions of Parcels 10 , 16 & 51 EXISTING ZONING PR-7 and partially not zoned . Progeny Owner Aurhorizollon The undersigned Atwes that they or. " owner(e) of tM property described txreim and hereby give author• izatipn or fhe mg of this opp6>atlon. iq ours _Dafe '- Agreement obr glvmg iha City o1 Polm Desert of ofAliobllttka m1ail" .to any deed mslricflons. ----- ----' I DO BY KY SIGNATURE ON)�T 1IS AGR EMENT, Absolve fM City of P01m De rt of all liobl)Illes regarding any oeed rosirimions 1/ ?hot may M appliCable 10 me p,Dperty described herein, ' ) Signature G ppliwnt`s Signature i Slgnotum ��. Do- 'JR STAFF USE ONLY) 'Envi mnmen1a 51ctus A¢epted by. - ❑ MInisrenal Act E.A. No. ------'—.--- ❑ C.;tegori=l EzemDhon _-❑ ��� E II�I�) - Negative Declaration nS w a ❑ Omer Reference Cau No.— Exhibit___ - Codchellc Val)cy 1Patc-r Sir icr- 1 rh l ? a va) r Di sI _ n/t Sil.�:er 5��- -_sociatE_ P.C. :.a>: 1058 co-d,.ti„ Club I c4 92236 C 92260 `alm %eseft, Cr. 92260 _ 6 CovEx-, , .Sa.'Y"c Dnve 2Iaci N. ran %Z1 C=. 92625 ?a'.., Daserc, C'- 9226: ClEic le , C<. 91203 c;s, Jc-1_^s C'.)eto, J-csC- �).u::'_ , P..J. i� =ascCero D.iVe P12Ce P.O. E:cx 6J6 Sar, - ..'JC, Ci 52105 SLJ` 1' —r,.C, Ck 934) 1 12 ✓ ✓:E1"c_r1Za, Sc-fJe1 ::2 pones Canyon <)ad l21 '•L3�') St. 0 S . =].a'F�- SL, Ste. 1710 ;2011'_rn illc, CA 90274 VancoLver, B.C. n eies., Cii 90017 -- -- ' Canada, ',;E.11205 :!9 ✓ ✓/ is ��„ '11'l llic,l L ✓ tJd it C, Uilliam -z'"50??, �caCO:'.• �) 1813 WL' srlire Blvd. , Ste. 214 /3-356 ✓o)=JCij--)a ?lace 92260 !_OS Pnoe)es, CA 9005 / PcI1 Desezt, (' S 260 Y 1C• r7 E,^, Cair?YO'1 C1JGcr1V, 'iar,lEl . =.L -.Venue S. W. Ci__e-_ CACHC) ?Or-1a—3, Orez:0-1 9 /201 ?ortl�ad, :�'r e=0'i ;L21 -sL J'vC; osLE:", (_:':�1C'S -: CCar'cer. , il.l.i�_:, D. =ox 666 :te ;: y 9�01.4 �11 s, ,..�ui, :.jam Dc-60e, .(_r. :,�): 01 -= `,)a-,cam- f => c, Dar: ___R_:'C'.2 ...._JE ✓ °�21 c_C:: %E-7C;E 300J S4'J2J -C: -:v, C 9a <r,4 .EaL-)e, W.L. il.l:)5 JC:, JO.'Si Jr1.11.1�aC, DVCEiJe _+-_xJC Dr>ve _ .0. Ecx .6:20c _�i i✓es�.t, C= 92260 1.ii:gurla F).cL)el, CA 926%7 !<.S n-ald, i;alE i Salisi_ "E<_a LauC)3E_ s , ra � /01 $L1c"c: D_lve 25.' , . tC7):J.ua Dr1Ve_ Ercies tis. . Cf: 90274 ?asd6f=r�, Ck 93l05 Pi ,-e::_I c , C 25032 Q?d)', ") A\�.� `�,t�� lC'.;✓�;�'.S, �JCG`1c V VC'S2Y', lr. •9226(.) DEL.,roccr�, �..'9'C<G�{ is�LI'.2 ....-. '.Si �..••_ 9CG'.i Exhibit. — ian F'_lt.cn I - Daji Holcinss Ltc. 51u�,, %b°rt S. '. fc)d Drive Ii tair,:cy Drive 305i Lo-�l se LSne it i s , C.L. 90212 zcr,,to Fib=_r _ Pal-e Cu . 9i1623 C�-,ac� T6.7202 _--- I -- 38 c, Jc�<n ;er, fia_ole Cro::in, YevLr) Ave-nue 2431, _R F-77 C.a COL 320 Dr't Je ce 1 '[7 Sal—inas, CA .3908 ? C ,,Ot6 W..j. 07450 C= 91367 4.2 _-_,., JO^S! ?rOCtOr, C:r e, _rF';; 4743 Oc aria /3-468 :nnc.ta_na ?lace 0vs_=cj, C- 90713 Ck 907i3 ?aL :x. er'., cA 92260 1 '".no �sGn ✓ 1900 ;ve. o the St'ss � i 14Cc i,)cania ?lace -a-a, C-: 93003 su: to 2600 Cz nt�-ic, CL. 930i? LOS ;-,)Oeies, CA 90067 Tncr,as c i�avaj0 424 19T_h ]�-y. V 2.54 .Ca La) e, C 91602 ast Wanatc-nee, 1•t. 98801 Suite 205 CGsTc riesa,C . 92627 ce J8C Cole, Wilaluit D:_-I e 73-c60 Oas-one ?iace 32646 CGsstsite Drive na Dal .c_ , C.ti 92KC ?al_a beserL, C2� :2i60 RcnGnO ?a_'.Os VerC$s, C; 902/' ne an . Ca::L_iCce RCr_d 1G, C-. Si108 27 -1y 0:: NOTICE C- N'O. TT ! ^'-40 End (-UP 21-831 IS a pu'blic hearing will be heid bc!joe tic *P )rn lc icrsider a rceu st by S)L"'c,R SPUR ASSOCIATES 'or ispprcvaj of a Ne.Ta-,i\ e Dec erasion of Environr-rtenlFl Impact, conditional use permit, and F L-8 ;oz lan',E11\ e "rac, Fnap to allow' ,he ceafjon of 38 single family jols if) the PR-7 and PR-7, D Re5i0e.-i',ial, 7 d.ujacre and. Planned Residential, T-rEximum 7 c.u./acre cVerla)') zones located in lronv.00d Country Club on the sc.)u-,h see of Dri,-e al the cas-,et-Jy end Of Pcir-,cjar-a PIP.cL, more parLjru!arjy aas: APN 631 -270-052 C I ortion APT' 631 -270-010, 016, 051 zfa; 0.1011 7 1 N'4 —/i UJO 'v� L -7 S U j E c R. 7, D 0 P E y � \ \ � y cr I ....... SAID PLb;jc hearing will be held on Oc-Lo-her 18, 1983, at 2:00 p.m. in the: council ch2mb-rs ',,L;a —Elm D—er-, Ci ,%- Hall, 45-27 ' Prick.]), Pear Lane, Palm Desert, Ci-mii'wnia, c-L vhich t L76, piece ail in-'e. es;e"J pe,-sOMS are i;)Vile-d 10 ET-.end and be heard. R'A",',ON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Deser-z Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post Cc-,ot)er 7, I 'S" Exhibit ' CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE ('qSE NOS. TT 1.640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment 1l1) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of n amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot tentative tract map to add one residential lot and revise the tract layout on 27:5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, rnaxirnum 7 DU/AC with a drainage-way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned residential, maximum 7 DU/:;C with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Flub on the south side of \1ariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more-)artirularly described as: e APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 ail � � � rr ,��<�or� i"v. jr! if - _III-• I\ t // ��7Y— __i ° I _ r'.'-Il -__. — 041RCCj -_ORI- -- - t7 V �� \\k '// _, IQ-�L thin { Y. A l ZAgENIL _ G , i t CIIY ,I!) Puaic Hearrnn .kill be held on Tuesday, February 7, 1984, at 7:00 P.\1.in the Council )b( rs a1 PahT, t)e.orI ,—ity Hall; 71- 510 Fred Waring I)rive, PaIm i)esert, California, tc'+e ,mll pJar.e all interer:ed Dersons are invited to attend and be heard. 12.'\MO '' /1. 1)IAZ, Secretary City of Palm Desert, California PLiLLSH: Desert Post January f 7. 198�j Exhibit ' 7 5 El Concho Lane Rolling Hills, CA 90274 9 March 1984 MA r �• � R 3 1984 PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMITTEE ENVIap+VlNENT Palm Desert City Hall g� pi pRVIC�S 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92261 SUBJECT: Silver Spur Associates - Proposed changes to the Golf Course of the Ironwood country Club in Palm Desert, California Gentlemen: My wife and I are new owners of an Ironwood Country Club. cond_ominium located at 73-428 Mariposa. After having looked at Ironwood for the past two to three years we purchased at the above address 20 September, 1983. . i During numerous conversations with Ironwood sales personnel , and other Ironwood people, never was there any mention of homes being built on _. proposed lots 27 through 39 of Tentative Tract Map No. 19640 on the south side of the golf course next to the mountains. We feel very strongly that if these homes are built the value of ours and all other homes and condos at Ironwood will be adversely effected. We all knew that homes would be built along Mariposa. The pads have been in for a long time, but the "Homes Model " in the sales office does not show homes on the south side of the course, also, the sales maps of Ironwood do not show them. Silver Spur Associates should have notified all owners at Ironwood of these proposed changes since the golfers will be directly effected by a less than desirable course and all owners will be financially effected because of the downgrading of the golf course, which is Ironwood's prime attraction. y We respectfully request that the Planning Committee turn down Silver 1 Spur Association's request to build homes on the south side of .the golf course. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, � ;zx � �P Fred R. Heckerman/ Mabel K. Heckerman FRH/dlr cc: H. Swartzendruber x t :.f: Water LG C° ' `,•`^ 1 ! �l _�M', �, �/s— ...���� ..'/ ' alp• � .�° �� ._ P—• \J) ll�)) II// ..vim_ �����1\ .\..G _-.\ti fi .. J __ i. •W- r___ I. _✓___\�� ^� - ^__ '• �.�____� n Tar.. i ' ��J/" �•. 0 4`• ��.,'��•^ � 1 •Water a �To�A.L. "TO ,_� - `J Tra r Via•' `a i ' _ ' J u G `l yy ,.�-�:it (;`� "\•�\ l�,?���- \�__•i,.. :>�. d ° \� v- (fu L'XD.aB}f I a 1 ram , a on I �_ �•i .. ,, t_.-� spy= � `� I. ��\ ��1 rvz� IN.. ✓I > > -a���_ �� I �•F� `••� � 't .\ c`ki' _�..'-'=o, '� �J 2Q)t�� \____^r^r' �I�i. 9 1 �✓�����'r�/`—.'�'1�Y�! %�! ra)2—s `�`_�\\,�� - . �Oa2.8,13e 7 > 3 ��., cam' ) , ��,T/^l, = LJ`?�.. .1 t^-. =�• -f �i e/in�i7arYe Qv1i c yyc;o 7vl AJT. TR. tim / 364-0 .S-.e .T�v 7�� -/���- /� Trine /S, /9e D SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD Project HYDROLOGY Flood Hydrograph Calculation Form By —Date Cheded Date FMA . . . . ease®sasses®®e®e®®® • ®®ee . . WE -�-------------- mm -���®�� ® ________�®' ®� - -_--_�---------------��� .. m�.�. HYDROLOGY Basic Data Calculation Form � / MANUAL B. to ootDo � V PHYSICAL DATA CI] CONCENTRATION POINT kyll (2) AREA DESIGNATION [3] AREA-SO INCHES ` CA] AREA ADJUSTMENT FACTOR CS] AREA-SO MILES ( 03*[43) ate. [63 L-INCHES 17J L ADJUSTMENT FACTOR (81 L-MILES 1 163,173) 3. t 193 LCA-INCHES 1101 LCA-MILES ( C7]•19]) [11 ] ELEVATION OF HEADWATER I G!7 ^ 1121 ELEVATION OF CONCENTRATION POINT p C133 H-FEET ( [11 ]-1123) 2cn 1143 S-FEET/MILE ( C13]/18]) 3 15 053 S86.5 CI63 LwLCA/Se*.5 ( C82,110)/1153) O•Z 1173 AVERAGE MANNINGS W U-C)-+ [183 LAG TIME-HOURS (24*CI7Jv1I63*t.38) ( PLATE E-3 ) p- p C193 LAG TIME—MINUTES ( 60,1183) 6 i 1203 257 OF LAG—MINUTES ( .25*1193) 1213 407 OF LAG MINUTES ( .40s[1971 1q 4 1223 UNIT TIME—MINUTES ( 25-401. OF LAG) l 5 RAINFALL DATA [I ] SOURCE 121 FREQUENCY-YEARS 133 DURATION: 3-HOURS 6-HOURS 24-HOURS 143 C53 [C6]]] (7) 183 193 C1[[0]�� C11 ] 1123 1133 [C�143 CIS] POINRAIN E SO IN ELST POINT PO I RAIN so INYC97 POENTGE RAINPOIN SOEIN S= POI NT AVERAGE , INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN INCHES RAIN INCHES INCHES INCHES F[S]- IC73- 1193- I1113- 1[13]- FCIS]- [16] AREAL ADJ FACTOR," ( SEE PLATE E-5.81 [17] ADJ AVG POINT RAIN IC16]• [77,ETC) PLATE E-2.1 U of 2) J R C F C & Y1 C D SYNTHETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD Praiect Sheet HYDROLOGY Basic to Calculation Form By Date___ MANUAL CheCked Date_ LOSS RATE DATA 0 <, W W6'Z^ 0 W 7LLF�"1 >OZ<A «—Ku ei u W u mlm Q p u ly O W S 1'Y V u E¢o J - A Z O r+ N ^ cm W d it u rr� i Of .IN '^ V/ 02« O \ t- <-CW O cn M � � o 0 V I Q ZW2C1- Y � d V<W< O a a¢ RJ = d V W WWLL Z1 OLLO— � I \ E d W ° Z h = o M m 7 0 u v Q J= LU \ u C I- o � � w v Q LLI ��� 11 If ej M N h > W U d KW1L IyJ w¢z« F— W Ls d E Q 11 0 Q = N c,c Ia sw 211 W Ug + d�N V CD X it III 1 cz._. _jl0 o W f\ c n J E w t E E_ WW C >L co (} �� C 1 N d •' Q �U E 'n It u n f- 11 ^u W dr J=< _OJ O L'L N fJ_ PLATE E-2.1 (2of 2) RCFC & \1CDr SYI ETIC UNIT HYDROGRAPH METHOD F tl Sheet HYDROLOGY Unit Hydrograph and Effective Rain MANUAL Colculation Form RV Date Checked Date 111 CONCENTRATION POINT 121 AREA DESIGNATION C31 DRAINAGE AREA-SO MILES •g'1 143 ULTIMATE DISCHARGE-CFS-HRS/IN 1645e C331 12,tYj. 153 UNIT TIME-MINUTES 4 1a 163 LAG TIME-MINUTES -iCo MIa . 173 UN17 TIME-PERCENT OF LAG I100*C53/1631 y1, 183 S-CURVE C93 STORM FREQUENCY G DURATION YEAR- HOUR 1103 TOTAL ADJUSTED STORM RAIN-INCHES - CII3 VARIABLE LOSS RATE IAVG>-INCHES/HOUR 1123 MINIMUM LOSS RATE [ FOR VAR. LOSS 1-IN/HP. 1133 CONSTANT LOSS RATE-INCHES/HOUR 0.1 114) LOW LOSS RATE-PERCENT UNIT HYDROGRAPH EFFECTIVE PAIN FLOOD HYDROGRAPH 1153 C161 1173 1181 1191 1203 C213 1223 1233 1243 UNIT TIME CUMULATIVE DISTRIB UNIT PATTERN STORM LOSS EFFECTIVE FLOW TIME PERCENT AVERAGE GRAPH HYDROGRAPH PERCENT RAIN RATE PAIN CFS PERIOD OF LAG PERCENT OF PERCENT FS-HRS/IN IPL E-5.9 IN/HR IN/HP. IN/HP. Y4 C73eC153 ULTIMATE C17) -1173 U30 1183 6011031201 1213-1223 DISCHARGETa 100 100 (5-GRAPH) le-y MAX LOW 411 -1.4 B9,ci 023 a� 2 .-3 2 I•ok ff,l, v5 .0 0•=7o 0 •15 3 125.0 rc •0 0 9 0,so 0.L 7- 61.0 I 0•m0l O-Z-4, - 2911 97, .o 0-In :3.3 °tS• 26 0.- 9 SIG t 4l2 1,6 I•B 0.91 ?ih to j16? ct .l 01 10 1 01Sz 1 11 y58h er6`7 0Io 3 0.4-3 o .ya I2 Oo qga 0.3 0•ss I� 4 0 .82 0.�1 (� 0.15 019 0.62 15 G25•o n.Z 12 0 .99 Do .'L •'z , 06 I o .3 -o-- .3 •1 e 8 50-0 I .3 t3 19 -7911 1.4o L 20 833.3 Go I •3S 21 075.0 1.8 I lz 22 I(to I•!oo 23 88 0 1 C9-5� IOUo.v 1 D•2oi d. l� E I Do.o E-k i6i 3 PLATE E-2.2 t - I ' I I I I � i { 1 i I � J • _ r PA � J : I j 1 I o C I ' ' 0 L , � I 1- ' _ � 1 - pit. rI I f `I , I (Q' I i IL 0 J I _ I KIN _ 1 I p T _ I 11f1-' r , 177 fl _ T, a--i i , - - ' n- , r � � I � ;- I I J ! I t � 1 " 1 ; - Lull • LOT 1 -rill 1 1 J ._ , I. I l 1 Ii I W0.1 1 y t 1 T I TP _1 L . c- /n P,OF pq`���FRS/p FStRTFS GDD22� x � � 32 JL�C/ /2. B3 Aw ze 69 /. 7/ W ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY OfS7RICS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058•COACHELLA,CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT LOW ELL O.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLISCODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POW ELL VICTOR B.HARDY,AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDW INE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BUXTON January 11, 1984 File: 0163.11 0421.1 0721.1 Department of Environmental Services V�tb City of Palm Desert JA(tl :i Post Office Box 1977 6 1984 Palm Desert, California 92261 FNVIRONM Gentlemen: CITY OF pAA D"ERTFS Subject: Amended Tentative Tract 19,640 Portion of South half, Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East San Bernardino Meridian This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth three feet on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. However, we expect the map to be revised due to the construction of the Palm Valley Stormwater Project. A portion of this tract is within the Dead Indian Stormwater Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This area shall be annexed to the Stormwater Unit of the Coachella Valley Water District. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. Yours very truly, Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager-Chief Engineer CS:ra cc: Riverside County Department of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY cutn' o:x a?ffi 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: March 9, 1984 Silver Spur Associates Sun-Ray Engineering 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 Re: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendments) The Planning Commission of the City of. Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of March 6, 1984. CONTINUED TO APRIL 3, 1984 Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision.. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION PAD/lcr cc: Coachella Valley Water District File w INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: BRUCE ALTMAN, CITY MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: LETTER FROM JOSEPH GIBBS DATED DATE: MARCH 6, 1984 FEBRUARY 27, 1984, REGARDING LEGAL NOTICE FOR TT 1964 In the letter from Mr. Gibbs, it is claimed that certain residents of Ironwood Country Club did not receive adequate and reasonable notice of the public hearing on October 18, 1983. The municipal code requires publication of a notice of a public hearing in the newspaper and mailing of notices to all persons whose names appear on the latest tax roll as owning property within 300 feet of the property that is the subject of the hearing. On page two of his letter, Mr. Gibbs indicates that the following persons did not receive notice of the hearing even though they own property within 300 feet of the property: 1. Arthur and Olga Atterbury 2. Edgar and Karin Stewart 3. R.E. Hazard, Jr., Trustee, and Dorothy Hazard 4. Hary Collins, Trustee, et. al., Edward Malime, et. al. 5. W.S. McGr�gory, Investments, Ltd. 6. Constatine and Rosemary Kunelis Staff has reviewed this claim and determined that the above owners are, in fact, outside the 300 foot notification area. Therefore, they are not required to be notified and were not. On page three Mr. Gibbs indicates that for certain properties "all persons whose names appear on the latest adopted tax roll" were not notified of the hearing. The properties he refers to are owned jointly either by what appears to be husband and wife or by several different parties. In the cases where he indicates a woman's name, the man was notified. In the cases where several names are shown as owners, at least one of the registered owners was notified at their mailing address listed in the tax rolls. . It is normal procedure to notify one person (usually the man) in cases where it appears a husband and wife jointly own a property since they live at the same address. In cases of multiple joint ownership, it is standard practice to notify the first name on the list at the mailing address given by the county tax assessor. One would assume that as in the case of the tax bill, the owner who receives the notice of public hearing, would inform the other owners. These procedures provide an appropriate method to insure that: affected parties are notified. CITY MANAGER MEMO CONTINUED MARCH 6, 1984 On page three, Mr. Gibbs refers to the first legal notice (Exhibit C) for the October, 1983, hearing and indicates that it fails to identify the exact location of the single family lots. It is not, and has never been the intent of staff, the municipal code, or state law to show more than the "exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing." Mr. Gibbs then indicates that the second notice for the February 7, 1984, hearing for the amended map shows the lot location "specifically delineated" and that if this was done for the first hearing their would have been substantial opposition at that time. The only reason the lots are roughly delineated on the notice submitted by Mr. Gibbs is that one of the property owners came in after he received his notice and wanted to have something showing the location of the lots. Since there were no extra tract maps available, Stan Sawa of this staff inked in the approximate layout for his use. The notice that went out to all property owners only showed the exterior boundaries of the tract clearly. In conclusion, staff believes that adequate and reasonable notice of the public hearings on October 18, 1983, and February 7, 1984, was given. 7 P O� D Z --- IRECTOR OF ENVIRONM NTAL SERVICES W RAD/tm UPDATE: March 7, 1984 At the commission meeting of March 6th, due to various issues raised at the public hearing on the amended Tract Map 19640, it was continued until April 3, 1984, and staff will notify all persons indicated in Mr. Gibbs letter. 2 City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 6,�1984 continued from February 7, 1984 CASE NOt T� T 1960 aid CUP 21-83 (Amendment #1) REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7, D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. APPLICANTS: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 I. BACKGROUND: A. PREVIOUS HEARING: This request was previously reviewed at the meeting of February 7, 1984. At that hearing, a number of homeowners surrounding the project area spoke or indicated their opposition to the project. As a result of the concerns, the planning commission continued this request in order to allow the applicant to meet with the homeowners to resolve their differences. On February 17, 1984, the applicant met with a number of homeowners at city hall. The applicant presented his proposal in detail with the use of graphics. The homeowners indicated their concerns which generally included the following: 1. Relocation of golf tee. 2. View disruption. 3. Property values. 4. Drainage. B. REVISED PROPOSAL: As a result of that meeting the applicant has submitted a revised tentative tract map deleting one residential lot at the end of the "B" street cul-de- sac. Additionally, he has indicated that after consultation with his golf course architect, it has been determined that the location of the existing tees will not be relocated. This decision necessitated the elimination of the one residential lot on "B" street. These are the only changes proposed to the tentative tract map. The original staff report is attached for your review and use. The findings as noted there still apply to this revised map. C. PARK AND RECREATION REQUIREMENTS: At the last hearing staff had recommended that park and recreation fees be paid pursuant to municipal code requirements. It has been brought to staff's attention that the 15 acre park dedicated to the city in 1978 by the applicant for Ironwood Country Club is applicable to this development. Thus, there would not be any fees required by this tract. However, city council Resolution No. 78-92 which sets forth the terms will have to be reviewed in detail to verify this fact. H. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels this revised request is acceptable and recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; -1- B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving TT 19640 (Amendment #1), subject to conditions. C. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving CUP 21- 83 (Amendment #1). "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7, PR-7 D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club." "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage and hillside overlay zone located in Ironwood Country Club." VI. ATTACHMENTS• A. Draft Resolutions B. Staff Report dated February 7, 1984 C. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 7, 1984 D. Letters from surrounding property owners received since last meeting E. Revised Tentative Tract Map Prepared by k &W Reviewed and Approved by /lr -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF 40 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THE PR-7, PR-7 D AND PR-7 H ZONES LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. TT 19640 (Amendment #0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued hearing on March 6, 1984, to consider SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved 39 residential lot tentative tract map to revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre) PR-7 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with Case No. TT 19640 and therefore, no additional documentation is deemed necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff report dated February 7, 1984, on file in the department of environmental services, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Map No. 19640 (Amendment #0 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of March, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. TT 19640 (Amendment #I) Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations, and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of the approval of conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 3. All on site utilities, including cable TV, shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of environmental services. 4. Any dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 5. The CC&R's for this development shall be submitted to the director of environmental services for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 6. Prior to submittal of the final map, the applicant shall provide the department of environmental services with a list of proposed street names with at least three alternatives. The approval of the final street name shall be made by the director of environmental services. 7. Applicant shall not pay a fee in lieu thereof as a condition of the final map for park and recreation purposes per city ordinance unless required by terms of city council Resolution No. 78-92. 8. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services setbacks can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 9. Cul-de-sac at south end of "C" street to be on assessors parcel Nos. 631-270-010 and 051 only, unless Riverside County approval is obtained to have cul-de-sac in unincorporated area. 10. A covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all building rights on lot 43 to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the city. Department of Public Works: 11. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 12. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the director of public works. 13. Full improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 14. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built" plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city. 16. All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid. 17. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. 18. Landscaping maintenance on all streets shall be provided by the homeowners association. 19. A portion of this property is in the AO Depth 3' zone as shown on the flood insurance rate map. A flood hazard report, as required by Ordinance No. 221 (flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) shall be submitted to the public works department. The report must be approved by the flood review committee prior to approval of a grading plan. 20. All property within the CVWD right-of-way must be transferred to the developer by certification of final map by CVWD prior to recordation of final map . 21. No residential lots shall be placed within a drainage area that is subject to inundation. The private engineer shall submit a hydrology study, hydraulics and grading plans to indicate drainage mitigation necessary. 22. Off site improvement plans to be approved by the public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required improvements prior to this map recording. City Fire Marshal: 23. Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two-three hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 24. Install Riverside County Super fire hydrants located at each street intersection a. but not greater than 500 feet apart in any direction. b. All structures shall be within 250' of a fire hydrant. C. Exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. d. Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 25. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. 26. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract No. 19640 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal." Upon approval, the original plan will be returned to the developer. 27. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the buiding site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 28. Parking restricted on one side of street on "A" do "B" streets. 29. Maximum length of dead-end streets is 600 feet. Provide approved alternate access road. /Ir -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A DRAINAGE AND HILLSIDE OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued hearing on March 6, 1984, to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit for a residential development on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre) PR-7 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with Case No. CUP 21-83 and therefore, no additional documentation is deemed necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 21-83 (Amendment #1) is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 6th day of March, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of environmental services, and modified by the following conditions and subsequent revisions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to architectural review, subdivision process and building permits procedures. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services; setback s can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 5. All conditions of TT 19640 (Amendment #0 shall be met. 6. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval to implement said CUP, unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by the planning commission. /lr City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 7, 1984 CASE NO: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #1) REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 40 single family lots in the PR-7, D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easerly end of Poinciana. Place. APPLICANTS: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 I. BACKGROUND: A. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 were approved by the planning commission on October 18, 1983. At that time the approval was for 39 single family lots and 6 other common or street lots. B. APPLICATION REQUESTS: The applicant has filed a revised tentative tract map and conditional use permit for this project. The tentative tract map is to divide the land into residential, common and golf course tots. The conditional use permit is required because the middle part of the area is in a 'D' (drainage way) overlay zone. The conditional use permit procedure in this case is intended for properties prone to flooding. The current flood ordinance the city is operating with was implemented after the 'D' overlay was created and protects and regulates development. Therefore, the purpose of the 'D' overlay is being achieved by the current flood ordinance. Another purpose of the conditional use permit in this revised request is to comply with the hillside ordinance which affects the area south of "B" street and west of "C" street. This area was not a part of the original tract. C. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site now consists of :27.5 acres of land (original 22.7 acres) al: the southerly end of ironwood Country Club. A portion of the area running in an east-west direction through the middle of the site is presently a part of the golf course. Near the southerly property line and now not a part: of the tract is an unlined storm channel that carries water from the west: to the golf course on the east. The terrain is somewhat hilly with the golf course area raised to separate the storm channel from the area to the north. The area immediately to the south of the tract rises sharply to rocky mills. The south boundary of the tract is now extended south to the city limits. D. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-7/Residential in Ironwood Country Club South: N-A (Riverside Co.)/vacant East: PR-7, D/Golf course West: PR-7 and PR-7, D/Residential in Ironwood Country Club and Storm Channel E. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: -1- Staff Report TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amend #0 :Medium Density Residential 5-7 d.u./acre II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. GENERAL: The original approval in October of. 1983, was for 39 single family lot va.ring in size frorn 12,500 to 27,000 square feet, and six lots for common areas, private streets, golf course and the storm channel. The revised request is to permit 40 single family lots, 2 lots for recreational use, one lot for open space and three lots for private streets. The size of the tract has been increased from 22.7 acres to 27.5 acres with most of the, expanded acres in the hillside area to the south. A portion of the area within the sotrm channel has been removed from the boundaries of the tract. As before, the tract consists of property within Ironwood Country Club a portion of the tract is presently owned by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and utilized as a storm channel (dead Indian). Negotiations are presently taking place between the applicants and CVWD for a sale or exchange of property to allow these tract boundaries. CVWD has submitted a letter authorizing the submission of this application. B. CIRCULATION/LAYOUT: While the .layout of the revised request is similar to the original, there have been some changes Poinciana Place was originally going to be extended into the tract. Now there will be a cul-de-sac from within the tract which will not go through to Mariposa Drive. The other major change is that "C" street will be extended further south and terminates at the southern, city limits.. As before, an alternate emergency access will be provided from the westerly end of "B" street to Mariposa Drive. 'This will comply with fi.re ;and zoning requirements for cul-de-sacs. Presently, the submitted map shows the southerly cul-de-sac on "B" street encroaching over the city limits. The applicant indicates that this cul-de- sac will be placed within the city limits unless he can obtain Riverside County approval to have the cul-de-sac on unincorporated area. Presently, the channel runs adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed-"B" street. Grading will divert the channel northernly so that: it runs north of proposed lots 34 through 40 along a lowered turf area which will be part of the golf course. Most of the area along lots 25-31 and will be elevated from approximately 5 feet to 20 feet above existing grades to insure that they are protected from inundation. C. HILLSIDE CONSIDERATIONS: The area south of "B" street and west of "C" street has been added to the area of the tract. By code, this 12.8 acre area is hillside and thus subject to the hillside regulations. The lots affected by these regulations are lots 32, 33, and 43,. In order to comply with the hillside requirements, the applicant will be required to record a covenant dedicating all building rights to the city, thus assuring preservation of natural areas. The applicant has submitted architectural plans for this tract including hillside lot Nos. 32 and 33. The architectural committee has approved these architectural and landscaping plans at their meeting of January 10, 1984. Staff feels the sitting of the units is acceptable. III. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: -2-- Staff Report TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amend #0 The findings as noted for the original approval of the tentative tract map in the staff report dated October 18, 1983, are still applicable and would apply to this request. That staff report is attached for your review. B. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The original findings for the conditional use permit are also applicable to this request. The only difference is that this request is also for development of the hillside lots. The findings can also justify approval of the residences. IV. CONCLUSIONS: The staff concerns as noted in the original staff report still apply. Furthermore, compliance with the hillside ordinance alleviates major concern with development of the hillside areas. I V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels this request is acceptable and recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving TT 19640 (Amendment #1), subject to conditions. C. Adoption of. Planning Commission Resolution No. approving CUP 21- 83 (Amendment #1). -- A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a tentative tract map to allow the creation of 40 single family lots in the PR-7, PR-7 D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club." "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage and hillside overlay zone located in Ironwood Country Club." VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolutions B. Legal Notice C. Staff report dated October 18, 1983 D. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 1983 E. Plans and Exhibits Prepared byI Reviewed and �Approved by /lr -3- CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE. NOS. 1'T 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment ftl) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palrn Desert Pl,�nning Commission to consider a ,equest by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of ::nendn;ent tc :, previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residentia.( lot 'entative tract ;nap to add one residential lot and revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres prated in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC), PR-7, D (Planned aesidential, naximum 7 DU/AC with a drainage-way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, -naxiim/m 7 l:)U 'A(-' with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Co.,ntry t_lub on the soutl side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, -lore )articularly des;rined as: \PN 631-270-.052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016. 051 1F v C.. ._Ira I •` � � /� TR[[ _.__-__ _DgIVF-.� �li � \ .. LI �Ilo I _� / / \�\ Pig-- — ��•• � I 1 � � / •7C____ i 1 n ,.CITY 0 y D Pu:)Ir.. Hear l,:; w,ll be held on Tuesoav, February 7, 1984, at: 7:00 P.VI.in the C;r. uncil ^hers r'al : f)es,erl t;� Hail, '3-5I0 Fred Waring Drive, Paln', Desert, California, .r.rl rL:ce all interested Der cons are invited to attend and be heard. RAW')N A. DIAL, Secretary !.ity of Palm Desert, h.alifornia i'I ikSLlSfi: I)r=tirY; Post 17 -A 69 ev 7,7 X 7/ ----------- / Y1 ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1916 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY � STRICt COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX ID56• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)396-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS LIS CO RA R.RUM MON DS,PRESIDENT LOWELL 0.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER—CHIEF ENGINEER JOHN CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT P,PO WELL BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY PAUL VICTOR B.HARDY,AUDITOR STEV E D.BuzroN .January il , 1984 W.NIC HOLS REDWINE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS TEV File: 0163.11. 0421. 1 0721. 1 D 9 Ca1,E �s� Department of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert ':✓� Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: 7y ✓F �,NtML �rcFrc Subject: Amended Tentative Tract 19,640 Portion of South half, Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth three feet on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. However, we expect the map to be revised due to the construction of the Palm Valley Stormwater Project. Cportion of this tract is within the Dead. Indian Stormwater Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella valley Water District for review. This area shall be annexed to the Stormwater Unit of the Coachella Valley Water District. The District will f'urnisE domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities . c Yours very truly,00 9 Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager-Chief Engineer CS:ra cc: Riverside County Iepartment of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY RIVERSIDE COUNTY - �wo A FIRE DEPARTMENT C UNTY IN COOPERATION WITH THE or CALIFORNIA DEPART"MENTOF FORESTRY PRSID DAVID L.FLAKE �pv FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 January 4, 1984 TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 o I`� RANCHO MIRAGE FIRE STATION Ramon A. Diaz (� � `J 1_�`J 70.800 HIGHWAY ill City of Palm Desert RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 73-510 Fred Waring Drive f, •- 9 1G 1h Palm Desert, CA 92260 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reference : Case No. TT 19640, Ame�ild'hi e41Ft "## y DAKMcant - Silver Spur Assoc. Dear Ray, The fire protection requirements for this tentative tract have previously been established and remain appropriate in this case . Please have the applicant detail the emergency alternate access road on the tentative tract plans prior to submittal to the Planning Commission. Thank you, DAVID L. FLAKE Fir Chief By, ERIC L. VOGT Fire Marshal dpm � 999 ,. Ilk ironwood fairway estatos\,,' /�� r -y. iJSllw y112, 2S °UNl,s " r+ 13 Jhl:i ^�.•/ _ v. - i' URRVTIA ARCHITECTS w.. / RONA10 GREGORY. A.SIA. `^�"" lond.oa Ardilealuro - I+�-L•ryl ri, J��L L=1✓�D r rc - � - wvr. ; I. Xµ ,3' g°e'9.. .e"' „i`k4.-. W- ""j)..c •. I s ,1/cl dlc� el i, -zlo' Ili 6;K1 11C) fronl CICvJliu n '. .r. ., d•4 I'�� .. �� ' `Y u. {'� ,, I ., .c ��I „tI ..0 �.,�. I .T..';•, F� e vap0 � Jk- itss;�-t r ` ,•-�"t � r0.; fdiG) a�. e n right side elevation F.w ... 41 'F- f---j .,.,, - - ..,� �.�� r - r�. �� ,.�.. . ��.�_ is--`�• : � o�• II r2)0l (GIKI A.1 H- gtC Nu rear elevation 'f w . .Q UNIT C MAP , _ ..�— - �� � � `nt . - ��`✓' �� �/j11,�v 9I�pp ;\iy�/�j�'�i�'�(II}/'/��!' � J �� �,r� � I ':17-;., I ,....,,, c.:.,R, 3ase .y. n. OAC) f7(Iq (1JAI (21[) ,GI K) 14 i(.) 600 h.i eke 1. 101 fell %ide rle v.Jion kPg -, r ice: _l'-' 41 -s— eau pa� �YB> C9 CiXAi C CX�I (� front elevation �d IE S`�e M '•.c�rs. 1�n1Y�, _ „ `C� tvf���L. \\�`�d/.,/• .n� �1/��ir -.�i��,� �t•, Na right side elevation w - Nd:II_Y! Z d ; ` r. .�.. '- ✓ i.�w l 1 r i., ' t rem •s, f� 3,i.0 'ear levation yt `3x :1�i1. (j)O�WXKI its QF SoUNIT 1) r dD 1 "wTt,•\" l .rl �\\ 1c -' /"/ Zoc• h•B .i(1e rh.atiun >IIIAUX)R PLAN owd .tnnn .F k URRIpR UrVATIOM r—=� O .. 156 �44< City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 18, 1983 CASE NO: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit and a 45 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. APPLICANTS: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 I. BACKGROUND: A. APPLICATION REQUESTS: The applicant has filed a tentative tract map and conditional use permit for this project. The tentative tract map is to divide the land into residential, common and golf course Iots. The conditional use permit is required because the southern part of the area is in a 'D' (drainage way) overlay zone. The conditional use permit procedure in this case is intended for properties prone to flooding. The current flood ordinance the city is operating with was implemented after the 'D' overlay was created and protects and regulates development. Therefore, the purpose of the 'D' overlay is being achieved by the current flood ordinance. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site consists of 22.7 acres of land at the southerly end of Ironwood Country Club. A portion of the area running in an east-west direction through the middle of the site is presently a part of the golf course. Adjacent to the southerly property line and part of the tract is an unlined storm channel that carries water from the west to the golf course on the east. The terrain is somewhat hilly with the golf course area raised to separate the storm channel from the area to the north. The area immediately to the south of the tract rises sharply to rocky hills. C. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-7/Residential in Ironwood Country Club South: PR-7, D and PR-7, H/Golf course and vacant East: PR-7, D/Golf course West: PR-7 and PR-7, D/Residential in Ironwood Country Club and Storm Channel D. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential 5-7 d.u./acre II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. GENERAL: The applicants wish to create 39 single family lots for residences to be built and sold by the applicant. The typical lots vary in size from 12, 500 square feet to 27,000 square feet with an average 15,000 square foot lot size. Six other lots are provided and consist of common lots, private streets, and the golf course and storm channel. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 October 18, 1983 The tract is similar to Ironwood's Tract 5564 on Sunrose Lane which is a custom lot single family subdivision nearing completion. While the tract consists of property within Ironwood Country Club a portion of the tract is presently owned by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and utilized as a storm channel (dead Indian). Negotiations are presently taking place between the applicants and CVWD for a sale or exchange of property to allow these tract boundaries. CVWD has submitted a letter authorizing the submission of this application. Presently, the channel runs adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed tract. Grading will divert the channel northernly so that it runs between proposed lots 28 through 39 and a relocated turfed levee which will be part of the golf course. Most of the area along street "B" (Lots 28 through 39) will be elevated from approximately 5 feet to 35 feet above existing grades to insure that they are protected from inundation. Access to a majority of the lots would be from new streets constructed off of Mariposa Drive. One street will be constructed just south of Ironwood's Administrative center on Mariposa Drive and terminates in a twin cul-de- sac near the southern boundary of the tract. This street will be bridged in the area where it crosses the storm channel. The second street would be an extension of Poinciana Plance which exists north of Mariposa Drive. Due to the excessive length of the cul-de-sac a secondary emergency access will have to be provided, probably from the westerly end of "B" Street to the extension of Poinciana Place or Mariposa Drive. B. ANALYSIS: 1. Staff Concerns: Staff's primary concern pertains to provisions for insuring that the ,. tract is safe from flooding. The director of public works has recommended conditions geared to insuring that the lots will be safe from inundation. These conditions include flood review committee approval due to AO depth 3' zone designation prior to approval of a grading plan, submission of drainage studies, hydrology studies, hydraulics and grading plans. Furthermore, plans for stormwater , protection will have to be submitted to CVWD for review. v Secondary access for emergency purposes can be provided as required by code and the city fire marshal. Nevertheless, street "A" where it crosses the relocated storm channel will have to be engineered to withstand maximum stormwater flows. Since the PR zone does not set specific setback requirements for single family detached structures on individual lots. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan of how the project would be developed. Front setbacks are either 20 feet from curb for straight- in garages or 15 feet for side-in garages. Side distances between units is in most cases at least 20 feet with rear yards averaging 20 feet, with a minimum of approximately 15 feet. Staff feels these types of setbacks are acceptable and would meet the intent of the municipal code. 2. Findings Needed for Approval of Tentative Tract Map: a. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: The density of the proposed map will be 1.72 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the 5-7 d.u./acre general plan designation. -2- TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 October 18, 1983 b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: All private streets will be improved and sufficient drainage facilities will be provided in conformance with the general plan guidelines, city ordinances and conditions of the director of public works. C. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. Justification: The site is physically suitable for a majority of the lots with little or no grading necessary. The balance of the lots adjacent to the south boundary of the tract will be filled and graded and protected from the possibility of water damage. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Justification: The design of the project indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed density of development because the site can be served by respective utilities, the city, and existing or proposed circulation system. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Justification: The design will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because it will be constructed in compliance with applicable regulations and the proposed Negative Declaration has determined that there will be no related adverse environmental effects. f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Justification: The design will not cause serious public health problems because it will be in compliance with applicable health, safety and building codes. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Justification: There have been no easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Staff feels these findings can be justified in this case. 3. Findings Needed for Approval of Conditional Use Permit: a. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the municipal code and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. -3- TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 October 18, 1983 Justification: The CUP is required due to the properties location in an area subject to flooding. The intent of the district is to insure that development is safe flooding. The development is in accord with the objectives and purposes of the municipal code. b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improverents in the vicinity. Justification: The location and conditions of maintenance will insure that the project will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties. Furthermore, compliance with flood damage prevention ordinance and grading ordinance will insure protection of surrounding properties and improvements. C. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the municipal code except for approved variances or adjustments. Justification: The project as designed will comply with applicable municipal codes and do not require any variances and adjustments. d. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. Justification: The general plan land use designation for the project is 5-7 residential dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is 1.72 d.u./acre, considerably below the land use designation. Staff feels the findings can be justified in this case. C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of environmental services has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. III. CONCLUSIONS: The project is acceptable provided the staff, fire marshal and director of public works conditions are complied with. Those primary concerns deal with safe and adequate access to street 'B' and protection of the lots from inundation. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and justifications contained in the report staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings for approval; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving TT 19640, subject to conditions. C. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving CUP 21- 83. "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a tentative tract map to create 45 lots to allow 39 -4- TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 October 18, 1983 residential units in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club." "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage overlay zone located in Ironwood Country Club." V. ATTACHMENTS• A. Draft Resolutions B. Legal Notice C. Comments from other departments and agencies D. Plans and Exhibits Prepared by 1 Reviewed and App, - ,red by /lr -5- September 27, 1 3 d CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE \TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 NOTICE 1S HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the�Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit, and a 48 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 38 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre and Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portion APN 631-270-010, 016, 051 -w 1vE 1 /O /a� f_ 4 \ 0 ood CiQiYIg1r:A II�1 ' ����._JQ Q / o 0 _ p'NCIAN`\`\C `- �C SUBJECT P.R.- 71 D PROPERTY CITY OF PALM DESERT City Limit - SAID public hearing will be held on October 18, 1983, at 2:00 p.m. in the council chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post October 7, 1983 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1983 . Joy reviewed the location for the proposed TBA store from the exhibits pro 'ded. He described the landscaping and recommended that the service bay opens s be screened with additional !andscaping rather than prohibit outer opening service bays (Condition No. 5 to be amended so stating). Staff recommended approval. Because of t e parking spaces needed for this store, it reduced the square footage available for t future fifth major department store from 70,000 sq.ft. to 54,000. Commissioner ites asked if Condition No. 6 precludes the future department store from request' g a variance for parking. Mr. Joy replied affirmative. It was noted by Co issioner Richards that if it was necessary., the retention basin could be paved an used for parking. Commission agreed that it would be a reasonable solution. Commissioner Wood was con erned that an .option on a piece of property to the north of the proposed project w s a basis for approving this request. Mr. Diaz explained that the applica t would have to provide parking as necessary. Commissioner Richards added that at e time the future store is ready for opening staff will be aware of any parking pro lems and commission could take further steps then. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing an asked if the applicant wished to give a presentation. The applicant was not present. Chairman Wood a ed if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case; there eing none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Comm' sioner Crites, to adopt findings as presented by staff; carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commission r Crites, to adopt Plannin Co ase No. DP 12-79 A endment #3, subject to conditions as mended (including ondition No. 5 amended); carried unanimously 4-0. B. Case No. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES AND SUN- RAY ENGINEERING, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit and a 45 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and noted that the applicants are presently in negotiations with Coachella Valley Water District for a sale or exchange of property that is owned by CV)X'D. He concluded that staff's main concern was proper provisions for potential flooding. Conditions included in the resolution address this concern. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. LARRY SPICER, Silver Spur Associates, explained that the construction of Palm Valley Channel had been a mitigation issue and engineers have done a thorough hydraulic study. He assured commission that it can work by properly raising the pads approximately 10 feet above existing grade. He concurred with conditions. -2- .MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1983 Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none; the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt findings as presented by staff; carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 895, approving TT 19640, subject to _ conditions; carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 896, approving CUP 21-83, subject to conditions; carried unanimously 4-0. X. ISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE XI. ORAL OMMUNICATIONS - NONE XII. COMMENTS Commissioner Ri ards commended Director of Public Works Barry McClellan for taking care of the tter of the dip on Portola. Chairman Wood requeste a review of the height limitations ordinance. Commissioner Richards req sted an update on the Charles Martin building on Highway 111. Commissioner Crites requested an date on the commissioner's request for staff to annex property south of Ironwood untry Club. Staff was instructed to report to council on this request. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by mmissioner Crites, to adjourn the meeting at 3:30 p.m. ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec etary RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman /1r -3- IRONTREE MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. "y; n February 2 , 1.984 .1 _ L t o.r SEr;vrcrS City Council Planning Commission Planning Department Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert , CA 92260 Gentlemen : Additional interest has developed over Ironwood ' s plan to develop additional Real Estate in the canyon area. South of existing residential areas within Ironwood Country Club. The enclosed letter demonstrates the concern Voiced by significant number of potentially effected Ironwood homeowners. As the Managing agent for Ironwood Owners Association #8 we have been directed to advise you of this concern and further to request your agencies full cooperation in assisting all interested homeowners in obtaining the facts necessary to satisfy their legitimate interests . Very truly yours , David N. Meinecke DNM: dd enclosure 42 600 BOB HOPE DRIVE, SUITE 401 1 RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 / (619) 346 1 194 IRONWOOD OWNERS ASSOCIATION VIII 42-600 Bob Hope Drive , Suite 401 Rancho Mirage , California 92270 February 2 , 1984 Dear Fellow Homeowner : Pccently we learned of Ironwood ' s plans to develop additional real estate across the golf course and up the canyon due South of a portion of our Association area. From what we have seen it would appear that the homes along Poinciana and Mariposa are most directly involved. while we are not necessarily opposed to Ironwood ' s current building plans we do feel that additional discussion is necessary. As it stands now, there is very little time left to initiate the dialog necessary to address all our questions . As currently scheduled , the matter is to be presented to the Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday , February 7th at 7 : 00 P.M. at the new Palm Desert City Hall Council Chambers , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive , Palm Desert. We urge any and all homeowners concerned about this development and its possible impact on our property values to be there . We hope, through our presence, to delay approval of the proposal until we all have had sufficient time to review and absorb all the facts pertinent to the issue. Very truly yours , Ironwood Owners Association VIII: Board of Directors i 0 WEBER MOTOR COMPANY JAGUAR VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93003 10�qy 2611 THOMPSON BLVD. 1805) 4 - 8 647-777780i r , 2549 THOM PSON BLVO, (805) 648 7991 Gd7 8087 LO z-- �-d`� /9 o CZ,� z/ c 45� F7 III ♦ j [Yk WILLIAMS. McGREGOR February 1, 1984 City of Palm Desert , .: Palm Desert City Hall !, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive '' 3 PALM DESERT, California Attention: Mr. Ramon A. Diaz, Secretary Dear Sirs: Re: Case Nos. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment No. 1) I am the owner of the residential property municipally described as 49-244 Quercus Lane located in Iron- wood Country Club (as marked in red on the attached Legal Notice). My property is in close proximity to and overlooks the area which is the subject of the public hearing to be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 7, 1984. My purpose in writing is to express my serious concern as to the effect which the proposed amendment will have . upon my property as a result of the proposed creation of Lots 34 to 40, inclusive, the relocation of the natural drainage channel so as to accommodate the creation of these lots and the resultant re-designing of the 16th fairway of the golf course. I am particularly concerned about the possibility that the existing teeing areas on the 16th hole may be relocated from the side of the outcrop across from my home to an area closer to my home or somewhat west thereof. I under- stand this to be a possibility so as to protect houses that may be constructed on Lots 39 and 40. Not only would relocation of the existing tees remove an aesthetic feature which had a strong bearing on the purchase of my home (and, accordingly, have a direct bearing on the market value thereof) but relocation thereof would pose a threat to existing homeowners and particularly the swimming pool 14th Floor, Petroleum Plaza - South Tower 9915 - 108 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2G8 Telephone (403) 423-1718 2 City of Palm Desert February 1, 1984 area east of my home which is shared by myself and adjacent homeowners. Also, a parade of golfers immediately in front of my home would create a noise pollution problem and infringe upon my privacy. Accordingly, if the creation and subsequent development on Lots 39 and 40 will necessitate relocating the existing 16th hole tees I strongly object thereto. The elimination of Lots 39 and 40 would, however, presumably remove the necessity of relocating the 16th tees and solve my primary concern with the proposed amendment. I am, however, also generally concerned about development upon Lots 34 to 40, inclusive, as this would: (1) disrupt the view from my home to the east, and; (2) necessitate the relocation of the existing natural drainage channel which at certain times of the year becomes a raging torrent. I do not believe that re-designing the 16th fairway to serve as both a fairway and as a drainage channel is an acceptable alternative. Although I am not a lawyer, I would like to express my surprise that neither I nor homeowners adjacent to me were directly notified of the proposed amendment and public hearing in view of the fact that the same has such a direct impact upon the value of my. property and that of adjacent homeowners. For the above reasons I object to the proposed amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you reject the amend- ment or, alternatively, cause the same to be further amended to satisfy the concerns which I have expressed above as, failing which, the same would have a substantial negative impact upon the enjoyment of and the value of my property. Yours truly, W.S. McGREGOR INVESTMENTS LTD. William S. McGregor WSM:jw Attachment CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS, TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 \:0TICE IS HEREIN GIVEN that a public hearing; will be held before the Palrn Desert Planning Cornmission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of 'f1 amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot tentative tract map to add one residential lot and revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC), PR-?, D (Planned residential, maximum 7 DU/AC with a drainage-way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned tesidential, maximurn 7 DU/AC with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country flub on the south side of %lariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more ,arti,:ularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 rOYTRIL t tVv Of\� 11 fig \t= II I ;rS 1 1 1 � —_ CITY C -'T Pu' lie Heartu; .ylll be held on Trlesdav, February 7, 19S4, at 7:00 P.M.in the Council hers a; Palm ilc ort 1—ity Hall, 71-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, +'J'Ich u:•le ,loll pl.eec all interested Dersons are invited to attend and be heard. RA,-ION A. DIAZ, Secretary City of Palm I)esert, California PUBLISH: Desc�I"t Post lanuar% 27. 19ti.11 l MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1984 Mo d by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the fi ings as stated in the staff report of December 20, 1983. Carried unanimo ly 5-0. Moved by missioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Comm• lion Resolution No. 929, approving CUP 23-83 with 8 machines to be used for the ar de area and a 6 month trial period. Carried unanimously 5-0. D. Continued Case os. C/Z 10-83 and TT 19775 - LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, App t A request for approval a change of zone from O.S. to R- 1, 10,000 and a 23 lot t itative tract map for 6 acres generally located on the rth side of Haystack Road between Highway 74 and Porto Avenue. Mr. Diaz explained that staff is reques •ng a continuance in order to review information received with the city attorney. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded b mmissioner Crites, to continue thas e ruary 21, r unanimously 5-0. E. Case Nos. TT 19640 and P 2 - _ CUP 1 83 (Amendment 1� en 0 ) SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES AND SUN-RAY ENGINEERING, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 40 single family lots in the PR.7, D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. Mr. Diaz reviewed the revised tentative tract map and the revisions proposed. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Crites asked staff if the applicant was aware of the hillside ordinance and if he would be meeting all its regulations. Staff replied affirmative. Chairman Wood opened the public_ hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. LARRY SPICER, representative of Silver Spur Associates, 49-200 Mariposa Drive, gave the background to this project and explained the advantages to the amendments proposed. In reviewing the concerns expressed in letters received, he explained that the 16th tee would probably not be moved. He described what lots would have their views obscured and noted that development in that area was always a possibility. Mr. Spicer briefly explained the location and impacts of the storm channel. He also described the elevations in certain portions of the development. Commissioner Crites asked Mr. Spicer if premium prices were paid for cul-de-sac lots with a view. Mr. Spicer replied that they did. Commissioner Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR. or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. PHILIP CRACKO, Sherman Oaks, representing Chuck Craigs of 73-364 Poinciana, listed a number of serious issues some of which were: 1) hazards of tee locations, and 2) property value. He requested a continuance in order to give the property owners and Ironwood Country Club Association an opportunity to discuss and study this matter together. A count was taken of how many people were present to speak in opposition of this -a- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1984 case and being that there were approximately 25 people, the commission felt that perhaps a continuance would be in order to give the applicant an opportunity to satisfy the concerns of all the property owners present at the meeting. Mr. Spicer noted that this request was only an amendment and did feel that the amendment would be an improvement to the original proposal. He felt that since all the drainage and geology issues were measured and presented correctly no continuance is necessary. Chairman Wood announced that the commission would like to see all the issues worked out between the property owners and the applicant, therefore, would like a one month continuance. Mr. Spicer agreed but was optimistic in resolving the problems. MR. DAVE KELM, Surry B.C., Canada, spoke on behalf of F. David Gooding (letter received), who was concerned with the destruction of his view from his home, and also the hazards which may arise from the relocation of the 16th tee. Mr. Kelm felt there were some questions unanswered and also requested a continuance. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this matter to March 6, at 7:00 p.m. Carried unanimously 5-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS 'r F. Case No. PM 18764 - CARVER MANAGEMENT CO., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel creating nine (9) parcels or sale, financing and/or leasing purposes on a PC (2) ( nned District Commercial) zoned property approved for a s pping center located at the southeast corner of Count Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz review d the staff report and recommended approval. Mr. McClellan not an addition to Condition No. 15 to read: "If median is installed by applican reimbursement shall be made by property owners north of Country Club Drive a west of Monterey, when that property (or properties) is (are) developed for X2 the ost." Chairman Wood opened th public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. STAN MORSE, 73-25 El Paseo, agreed to all the conditions of approval and was present to answer a y questions the commission might have. Chairman Wood asked if anyone prese t wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of this case. MR. BOB RITCHEY, 4349 Sugar oaf Ct., noted that the conditions of approval for a precise plan on this pr 'ect would be carried forward. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing a d asked for the pleasure of the commission. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Comm sioner Erwood, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried unanimously 5- . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commi loner Erwood, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 930, approving M 18764, subject to conditions as amended. Carried unanimously 5-0. G. Case No. PM 19896 - COOK-HOVLEY STREET PROPERTIES, Applicant -5- �po0 Xx Mr. & Mrs . John Bowen 73-440 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 February 15, 1984 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: In October, 1983 we received a notice from the Palm Desert Planning Commission regarding a public hearing on the proposed development of property directly across from us on Mariposa. We attended this meeting as we are definitely interested in the development in our vicinity. We were favourably impressed with the proposed plans for the development and the architectural design of the homes. We were the only homeowners who attended this meeting, where the Planning Commission approved the project. We were taken by surprise that our Association 8 were taking a stand to delay this project. We had not been informed of any meeting regarding this action by our Association 8 . We attended the February 7, 1984 meeting and as you know the project was delayed for 30 days. It seemed all those who attended the February 7 meeting were in favour of this negative action. A show hands was asked for regarding the negative, however, a show of hands was not requested for those in favour of the project. The enclosed letter is also urging those who wish to protest to attend the February 17 meeting. We will not be able to attend this meeting and would like to state our position regarding the positive aspect of this project. Sincerely, Do ot rJo'hnhy/Bowen Bowen �pprz,ova� February 9 , 1984 [44(e' Mr. Ralph Wood, Chairman '°E7 City Planning Commission Palm Desert, CA 92260 FNV T 3 S84 NA, Re: Silver Spur Hearing 2-7-84 in re Tract Cfl-w0yrAl. NAtA4 OE FR?- Dear Mr. Wood: Please consider my remarks in your considerations for approval of subject tract plans at Ironwood Country Club. I have had an opportunity to study lot plats and home designs proposed for subject tract. Home plans exceed presently built homes in design, quality and size. Open spacing of 1k units per acre far surpasses past building density of 7 units per acre. The planned development can only increase the value of surrounding and nearby homes . The biggest proportion of the land to be developed has been staked and designated as future development for several years . Owners of homes adjacent to the planned development knew at the time of purchase that additional future homes would be placed on these lots . In fact, the writer is so impressed with the new development plans that he has requested a right to purchase a lot and home when they are offered. It is the type of development a family could use as a permanent residence , thus adding to the com- munity of Palm Desert. I sincerely hope for an approval from the Commission. Sincerely, F. M. Stevenson 73-315 Boxthorn Ln. Palm Desert, CA 92260 APPo_r_-)vAA , ALAN R. TAL T ATTORNEY AT LAW 615 SOUTH FLOWER STREET - SUITE 806 LOS ANGELE.S. CALINORNIA 90017 1213) 626-5829 '- A. February 17 , 1984 _- .6130'. 'tri'AL n. a T` City of Palm Desert Attn: Mr. Ramon A. Diaz Secretary Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California Re: Case Nos. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 Amendment No. 1 Gentlemen: We recently purchased a home at 73-372 Poinciana Place . in Ironwood. This area is especially attractive due to its interesting view. At the time of the purchase, I was advised that there would be some further development, but I was not advised that it would extend into the area where lots 34 through 40 are now proposed in the amendment. In addition to partly destroying the view, it appears that the tee for the 16th hole would have to be moved in order to protect any homes built on proposed lots 39 and 40. Such a relocation is apt to place flying golf balls in the recreation area immediately adjacent to our home as well as into the home itself. This area will be used not only by us , but by our young grandchildren, who are expected to multiply. The thought: of their being subjected to the hazards of hard hit golf balls is very disquieting. We spent two years searching for a location having the aesthetic and safety features of our location in its present condition. There is a substantial hill across from our residence and a drainage area between the hill and our residence. I am told that during storms this hill is capable of collecting sub- stantial amounts of water, which i s then drained off in the drainage area. A portion of the proposed development lies in the path of this drainage area, suggesting the possibility of erosion of the elevated site on which our home is situated as well as hazard to the proposed new homes. Oeo ZEST City of Palm Desert Attn: Mr. Ramon A. Diaz February 17 , 1984 Page Two Re: Case Nos. TT 19640 and cIp 21-83 Amendment No. 1 I am told by my neighbors that they all paid substantial pre- miums for their property because of the view afforded in that area, and we certainly did. A continuation of that price trend generates higher property tax revenues for the community without any additional attendant services. Many people, not just our neighbors, come to view the beautiful area in which these lots are now sought to be located. So far as I have been able to gather, there is no public urgency for the addition of seven more residences in the valley. On the other hand, the continuance of the present natural beauty is beneficial to both private and public interests. I respectfully request that you deny the amendment insofar as it seeks to add lots 34 through 40. Respecfully submitted, � Alan R. Talt ART/blm cc. The Honorable Walter Snyder Yl ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY �TST R ICS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)39S.2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT LOW ELL O.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS GODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POW ELL VICTOR B.HARDY,AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDWINEAND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BUXTON February 13, 1984 File: 0121.3094 `F. R J 4 1984 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert FNVIF2Ury�.;LN�J . '+I Post Office Box 1977 CITY OF PALM UL .rit Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Ironwood Country Club Stormwater facilities in most areas including Riverside County require protection of residential developments against a storm with a recurrence interval of once every 100 years (100 year flood protection) . The City of Palm Desert in conjunction with the District has set the Standard Project Storm as the level of protection to be provided in the design of major flood control facilities. The Standard Project Storm is based on the greatest storm of record occurring in a hydrologically similar basin. In the Palm Desert area, the Standard Project Storm has the recurrence interval between 250 and 350 years. As a result of the construction of the Palm Valley Stormwater Project, the Living Desert Debris Basin and Deep Canyon Stormwater Channel Improvements within Vintage Country Club, the City of Palm Desert is protected from runoff from the mountains from the Standard Project Storm except for an area within Ironwood Country Club on the Deep Canyon floodway. Because of this, the District has insisted that Ironwood Country Club construct the Ironwood Dike and channel improvements in the Deep Canyon floodway. With this construction and construction proposed for the Dead Indian Channel and Ironwood Channel, the entire City of Palm Desert will be protected against stormwater flows from the mountains from the Standard Project Storm. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY Planning Commission -2- February 13, 1984 We believe that the City of Palm Desert should be commended for providing this degree of protection for their residents. The City is one of the very few cities in the United States which have provided this degree of protection for their residents. Yours very truly, Low 1 0. !Is General Manager-Chief Engineer TEL:ra cc: Carlos Ortega Assistant City Manager City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 cc: Larry Spicer Ironwood Country Club 49-200 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 cc: Ray Diaz Planning Director City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 I February 20 ,1984 City of Palm Desert Palm Desert City Hall C d 73-510 Fred Waring Drive c3 1984 Palm Desert, California ENv1RorJMFN7kL seir C17Y OF PALM o.Kv"lo SERT Attention : Mr. Ramon A. Diaz , Secretary Dear Sirs : Re : Case Nos. TT 19640 and CUP 21 -83 (Amendment No. 1 ) We are the owners of the residental property at 49-245 Quercus Lane in Ironwood Country Club. We purchased thjs property in. November 1978. Since these lots were in a prime and desireable area, a lottery was held and drawing high in the lottery (P10.9) we had one of the first picks. We chose Lot #114 as it has a lovely view of the golf course and lies directly across from the 16th tee. While we are not against development at Ironwood; we would not have -gotten our property if we were , we are against the proposed development upon lots 34 to 40. Not only would it affect our view, it necessitates the relocation of the natural drainage channel. Our greatest concern however is the relocation of the 16th tee . As a golfing family with .four sons who also play you are taking away one of the finest playing holes on. the North course and subjecting our homes and pool area to noise and safety hazards. It does seem you should give- careful consideration to the objections being expressed 'by us and other homeowners in this area as we were never directly notified of the changes in this location which will have such a profound and negative impact on the enjoyoen.t and value of our homes. Yours 'Truly c Dr. . and Mrs. C.T. Kun.elis J t 00 Mr. & Mrs. John Bowen 73-440 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 February 15, 1984 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: In October, 1983 we received a notice from the Palm Desert Planning Commission regarding a public hearing on the proposed development of property directly across from us on Mariposa. We attended this meeting as we are definitely interested in the development in our vicinity. We were favourably impressed with the proposed plans for the development and the architectural design of the homes. We were the only homeowners who attended this meeting, where the Planning Commission approved the project. We were taken by surprise that our Association 8 were taking a stand to delay this project. We had not been informed of any meeting regarding this action by our Association 8 . We attended the February 7, 1984 meeting and as you know the project was delayed for 30 days. It seemed all those who attended the February 7 meeting were in favour of this negative action. A show hands was asked for regarding the negative, however, a show of hands was not requested for those in favour of the project. The enclosed letter is also urging those who wish to protest to attend the February 17 meeting. We will not be able to attend this meeting and would like to state our position regarding the positive aspect of this project. Sincerely, Do oth en J hn Bowen �PP►�v.� � DICK WILLARD & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Consultants March 2, 1984 1 / 3 �(yOle Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Silver Spurs Proposed Plat of 40 Residential Lots in Ironwood Gentlemen: Three years ago, Mrs. Willard and I purchased a condominium residence at 73-477 Irontree Drive. Roger Lightfoot of the Ironwood Sales Office handled this transaction. As you will note, I am in the real estate business and this purchase was a culmination of a long search for just the right unit with the right exposure and a breath-taking view. This unit came the closest to answering our requirements, however , there was a $30,000 premium attached to the price, plus it did not include the "special incentive" package of $10,000 credit towards decor on a new Ironwood unit, a $5,000 paid-up membership in the Club and some reduced interest in the initial term of finance, all of which were being offered to spur sales in a slow market. The view to the S.E. was unbroken, by any structures, and you could see the entire south golf course rolling out to the base of the mountains and all of the mountains. There had been some rough grading and fill placed on the east side of Mariposa and in the line of sight of our better view. I inquired of our broker as to what was going to happen here and he promptly replied that the "company" intended to build a "row of fairway homes fronting on Mariposa some day". We had no objection to this, for an 18' elevation of a roof ridge over those existing grades would not have interferred with our golf course view . . . . . we would have lost sight of only the driving range. Nothing was said then about the fact that they were going to fill these lots ten feet above street grade. Now, we have a whole new ball game and we will lose all of our view of the golf course when the houses are constructed on these lots. The value of our residence will be negatively diminished. No one knows why 10' of fill was necessary. These lots had the same view SUITE D-9, CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER • BELLEVUE, WASH. 98008 • 746.3140 J Palm Desert Planning Commission March 2, 1984 Page Two without it as they do now with the added fill . We were not within the 300' of the plat being considered last October; therefore, we were not advised of the meetings and had no real knowledge of what was going on until all of the heavy equipment started working a week or so ago. Many "owners" that are im ap cted in the same negative manner still don' t have any idea what is going on here. This is creating a negative impact on many properties and we find ourselves without any protection. Please do not misconstrue this as an attempt to stop Silver Spurs from utilizing their property. They have the rights, but we, as neighbors, should have ours and we respectfully request that this plat approval be deferred until you have adequate time to re-examine the negative impact on not only the properties within 300' from the subject proposed plat, but the entire neighborhood. Yours Dick Willard , DW/gs INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: CITY MANAGER FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES APPLICATIOW T 19640 ND CUP 21-83 DATE: MARCH 1, 1984 Initial investigation and conversations with the city attorney regarding Mr. Gibbs letter of February 27, 1984, have concluded that the notices are legal and proper and that rescission of the original approval is unwarranted. A more intense response will follow. I am attempting to contact Mr. Gibbs to determine his client's real concerns relating to the project. 4ON . RD/lr MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the findings as stated in the staff report of December 20, 1983. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 929, approving CUP 23-83 with 8 machines to be used for the arcade area and a 6 month trial period. Carried unanimously 5••0. D. Continued Case Nos. C/Z 10-83 and TT 19775 - LEWIS HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, Applicant A request for approval of a change of zone from O.S. to R- 1, 10,000 and a 23 lot tentative tract map for 6 acres generally located on the north side of Haystack Road between Highway 74 and Portola Avenue. Mr. Diaz explained that staff is requesting a continuance in order to review information received with the city attorney. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to continue this matter to February 21, 1984. Carried unanimously 5-0. E. Case Nos. 1964 0 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES-AND S N-RAY ENGINEERING, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 40 single family lots in the PR-7, D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. Mr. Diaz reviewed the revised tentative tract map and the revisions proposed. Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Crites asked staff if the applicant was aware of the hillside ordinance and if he would be meeting all its regulations. Staff replied affirmative. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. LARRY SPICER, representative of Silver Spur Associates, 49-200 Mariposa Drive, gave the background to this project and explained the advantages to the amendments proposed. In reviewing the concerns expressed in letters received, he explained that the 16th tee would probably not be moved. He described what lots would have their views obscured and noted that development in that area was always a possibility. Mr. Spicer briefly explained the location and impacts of the storm channel. He also described the elevations in certain portions of the development. Commissioner Crites asked Mr. Spicer if premium prices were paid for cul-de-sac lots with a view. Mr. Spicer replied that they did. Commissioner Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. PHILIP CRACKO, Sherman Oaks, representing Chuck Craigs of 73-364 Poinciana, listed a number of serious issues some of which were: 1) hazards of tee locations, and 2) property value. He requested a continuance in order to give the property owners and Ironwood Country Club Association an opportunity to discuss and study this matter together. A count was taken of how many people were present to speak in opposition of this -4- l MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1984 case and being that there were approximately 25 people, the commission felt that perhaps a continuance would be in order to give the applicant an opportunity to satisfy the concerns of all the property owners present at the meeting. Mr. Spicer noted that this request was only an amendment and did feel that the amendment would be an improvement to the original proposal. He felt that since all the drainage and geology issues were measured and presented correctly no continuance is necessary. Chairman Wood announced that the commission would like to see all the issues worked out between the property owners and the applicant, therefore, would like a one month continuance. Mr. Spicer agreed but was optimistic in resolving the problems. MR. DAVE KELM, Surry B.C., Canada, spoke on behalf of F. David Gooding (letter received), who was concerned with the destruction of his view from his home, and also the hazards which may arise from the relocation of the 16th tee. Mr. Kelm felt there were some questions unanswered and also requested a continuance. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this matter to March 6, at 7:00 p.m. Carried unanimously 5-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WAS CALLED F. Case No. Phi 18764 - CARVER MANAGEMENT CO., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel creating nine (9) parcels for sale, financing and/or leasing purposes on a PC (2) (Planned District Commercial) zoned property approved for a shopping center located at the southeast corner of Country Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz reviewed the staff report and recommended approval. Mr. McClellan noted an addition to Condition No. 15 to read: "If median is installed by applicant, reimbursement shall be made by property owners north of. Country Club Drive and west of Monterey, when that property (or properties) is (are) developed for Y: the cost." Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. STAN MORSE, 73-255 El Paseo, agreed to all the conditions of approval and was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of this case. MR. BOB RITCHEY, 4349 Sugar Loaf Ct., noted that the conditions of approval for a precise plan on this project would be carried forward. Chairman Wood closed_ the public hearing and asked for the pleasure of the commission. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Erwood, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 930, approving PM 18764, subject to conditions as amended. Carried unanimously 5-0. G. Case No. PM 19896 - COOK-HOVLEY STREET PROPERTIES, Applicant -5- � t PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 895 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 45 LOTS TO ALLOW 39 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE PR-7 AND PR-7, D ZONES LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. TT 19640 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of October, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a tentative tract map to create 45 lots for 39 residential lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portions APN's 631-270-010-016,051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff report for TT 19640 dated October 18, 1983, on file in the department of environmental services, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific: plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent: with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public: health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Dessert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Map No. 19640 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the conditions of approval do include a requirement that the applicant pay fees to comply with the requirements of Article 26.48 of the City of Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance. In return, the City agrees to use said said fees for park purposes in conformance with an adopted master plan, within five (5) years of the recordation of the final map. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert -1- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 895 Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 18, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, RICHARDS, WOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: ERWOOD ABSTAIN: NONE RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: i AMON A. DIAZ Secretary /lr -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 895 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. TT 19640 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations, and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of the approval of conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 3. All on-site utilities, including cable TV, shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of environmental services. 4. Any dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 5. The CC&R's for this development shall be submitted to the director of environmental services for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 6. Prior to submittal of the final rnap, the applicant shall provide the department of environmental services with a list of proposed street names with at least three. alternatives. The approval of the final street name shall be made by the director of environmental services. 7. Applicant shall pay a fee in lieu thereof as a condition of the final map for park and recreation purposes per city ordinance. 8. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services; setbacks can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. Department of Public Works: 9. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 10. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the director of public works. 11. Full improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 12. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. 13. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built" plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city. 14. All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid. 15. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 895 16. Landscaping maintenance on all streets shall be provided by the homeowners association. 17. A portion of this property is in the AO Depth 3' zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. A flood hazard report, as required by Ordinance No. 221 (Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) shall be submitted to the public works department. The report must be approved by the Flood Review Committee prior to approval of a grading plan. 18. All property within the CVWD right-of-way must be transferred to the developer prior to recordation of final map. 19. No residential lots shall be placed within a drainage area that is subject to inundation. The private engineer shall submit a hydrology study, hydraulics and grading plans to indicate drainage mitigation necessary. 20. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required improvements prior to this map recording. City Fire Marshal: 21. Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two-three hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 22. Install Riverside County Super fire hydrants located at each street intersection (a) but not greater than 500 feet apart in any direction. (b) All structures shall be within 250' of a fire hydrant. (c) Exterior surface .of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. (d) Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 23. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. 24. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract No. 19640 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal." Upon approval, the original plan will be returned to the developer. 25. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required .flow. 26. Parking restricted on one side of street. 27. Maximum length of dead-end streets is 600 feet. Provide approved alternate access road. /Ir -4- i► DICK WILLARD & ASSOCIATES Real Estate Consultants March 2, 1984 Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Silver Spurs Proposed Plat of 40 Residential Lots in Ironwood Gentle men: Three years ago, Mrs. Willard and I purchased a condominium residence at 73-477 lrontree Drive. Roger Lightfoot of the Ironwood Sales Office handled this transaction. As you will note, I am in the real estate business and this purchase was a culmination of a long search for just the right unit with the right exposure and a breath-taking view. This unit came the closest to answering our requirements, however, there was a $30,000 premium attached to the price, plus it did not include the "special incentive" package of $10,000 credit towards decor on a new Ironwood unit, a $5,000 paid-up membership in the Club and some reduced interest in the initial term of finance, all of which were being offered to spur sales in a slow market. The view to the S.E. was unbroken, by any structures, and ,you could see the entire south golf course rolling out to the base of the mountains and all of the mountains. There had been some rough grading and fill placed on the east side of Mariposa and in the line of sight of our better view. I inquired of our broker as to what was going to happen here and he promptly replied that the "company" intended to build a "row of fairway homes fronting on ,Mariposa some day" . We had no objection to this, for an 18' elevation of a roof ridge over those existing grades would not have interferred with our golf course view . . . . . we would have lost sight of only the driving range. Nothing was said then about the fact that they were going to fill these lots ten feet above street grade. Now, we have a whole new ball game and we will lose all of our view of the golf course when the houses are constructed or these lots. The value of our residence will be negatively diminished. No One knows why 10' of f i 11 was necessary. These lots had the same view SUITE D.9, CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER • BELLEVUE, WASH. 98008 - 7e6.3140 r Palm Desert Planning Commission March 2, 1984 Page Two without it as they do now with the added fill . We were not within the 300' of the plat being considered last October; therefore, we were not advised of the meetings and had no real knowledge of what was going on until all of the heavy equipment started working a week or so ago. Many "owners" that are impacted in the same negative manner still don' t have any idea what is going on here. This is creating a negative impact on many properties and we find ourselves without any protection. Please do not misconstrue this as an attempt to stop Silver Spurs from utilizing their property. They have the rights, but we, as neighbors, should have ours and we respectfully request that this plat approval be deferred until you have adequate time to re-examine the negative impact on not only the properties within 300' from the subject proposed plat, but the entire neighborhood. Yours Dick Willard DW/gs Y llth HOUR REPORT We have just been informed by Ironwood (Larry Spicer) that their plans have been changed. The 16th tee will remain as is, lot 40 of the proposed project has been eliminated and the placement of lots 38 and 39 adjusted to essentially satisfy our objectives. At this time we are basically satisfied and as a group plan no further resistance to the proposed development. Should you continue to have an individual problem be sure to voice your objection at the March 6th meeting. Board of Directors pC Q' 0}) Q S SCREECHY, SHEVLIN S SHOENBERGER Jay.ES M,SCNLECMT A LAW CORPORATION HEEL COD[ EIB JOHN C.5HEVLIN' LAWYERS TELE Pn101.'E 320- 161 JON A. S`OENSEFGER POST OFFICE BOX t906 JOEL 5. wIL12PND D/. IEL T JOHNSON 801 EAST TAHOUITZ-MCCALLUM WAY, SUITE 100 IN RECL`REFER TO JoscPH A.Glees PALM SPRINGS, CALIfORNIA 92263-1906 NI-P IAN LIONS BONNIE GAP,AND GU55 February 27 , 1984 �SOO FJI� Ms. Sheila Gilligan City Clerk FEB28198� 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, Calif. 92260 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES C Ty OF pALM DESERT Re : PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, CONDITIONAL USE P AND A 45 LOT TENTATIVE TRACT MAP. �— CASE NO. TT1 UP 2 - APPLICANT: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES APPLICATION: APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE AND FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 19640 AT THE IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION HEARING OCTOBER 18 , 1983 Dear Ms . Gilligan: We represent certain residents of the Ironwood Country Club in connection with their claim that they did not receive adequate and reasonable notice of the public hearing wherein the Palm Desert Planning Commission approved the above-described application. The Planning Commission approval of the application violated Palm Desert Municipal Code section 2586 . 010. Palm Desert Municipal Code section 2586 . 010 (c) provides in rele- vant part: "Notice of a public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by publication in a newspaper of general circulation in the city, and mailing notices to all persons whose names appear on the latest adopted tax roll of Riverside County as owning property within 300 ' of the exterior boundaries of the property that is the subject of the hearing. " On or about August 31, 1983 , Silver Spur Associates filed an application for approval of the tract map with the Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services . Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated 'herein by reference is a copy of said applica- tion. At or about this time, the Silver Spur Associates supplied to the city, a list of all of the persons whose names allegedly any-,eared on the latest adopted tax roll of Riverside County, as owning property within 300 ' of the exterior boundaries of the SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN & i0ENBERGER A LAW CORPORATION LAWYERS Ms. Gilligan Page Two February 27 , 1984 property that was the subject of the hearing. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and incorporated herein by reference is a list that was supplied by the Silver Spur Associates to the City of Palm Desert. On October 7 , 1983 , Ramon A. Diaz , secretary of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, published a legal notice of the hearing on the above-described application. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said notice. Prior to October 7 , 1983 , the city allegedly mailed a similar notice to the individuals identified on Exhibit "B" . The following individuals did not receive notice of the public hearing, even though their names appeared on the latest adopted tax roll of Riverside County, as owning property within 300 ' of the exterior boundary of the subject property: k d` Assessment No . Name and Address 631-550-025-5 Arthur M. and Olga Atterbury vile, W M/T 28 McKinley Place Gross Pointe Farms, Mich. 48236 631-550-030-9 Edgar w. and Karin Stewart 1115 Crestview Drive Fullerton, CA 92693 631-550-026-6 R. E. Hazard, Jr. Trustee, and Dorothy Hazard 145 Security Life Bldg. Denver, Colo. 80202 631-556-029-9 Hary Anthony Collins, Trustee, et al . Raymond V. Knowles , et al . Walter W. Dorem, et al. Edward C. Maline, et al. P . 0. Box 2388 La Jolla, CA 92038 631-550-028-8 W. S . McGregory Investments , Ltd. 9915 108th St. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T5K 2G8 631-550-027-7 Constantine and Rosemary Kunelis , Trustees 2740 Terraza Place Fullerton, CA 92635 SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN S . OENBERGER A LAW CORPORATION LAWYERS Ms . Gilligan Page Three February 27 , 1984 In addition, Palm Desert Municipal Code section 2586 . 010 (c) , requires that notices must be mailed to "All persons whose names appear on the latest adopted tax roll . When the city mailed the notices, only one of the owners of record of each lot received written notice of the public hearing even though the ordinance requires notice to all persons . The following individuals did not receive notice of the public hearing, even though their names appeared on the latest adopted tax roll of Riverside County as owning property within 300 ' of the exterior boundary of the sub- ject property: �rbv Assessment No. Name 631-550-048-6 Lockwood Haia_ ht VO 631-550-048-6 Joyce Haight 631-550-048-6 Patsy R. Howard . 631-550-049-7 Anthony A. Trutanich, et al . 631-550-049-7 Sporrer Saehz 631-550-049-7 William T. Baird, et al . 631-611-013-7 Carmel K. Meyer , Trustee 631-611-013-2 Elizabeth D. Toolson, Ben. 631-610-035-9 Nancy A. Weber 631-610-034-8 Melvyn Albert, et al . 631-610-034-8 Melvyn F. Newhoff , et al . 631-610-034-8 Thomas V. Burr, et al . 631-611-004-4 Margery McCarten 631-611-005-5 Helen B. Mape 631-611-006-6 Marjorie Kud Bird 631-611-007-7 Velma P . Dodd 631-611-008-8 Dorothy May Bowen, Trustee 631-611-010-9 Melba Jean Swartzehduber 631-611-011 0 Leontine S. MacDonald 631-611-012A Sharrone M. Salisian 631-611-013 V2, Heidi Ann Ludders The legal notice (Exhibit "C" ) published by the city did not provide adequate and reasonable notice of the subject matter of the hearing. In reviewing the diagram that appears on the notice you will observe that the notice fails to identify the exact I location of the single family lots . The diagram on the notice y appears to create the impression that all of the single family fM� lots would be located north of the area designated "channel . " The residents of the Ironwood County Club who received this notice did not ever believe that lots would be located either within the channel or south of the channel . lip N On January 27 , 1984 , Ramon A. Diaz , secretary of the Palm DesertG/ Planning Commission, published a second notice relating to a request by the Silver Spur Associates for approval of an amendment SCHLECHT, SHEVLIN & -.10ENBERGER A LAW CORPORATION LAWYERS Mr. Gilligan Page Four February 27 , 1984 r�'L Y to the previously approved conditional use permit. Attached hereto as Exhibit ' D" and incorporated herein by reference is a copy of said second notice. In this second notice, the lot loca- tions are specifically delineated, and it is clear that the lots are located within the area designated as the channel , and south of the channel . If the residents of the Ironwood County Club had received the required legal notice, and if the notice clearly designated the lot locations and the total property encompassed by the conditional use permit, the residents would have introduced substantial evidence in opposition to the Silver Spur Associates application. We hereby request that the City of Palm Desert rescind the Planning Commission approval of the herein described application of the Silver Spur Associates. We would also request that the city reschedule a hearing on the original application and provide the appropriate legal notice pursuant to Palm Desert Municipal Code section 2586 . 010. Time is of the essence since a public hearing for approval of an amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit has been scheduled for March 6 , 1984 . If we do not hear from you within -five days after your receipt of this letter, we will have no alternative but to pursue the appropriate legal remedies . Yc e rs very truly, JOSEPH A. GIBBS JAS: cp Enclosures Cc : Bruce Altman, City Manager Dave Erwin, Esq. , City Attorney Ray Diaz 76cftGq Pear dnna9 PEft Nn-' (a.22280 U DIVVY 10" MAP QPP(Lp�Q4D®M I��( 6� : dopaavivnent ®0 c�ovvtcce a .p orrnno rig dtutete n a SUN - RAY ENGINEERING Appicont (pens print) 125 ST GREEN STREET (213) 449-122E Moiling Address Telephone D CALIF. 91105 city State Zip-Code REOUESTt (Descrtbe specific nature of opprovalreguested). APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE AND FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 19640 FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: Portion of the South one-half of Section 32, Township 5 South Range 6 East, San Bernard.ino,Base & Meridian. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL No. Book 631 , Pape 27 , Parcel 52 & portions of Parcels 10 , 16 & 51 EXISTING ZONING _ PR-7 and partially not zoned . Property O.ner Authorization The undersigned}}}totes that they ore the o nsr Is) of the property described herein and hereby give author- izotl I ycr the }Il ng of tttls oppliwtlon, / J Ign ctun Dn liabilts -- _ Agreement obtolving the City of Palm Desert of of ities relative to any deed restrictions. —� 1 00 BY VY SIGNATURE ON171S AGR EMENT, Absolw the City of Palm Deesrl of oil liabilities regarding any oead restrictions / that may be oppliciabte to the Property described horsin. 11 Signature Dote Appliwnt's Signature Signature _ Dom •svuaoo---= -0R STAFF USE ONLY) -'EnvironmeriTo�Stotus Arcapted by, ❑ Ministerial Act E.A. No. ' _ ------ -- ❑ Categorical Exemption (,\ �� ��)a ❑ Negative Declaration ( �L�J ❑ Other Reference Case No. _ .eeo-.rvni u.vrnr•rs s+>-et - -- --`� —� Exhibit 1 2 3 silvez Associates Coachella Valley t-"ater District. 1 Ca�chella Valley Uater Dist : D ?. Irr,r:or Cr�u�t Club m/t Silver St- ir rssc�iates P.O. air: 1056 T-941 Hic r� lil I Cceci�ellz, C? 92236 9200 ;'=ri sa Drive PELT C-eser'c, C4 92260 Desert, Cam. 92260 5 6 J.c Stone Fa'.dly Trust Covert , sa-ndra S-aC''er, ; tcn 1649 . vside Drive 73-396 O1C=c at lace 655 N. CE?Tral i:.%an'oe Coror� Del N-a , CA 92625 Palm D sert, CA 92260 Glerj6alE, Cam. 93203 7 6 0 :iliia;s, James CUeto, Jose D_.2nn A.J. 1576i PaEadero Drive 1121 St. Regis Place P.O. Bc.x 636 ^.er_ana, G^. 91356 Santa P-na, CA 92705 Sa „- ; Pia, CA 93454 iG 11 12 5� ._YG'ILG, S�iTJel C-Dod:LnC, Davin F. ue:;rle, Frec F 12 Jones Canyon Road 121 1,:ain St. 700 S. Flower St, Ste.. 1710 Rolling hills, CA 90274 Vancouver, B.C. L^s :mceles, CA 90017 - Canada, V6F295 l3 14 � ✓ 15 Willi arn ✓ Baird, }•21111ain Larson, CU�k 9 Beacon Bay 1613 Wilshire Blvd. , Ste. 314 /3-356 Poinciana Place xe=,,.p--)rt Beach, 92260 Los Fngeles, CA 9DO57 Palm Desert, CA 92260 16 \�� lD, 17 i6 r �,l D> }warren, CcIferon CodL1v, Daniel 642 a 11 L'a IV 5520 SOutnaEsc t'�CaCa� IV ,ue 3540 S. W. L'4 h Street 92607 Portland, Oregon 97201 Portland, Oregon 37221 29 20 / 21 -orst, Judy Foster, C,arles Pic z En, }7illi�., ' 1G= rx}:3i I ..u^a' P.O. Box 666 622 N. 23, c ,St -re-Et Cc:>e::no, Cr 95014 Bllsoordh, 7E 04605 Fo'_� Dcdoe, LA 50501 22 23 24 ✓ :•zp Vance J 3iic, Dan n a--vev 935 Siskiy�: Drive / 4221 BEc{ AvEnue 300i !,aureLnurst Drive, W.E. . ien,lo 'Perk, Cam. 94025 StuCio City, C 91604 Seattle, —A 9E105 25 ^ — 26 27 Bcy:aeri, JC:: i WilliaTS, i�UCE'1e S' ar—,zend'1rbe--, H.L. 73 =•0 i'xri sa Drive 30-752 Paseo Del Niccel P.O. Box 16206 Palm Desert CA 92260 Laguna Niccel, CA 92677 icni t, vs 67216 , iCx''ia 1d, Dale Salistan, Neal La-ocSders, Racurd. ✓ 2216 Via V 70! Bvaleign Drive ��/ 7251 >;acnolia Drive Palo=_ Verc5es Es. , CA 90274 Pasadena, CA 91105 River=_ice, CA 92SN �i --- 32 �., 33 TocJse�, Val ✓ Cady, l_n 11� i / TO�kiis, iUgene" 1�' 1<',,.1e 73-461 Ewa ?lace �' 25E3i z Sierra ?c1 uCce1 li :22vO Pal`' ias=_l, l 92260 _,c u;a hLls, CA 926 3 Exhibit_ :tea lan, ;• l on (_ Da ji Holdings Ltc. Such, Robzrt 305 S. B;:.::ord Drive IFair.•.zy Drive 8051 Louise Lane izc-verly'Xills, CA 90212 L):�- nnton, Plb=_rtz La Palme, CA.. 90623 Canada T6J202 37 38 . 39 John Baker, Harold Cronin, ➢:evin 5711 Ooensrouth Avenue 24310 Parn Ova Coart 320 Glen\.--<)� Drive Suits 127 Salinas, CA 93908 Ri6Z,110j5, N.J. 07450 '.=iland Hills, CA 91367 _0 j1 42 ' aslett, John Proctor, Hem-Y .'�'-ck e, Fred P.O. Sox 234 4743 Ocana 73-468 Ponciana Place Sunset Beach, CA 90713 L._.ke,+Y.b3, CA 90713 PaLm Desert, CA 92260 3 44 45 to-er, John Lavene, Norval Serena, Frank -611 "nayson 190D ve. of the Sys 1i4CS Zu a,e, Place Ventura, CA 93003 Suite 2600 Ca -pmtesia, CA 93013 Los Anoeles, CA 90067 46 47 48 : a-abrecht, Poward Ml krthur, John / Carney, Tomas 4268 Navajo 424 19th N.P. v 234 E. 17th Street Toluca Lace, CA 91602 Fast A'anatchee, IQA 98801 suite 205 Cosh Mesa,CA 92627 49 50 51 Sarr-''e; Jack Cole, William Swartz, Bret 19 Shoal Drive 73-660 Jaszne PlaCe 32646 Cc strife Drive Corona Del ;,ar, CA 92625 PM-L7, Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 9027• 52 ;:ajne, Plan i464 Can ridoe Road San ;•ariro, CA 91106 27; 1"�43 t.! i Y r;= PA1.1 IJLSLRT LEC:AL NOTICE C TT 1^-<40 and CUP 21-83 NOTICE IS iil:i:_:BY (;iVEN that a public hearing will be held before the'Palm Desert Planning Co:r.r::ission to consider a reeucst by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit, and a 48 lot ten',ative tract m,Ep to allow the creation of 38 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre and Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre a•]th a drainage overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Yaripesa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: AFN 631-270-052 Portion APN 631-270-010, 018, 051 FCz=t�.0 ./ ;^: (,. . \ �,c t � M c J j< fn ONT_f-E __\ -__ � f \/ \\ii _i vrltiil�Ci-Q �Jvl1T}�_ '.� ✓11.�' �� � � SUBJECT P. R.- 71 D PROPERTY C,TY OF Pc . w LESEFI city SAID public hearing will be held on October 18, 1483, at 2:00 p.m. in the council chambers in the ?Elm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Peer Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which timE and place Ell interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RA.IMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post October 7, 1983 Exhibit G— 1 i. tj i CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment f/I) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before" the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of nn amendment 10 it previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot tentative tract map to add one residential lot and revise the tract layout on 27t5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC), P�-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC with a drainage-way overlay) and RR-7 H (Planned . esidential, maximum 7 DU/AC with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country lub on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more Darticularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 Pluo - Ili ;_ ��r.� .• l, I � , , � � �--- ,wC,^w• i,. jll� ' 11 �`-� ♦\�. j I I �t� G) . a; ,_� _ It \' \a(z CI TY L,TI Y \ 1 �M Pudic Hearing -kill be held on Tuesday, February 7, 1984, at 7:00 P.M.in the Council h.r+ibers at Palm IlOsert ity Hall, 71- 5I0 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Oescrt, California, A,hich time nnl1 plane all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RWON A. 1)IAZ, Secretary c City of Palm I)esert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post lanuary f7, 1934 Exhibit_ tm March 9, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing continued from March 6, 1984, and February 7, 1984, will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) to revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, south of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 IN Of %`\, ------------ rxOyTPIC a��� r r v�`• --� Q.QPll11p�k i CIA. CITY 1wL, SAID continued public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 3, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. At such time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review in the department of environmental services at city hall. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission ruary 20,1984 i r City of Palm Desert Palm Desert City Hall r v �" 73-510 Fred Waring Drive FEB 2 I98Q. Palm Desert, California ENVIRONMENTAL sEnV CITY OF PALM DE ERTES Attention.: Mr. Ramon A. Diaz , Secretary Dear Sirs: Re : Case Nos. TT 19640 and CUP 21 -83 (Amendment No. 1 ) We are the owners of the residental property at 49-245 Quercus Lane in Ironwood Country Club. We purchased th� s - propert,y in November 1978. Since these lots were in. a prime and desireable area, a lottery was held and drawing high in the lottery (No.9) we had one of the first picks. We chose Lot #114 as it has a lovely view of the golf course and lies directly across from the 16th tee. While we are not against development at Ironwood; we would not have-gotten our property if we were , we are against the proposed development upon lots 34 to 40. Not only would it affect our view, it necessitates the relocation of the natural drainage channel. Our greatest concern however is the relocation of the 16th tee . As a golfing family with four sons who also play you are taking away one of the finest playing holes on. the North course and subjecting our homes and pool area to noise and safety hazards. It does seem you should give careful consideration. to the objections being expressed by us and other homeowners in this area as we were never directly notified of the changes in this location which will have such a profound and negative impact on. the enjoygien.t and value of our homes. Yours Truly ��2�S� Dr. and Mrs. C.T. Kunelis w J. K. McArthur A. Shirley McArthur Zi�IL`�TI,) 424 19th NE L`1�.,�' E. Wenatchee, WA 98801 WAR - 2 1984 February 29, 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITy OF pALM DESERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PALM DESERT, CA 92260 Dear Sirs: We are property owners at 73-488 Poinciana Place in Ironwood. Our condominium is located on the southeast corner of Mariposa Drive and Poinciana Place directly adjacent across Mariposa to proposed building lots 7, 8 and 9 of the Silver Spur Associates new development. We purchased our condominium in February 1981 through the Ironwood Sales office. Mr. Larry Hauser was the real estate broker. Our condominium presently has an excellent view of practically all of the Ironwood South golf course.and good portion of the North course. The view was a major reason for buying at this location and we paid a premium of $30,000.00 for our unit over comparable locations without a similar view. We were told by Larry Hauser of the Ironwood Sales office that the adjacent lots would eventually be developed and condominiums built. We understood we would have to give up a part of our view but were assured would still see a good portion of the golf courses over the roof line of the new homes and thus still retain a premium view. At that time the lots were already rough graded to elevation. Mr. Hauser told us the existing grade would be the elevation of the new construction. Based on this, we obtained a 2 x 4 and Mr. Hauser held it vertically about 16 feet in the air to approximate the roof height of a new home while I sighted across the top from our patio. We did this for several sightings on Lots 8 and 9. Lots 17 and 18 were also in our view line to the South course but being lower elevation we were assured that construction on them would not affect our view. By doing this sighting Mr. Hauser satisfied us we would still have a good view of the golf courses after the new construction and on this basis made the sale to US. We are now finding that the developer is filling and raising the elevation of Lots 8, 9, 17 and 18 which are the lots in front of us in our line of sight. Lot 9, the main lot which will be affecting our view is receiving an additional fill of at least 8 feet. When the new homes are built on it we believe they will completely cut off our view of the South golf course. Lots 8, 17 and 18 are also being filled and raised in elevation to a lesser degree. The other lots along Mariposa Drive - Lots 1 through 7 are following the original elevations and contour and receiving no fill . We believe Lots 8, 9, 17 and 18 are receiving much additional filling by the developer in order to make them even more valuable. They are already golf course view lots and would not need the extra elevation to sell at a premium. In so doing, the developer is taking away the view that we had been promised by the Ironwood Sales office that we would ret We believe that mis-representation has occurred. We also believe we will have a large diminution in our property value because the new higher elevations of Lots 8, 9, 17 and 18 will practically eliminate our view contrary to what the Ironwood Sales office promised us at the time we purchased our property. We respectfully request the Planning Commission to disallow the previously approved conditional use permit to the developer and the requested amendment. We regret that we are not able to be present at this meeting. Very truly yours, J. K. McArthur A. Shirley MCAr .hu r JKM/bss 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: February 10, 1984 Silver Spur Associates Sun-Ray Engineering 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 R : TT 19640 nd CUP 21-83 (Amendments //1) RE(� TT A7l9640, The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of February 7, 1984. Continued to March 6, 1994, at 7:00 P.M. Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. f� RAMON A. DIAZ, SECIR. RY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/lcr cc: File F . DAVID GOODING 1.21 Main Street , Vancouver, B. C. Canada VGA 2S5 Phone : (604 ) 669-3950 Telex : 04-54656 February 3, 1984 President, (,Cy Silver Spur Associates �"{?ES - 7 1984 49 - 200 Mariposa Drive, Palm Desert, ENVIRONMENTALITyO , FALM SERVICES CA 92260 CITY. OF, PALM DESERT U.S.A. Dear Sir, Re: Ironwood lot at 7a vis a vis development proposal calk' e #TT 196 and C.V.P. 21-83 (Amendment 41) I am very concerned with the lack of consideration I received regarding the original application for lot development in the drainage canal abutting the mountain on golf hole #16 directly in front of my house. I did not receive notice as City Planning confirmed they had the wrong postal code. I originally paid a premium for my house model of $ 60,000.00+ (approx. ) for the permanent and tranquil view looking out over #16 and the drainage canal to the golf course and mountains beyond. As your proposed development would destroy this view for which I originally bought the property and paid a premium therefor; I expect a fair offer from you for my extra costs and damages. Also part of our original agreement-; -signed by my partner, Clayton Russell, on November 15, 1978, was the fact that the golf course was already built and tee #16 was sufficiently distant from my house such as not to cause an undue hazard to myself, family and friends while using the pool area and barbecuing on my patio. As you are planning to change tee #16 and straighten this hole, my house will be far more vulnerable to errant golf balls and I feel you will be responsible for any lawsuits and/or damages due to subsequent injuries. I feel you are in breach of contract and misrepresentation regarding both (a) the new development and (b) structural changes to golf hole 416. . .2/ r Silver Spur Associates February 3, 1984 Page I insist that the sales contract which we entered into, embraces the above points and because you have made no efforts to communicate with me, you are treating me without due consideration, and if you go ahead with this development you are in fact in breach of contract. I ask that you refrain from proceeding with the development as planned, and wish it to go on record, that should you proceed I will take whatever steps I feel necessary to protect both my purchase of a view property, and the wellbeing of my family and friends. You/sly, F. David Gooding c.c. Attorneys c.c. Planning Dept. , City of Palm Desert c.c. Mr. Anthony F. Consentino a FEB - 7 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM IDES£ T 1 2 3 S .fiver Spur, Associates Coachalley dater Distric` Coachella Valley Water District DBA Zrornaciod Country Club ��t S' Spur Associates P.O. Box .1058 73-9 Hig 111 (v Coachella, CA 92236 49200 .darioosa Drive P Desert, 92260 ��k Palm Desert CA 92260 4 5 6 David Stone Family Trust Covert , Sandra Shader, Alton 1649 Bayside Drive 73-396 Poinciana.-Place 655 N. Central Avenue Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Glendale, CA 91203 7 8 9 Williams, James Cueto, Jose Diani, A.J. 18761 Pasadero Drive 1121 St. Regis Place P.O. Box 636 Tarzana, CA 91356 Santa Ana, CA 92705 Santa Maria, CA 93454 10 11 12 en rle, Fred F. Speranza, Samuel Gooding, David F. Wehrle, S. Flower Ste. 1710 12 Jones Canyon Road 121 Main St. Ins Angeles, CA 90017 Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Caannaadda, V6A295 13 14 15 Howard, William Baird, William Larson, Clark 9 Beacon Bay 1813 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 314 73-356 Poinciana Place Newport Beach, 92260 Los Angeles, CA 90057 Palm Desert, CA 92260 16 17 18 A Daniel L e R er V � Warren, Cameron Cudahy, D' 2 Palma AvenA 5520 Southwest Macadam Avenue 3540 S. W. 44th Street he• s, CA 92807 Portland, Oregon 97201 Portland, Oregon 97221 19 20 21 Horst, Judy Foster, Charles McCarten, 'William. 10431 Lockwood P.O. Box 666 822 N. 23rd Street Cupertino, CA 95014 Ellsworth, ME 04605 Fort Dodge, IA 50501 22 23 24 1jape, Vance Bird, Dan Dood, Harvey 935 Siskiyou Drive 4221 Beck Avenue 3007 Laurelhurst Drive, N.E. i4enl.o Park, CA 94025 Studio City, CA 91604 Seattle, WA 98105 25 26 27 Boweri, John Williams, Eugene Swartzendurber, E.L. 73-440 I•Iariposa Drive 30-752 Paseo Del Niguel P.O. Box 16206 PaL7 Desert, CA 92260 Laguna Niguel, CA 92677 Wichita, KS 67216 28 29 30 IicDonald, Dale Salistan, Neal Laudders, Richard 2816 Via Anadapa 701 Burleigh Drive 7251 Magnolia Drive Palos Verdes Es. , CA 90274 Pasadena, CA 91105 Riverside, CA 92504 31 32 33 Toolsen, Val Cady, Tompkins, Eugene 73-481 ana Place '�a 25831 La Sierra 73-464 I•iariposa Drive �� Palm Desert, CA 92260 P sert, 92260 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 34 ' 35 36 Kaplan, Milton Daji Holdings Ltc. Smith, Robert 305 S. Bedford Drive XlFairway Drive 8051 Louise Lane Beverly, Hiils, CA 90212 ramnton, Alberta La Palma, CA 90623 Canada T6J202 37 38 39 hang, John Baker, Harold Cronin, Kevin 5711 Owensnouth Avenue 24310 Barn Owl Court 320 Glenwood Drive Suite 127 Salinas, CA 93908 Ridgwood, N.J. 07450 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 40 41 42 - Haslett, John Proctor, Henry Mackie, Fred P.O. Box 234 4743 Ocana 73-468 Ponciana Place Sunset Beach, CA 90713 Lakaiocd, CA 90713 Palm Desert, CA 92260 430 44 45 Weder, John Lavene, Norval Serena, Frank 2611 Thompson 1900 Ave. of the Stars 11408 'rugenia Place Ventura, CA 93003 Suite 2600 Carpenteria, CA 93013 Los Angeles, CA 90067 46 47 48 Hambrecht, Howard McArthur, John Carney, Thomas 4268 Navajo 424 19th N.E. 234 E. 17th Street Toluca Lake, CA 91602 East Wanatchee, i�A 98801 Suite 205 Costa Mesa,CA 92627 49 50 51 Sande, Jack Cole, William Swartz, Bret 19 Shoal Drive 73-660 Jasmine Place 32646 Coastsite Drive Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 52 Wayne, Alan 1484 Cambridge Road San Marino, CA 91106 January 30 , 1984 City Council c 3 ' 2 1984 Planning Commission ENVIRON1v1EN7-AL SERVICES Planning Department CITY OF PALM DESERT Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen : Substantial interest has developed over Ironwood' s plan to develop additional Real Estate in the canyon area South of existing residential areas within Ironwood Country Club. The enclosed letter demonstrates the concern voiced by a significant number of potentially effected Ironwood homeowners at a meeting held Saturday, January 28 , 1984 . As the Managing agent for Ironwood Owners Association #7 we have been directed to advise you of this concern and further to request your agencies full cooperation in aqrsisting all interested homeowners in obtaining the ct necessary to satisfy their legitimate interests. V y ruly Your David N. Meinecke DNM:dd enclosure IRONWOOD OWNERS ASSOCIATION VII 42-600 Bob [lope Drive , Suite 401 Rancho Mirage, California 92270 January 30 , 1984 Dear Fellow Homeowner: Recently we learned of Ironwood' s plans to develop additional real estate across the golf course and up the canyon due South of a portion of our Association area. From what we have seen it would appear that the Poinciana and Quercus culdesacs are most directly involved potentially both physically and visually. While we are not necessarily opposed to Ironwood' s current building plans we do feel that additional discussion is necessary to ensure that there will be no misunderstanding with respect to view or risk of personal or property damage should the play and layout of the existing golf course be changed. As it stands now, there is very little time left to initiate the dialog necessary to address all our questions. As currently scheduled, the matter is to be presented to the Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 7th at 7 : 00 P.M. at the new Palm Desert City Hall Council Chambers, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. We urge any and all homeowners concerned about this development and its possible impact on our property values to be there . We hope, through our presence, to delay approval of the proposal until we all have had sufficient time to review and absorb all the facts pertinent to the issue. Very truly yours , Ironwood Owners Association VII Board of Directors ORDINANCE NO. 328 EXHIBIT A 26.48.060 Dedication of land and fees for park and recreation purposes A. For residential subdivisions of greater than 50 lots, the subdivider shall dedicate land or pay a fee, or combination thereof in such ratio recommended by the commission and approved by the council. Dedication shall be equivalent to 5 acres per 1000 population projected to inhabit said subdivision. The fee shall be based on the average appraised current market value of the undeveloped land in the subdivision as determined by the county assessor. B. For subdivisions containing 50 lots or less, the subdivider shall pay a fee equivalent to 5 acres per 1000 population projected in said subdivision. Fees shall be calculated according to procedure set forth in Subsection A. C. Projected population shall be calculated by multiplying the number of snits co be constructed by the average household size for the entire city as shown on the latest federal census or a census taken pursuant to Section 40200, Chapter 17 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. 2 .`L(,LI D. All land to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes shall be found to be suitable by the commission and the cognizant recreation agency subject to council approval as to locations, parcel size, and topography for the park. Park and recreation Purposes may include active recreation facilities such as playgrounds, playfields, gardens, Pedestrian or bicycle paths or areas of particular natural beauty, including canyons, hilltops and wooded areas to be developed or left in their natural state. Also included are land and facilities for the activity of "recreational community gardening," which activity consists of the cultivation by persons other than, or in addition to, the owner of such land, of plant material not for sale. E. Land to be dedicated may include all or part of a proposed facility. Fees are to be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitation of existing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Park and recreation purposes shall include F. Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential Purposes shall be exempted from the requirements fo this section; provided however, that a condition may be placed on the approval of such parcel map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a. residential structure or structures on one or more of the parcels within four years the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of such permit. G. if the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land required by this ordinance. H. Planned developments and real estate developments, as defined in Sections 11003 and 11003.1, respectively, of the Business and Professions Code, shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined by the council, against the amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed, pursuant to this section, for the value of private open space within the development which in usable for active recreational uses. 1. The provisions of this section do not apply to commercial or industrial subdivisions; nor do they apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than `.ive years old when no new dwelling units are added. IRONTREE MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. February 2 , 1984 984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PgLIy OESERr City Council Planning Commission Planning Department Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: Additional interest has developed over Ironwood' s plan to develop additional Real Estate in the canyon area South of existing residential areas within Ironwood Country Club. The enclosed letter demonstrates the concern voiced by significant number of potentially effected Ironwood homeowners. As the Managing agent for Ironwood Owners Association #8 we have been directed to advise you of this concern and further to request your agencies full cooperation in assisting all interested homeowners in obtaining the fac " necessary to satisfy their legitimate interests. /�e truly yours, Da id Min cke DNM:dd enclosure 42.600 BOB HOPE DRIVE, SUITE 401 I RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 922701(619) 346-1194 IRONWOOD OWNERS ASSOCIATION VIII 42-600 Bob Hope Drive , Suite 401 Rancho Mirage, California 92270 February 2 , 1984 Dear Fellow Homeowner: Recently we learned of Ironwood ' s plans to develop additional real estate across the golf course and up the canyon due South of a portion of our Association area. From what we have seen it would appear that the homes along Poinciana and Mariposa are most directly involved. While we are not necessarily opposed to Ironwood' s current building plans we do feel that additional discussion is necessary. As it stands now, there is very little time left to initiate the dialog necessary to address all our questions. As currently scheduled, the matter is to be presented to the Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 7th at 7 :00 P.M. at the new Palm Desert City Hall Council Chambers, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert. We urge any and all homeowners concerned about this development and its possible impact on our property Values to be there. We hope , through our presence, to delay approval of the proposal until we all have had sufficient time to review and absorb all the facts pertinent to the issue. Very truly yours , Ironwood Owners Association VIII Board of Directors City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 7, 1984 CASE NO: TT 19640, nd CUP 21-83 (Amendment #I) REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 40 single family lots in the PR-7, D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easerly end of Poinciana Place. APPLICANTS: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 I. BACKGROUND: A. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 were approved by the planning commission on October 18, 1983. At that time the approval was for 39 single family lots and 6 other common or street lots. B. APPLICATION REQUESTS: The applicant has filed a revised tentative tract map and conditional use permit for this project. The tentative tract map is to divide the land into residential, common and golf course lots. The conditional use permit is required because the middle part of the area is in a 'D' (drainage way) overlay zone. The conditional use permit procedure in this case is intended for properties prone to flooding. The current flood ordinance the city is operating with was implemented after the 'D' overlay was created and protects and regulates development. Therefore, the purpose of the 'D' overlay is being achieved by the current flood ordinance. Another purpose of the conditional use permit in this revised request is to comply with the hillside ordinance which affects the area south of "B" street and west of "C" street. This area was not a part of the original tract. C. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site now consists of 27.5 acres of land (original 22.7 acres) at the southerly end of Ironwood Country Club. A portion of the area running in an east-west direction through the middle of the site is presently a part of the golf course. Near the southerly property line and now not a part of the tract is an unlined storm channel that carries water from the west to the golf course on the east. The terrain is somewhat hilly with the golf course area raised to separate the storm channel from the area to the north. The area immediately to the south of the tract rises sharply to rocky hills. The south boundary of the tract is now extended south to the city limits. D. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-7/Residential in Ironwood Country Club South: N-A (Riverside Co.)/vacant East: PR-7, D/Golf course West: PR-7 and PR-7, D/Residential in Ironwood Country Club and Storm Channel E. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: -1- Staff Report TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amend #0 Medium Density Residential 5-7 d.u./acre II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. GENERAL: The original approval in October of 1983, was for 39 single family lot varing in size from 12,500 to 27,000 square feet, and six lots for common areas, private streets, golf course and the storm channel. The revised request is to permit 40 single family lots, 2 lots for recreational use, one lot for open space and three lots for private streets. The size of the tract has been increased from 22.7 acres to 27.5 acres with most of the expanded acres in the hillside area to the south. A portion of the area within the sotrm channel has been removed from the boundaries of the tract. As before, the tract consists of property within Ironwood Country Club a portion of the tract is presently owned by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and utilized as a storm channel (dead Indian). Negotiations are presently taking place between the applicants and CVWD for a sale or exchange of property to allow these tract boundaries. CVWD has submitted a letter authorizing the submission of this application. B. CIRCULATION/LAYOUT: While the layout of the revised request is similar to the original, there have been some changes. Poinciana Place was originally going to be extended into the tract. Now there will be a cul-de-sac from within the tract which will not go through to Mariposa Drive. The other major change is that "C" street will be extended further south and terminates at the southern city limits. As before, an alternate emergency access will be provided from the westerly end of "B" street to Mariposa Drive. This will comply with fire and zoning requirements for cul-de-sacs. Presently, the submitted map shows the southerly cul-de-sac on 'B" street encroaching over the city limits. The applicant indicates that this cul-de- sac will be placed within the city limits unless he can obtain Riverside County approval to have the cul-de-sac on unincorporated area. Presently, the channel runs adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed "B" street. Grading will divert the channel northernly so that it runs north of proposed lots 34 through 40 along a lowered turf area which will be part of the golf course. Most of the area along lots 25-31 and will be elevated from approximately 5 feet to 20 feet above existing grades to insure that they are protected from inundation. C. HILLSIDE CONSIDERATIONS: The area south of "B" street and west of "C" street has been added to the area of the tract. By code, this 12.8 acre area is hillside and thus subject to the hillside regulations. The lots affected by these regulations are lots 32, 33, and 43. In order to comply with the hillside requirements, the applicant will be required to record a covenant dedicating all building rights to the city, thus assuring preservation of natural areas. The applicant has submitted architectural plans for this tract including hillside lot Nos. 32 and 33. The architectural committee has approved these architectural and landscaping plans at their meeting of January 10, 1984. Staff feels the sitting of the units is acceptable. III. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT MAP: -2- Staff Report TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amend #0 The findings as noted for the original approval of the tentative tract map in the staff report dated October 18, 1983, are still applicable and would apply to this request. That staff report is attached for your review. B. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The original findings for the conditional use permit are also applicable to this request. The only difference is that this request is also for development of the hillside lots. The findings can also justify approval of the residences. IV. CONCLUSIONS: The staff concerns as noted in the original staff report still apply. Furthermore, compliance with the hillside ordinance alleviates major concern with development of the hillside areas. V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels this request is acceptable and recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving TT 19640 (Amendment #1), subject to conditions. C. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving CUP 21- 83 (Amendment #1). "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a tentative tract map to allow the creation of 40 single family lots in the PR-7, PR-7 D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club." "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage and hillside overlay zone located in Ironwood Country Club." VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolutions B. Legal Notice C. Staff report dated October 18, 1983 D. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 1983 E. Plans and Exhibits Prepared by Reviewed and Approved by ZKA /lr -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF 40 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THE PR-7, PR-7 D AND PR-7 H ZONES LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. TT 19640 (Amendment #0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved 39 residential lot tentative tract map to add one residential lot and revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre) PR-7 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with Case No. TT 19640 and therefore, no additional documentation is deemed necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff report dated February 7, 1984, on file in the department of environmental services, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Map No. 19640 (Amendment #1) for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the conditions of approval do include a requirement that the applicant pay fees to comply with the requirements of Article 26.48 of the City of Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance. In return, the City agrees to use said PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. fees for park purposes in conformance with an adopted master plan, within five (5) years of the recordation of the final map. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of February, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. TT 19640 (Amendment #I) Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations, and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of the approval of conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 3. All on site utilities, including cable TV, shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of environmental services. 4. Any dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 5. The CC&R's for this development shall be submitted to the director of environmental services for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 6. Prior to submittal of the final map, the applicant shall provide the department of environmental services with a list of proposed street names with at least three alternatives. The approval of the final street name shall be made by the director of environmental services. 7.• Applicant shall pay a fee in lieu thereof as a condition of the final map for park and recreation purposes per city ordinance. 8. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services setbacks can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 9. Cul-de-sac at south end of "C" street to be on assessors parcel Nos. 631-270-010 and 051 only, unless Riverside County approval is obtained to have cul-de-sac in unincorporated area. 10. A covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all building rights on lot 43 to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the city. Department of Public Works: 11. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 12. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the director of public works. 13. Full improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 14. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built" plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city. 16. All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid. 17. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. 18. Landscaping maintenance on all streets shall be provided by the homeowners association. 19. A portion of this property is in the AO Depth 3' zone as shown on the flood insurance rate map. A flood hazard report, as required by Ordinance No. 221 (flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) shall be submitted to the public works department. The report must be approved by the flood review committee prior to approval of a grading plan. 20. All property within the CVWD right-of-way must be transferred to the developer by certification of final map by CVWD prior to recordation of final map . 21. No residential lots shall be placed within a drainage area that is subject to inundation. The private engineer shall submit a hydrology study, hydraulics and grading plans to indicate drainage mitigation necessary. 22. Off site improvement plans to be approved by the public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required improvements prior to this map recording. City Fire Marshal: 23. Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two-three hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 24. Install Riverside County Super fire hydrants located at each street intersection a. but not greater than 500 feet apart in any direction. b. All structures shall be within 250' of a fire hydrant. C. Exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. d. Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 25. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. 26. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract No. 19640 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal." Upon approval, the original plan will be returned to the developer. 27. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the buiding site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 28. Parking restricted on one side of street on "A" & "B" streets. 29. Maximum length of dead-end streets is 600 feet. Provide approved alternate access road. Ar -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A DRAINAGE AND HILLSIDE OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit for a residential development on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre) PR-7 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with Case No. CUP 21-83 and therefore, no additional documentation is deemed necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 21-83 (Amendment #0 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 7th day of February, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. CUP 21-83 (Amendment #I) Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of environmental services, and modified by the following conditions and subsequent revisions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to architectural review, subdivision process and building permits procedures. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services; setback s can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 5. All conditions of TT 19640 (Amendment ffl) shall be met. 6. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval to implement said CUP, unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by the planning commission. /Ir CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE. NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #l) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot tentative tract map to add one residential lot and revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC with a drainage-way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 co /r1i�11111 1�1 a� I�t Il co tin hr CITY :'6:;:y ,it` .:' `� :};;;R'aEi':v:." .:;Gl ' j^ i,+Y Limit SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 7, 1984, at 7:00 P.M.in the Council Chambers at Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, �jt which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIA2., Secretary Cite of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post lan.i3ry 27. 1984 itrn C.15�I�C� ��TIoN� f , 4,7 /J�Oi� IlUU��f J .J G 9-9 o/vim .S GOD229 x ��2, SDl� - 29. GUI �v I f / / 4'life17 T Oj / J Isla o - �• P. Mu y- nol Ty ATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY � STRIPS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1G58• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT LOWELL O.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POW ELL VICTOR B.HARDY,AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDW INE AND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BUXTON January 11, 1984 File: 0163.11 0421.1 0721.1 � ^° �%� Department of Environmental Services � City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 j U 1.9R,1 Palm Desert, California 92261 EINIRGNA1t Gentlemen: TY OF pAt41 fStRTFS Subject: Amended Tentative Tract 19,640 Portion of South half, Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth three feet on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. However, we expect the map to be revised due to the construction of the Palm Valley Stormwater Project. A portion of this tract is within the Dead Indian Stormwater Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This area shall be annexed to the Stormwater Unit of the Coachella Valley Water District. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facilities. Yours very truly, Lowell 0. Weeks / General Manager-Chief Engineer CS:ra cc: Riverside County Department of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY J RIVERSIDE COUNTY CA FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE C 'r . - CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY �.• RIYERSID ......; DAVID L.FLAKE l0 FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 January 4, 1984 TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 Scl�� B�j� RANCHO MIRAGE FIRE STATION C�Ramon A. Diaz V � 70-800 HIGHWAY 111 s--� City of Palm Desert RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 73-510 Fred Waring Drive >>ry N - 9 1984 Palm Desert, CA 92260 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reference: Case No. TT 19640, AmeWAeYh POY DAVfcant - Silver Spur Assoc. Dear Ray, The fire protection requirements for this tentative tract have previously been established and remain appropriate in this case. Please have the applicant detail the emergency alternate access road on the tentative tract plans prior to submittal to the Planning Commission. Thank you, DAVID L. FLAKE Fir Chief By, ERIC L. VOGT Fire Marshal dpm <_�.�``>�.�. of \•✓�--��,'„� ::"f ' MANIVOSA �<, } w. 53 ^ or ) 2 irr li \ ( > \ 6 is RAY iseD �• 0bte ironwood fairway estate s =�? � 2 C;.S LS\9 EJ ZS�ISZVS��CSIl �,513 V l3�SO�25S2S�t5LS 1N �L�S ` ��4 • C� � � / c 14 UNITS � rA Dona ma A - ' . 14 UNITS VIONIIY MAY 1A91AAlpYS � :,I 1� URRUTIA ARCHITECTS \ _ LOdA,DOR ,,hil. ... londMope A.<hite<lura j '<7 .. .. ' r.•Ir,� h D L-OPI�)D • vi •\ 1 Y `� ry I `y` _ J lid � _ _ J • 1 , �• tt a.. . � 1 l 01,A 1 ,. (9 1 C 4?G 8 L D 11 A 6)Kl , C 4e (�) J i J.J 7J 1, - _ 'I T�, �� •I `,few _ �_ Iron) elevation •� .. z . �.I If �- 5z UMO ! 1111.IS I ' �I .� I'1 M ,Zr - , H• 't a f„Of' '� Z J' I'III tI tt _ W am .n.m .a � _� t: �' !oer F right side elevation � ell ow I I� •L 7 - j'- �I/ � > cz pure _ � ��' .' .1•JIB • ♦� O ' � Q wiT 2 DJ 4 G l A Oro i f ® rear elevation -- J $3 3 i °Zap or 1A Y UNIT C living 385E 'Y ft. T,J V �) 2 D (4110 `4A occ I r Ian_ 600 left side elevation n¢dL/ekcf. tat SITF/FLOOR PLAN 10.1 ascl sq.ft. EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS '^ C - , ..�� �"e��� {y�W,i �1. '+� �'IP `�SY „".�- �1}•�,�r'�11r�� _ �^ _ ..��9y4�°'�� iil i��li�.�. r ' �e r-a... �lo �. 4GC••iiMV V' P, �` 1 1I M - ` , 41' r /�■Ay J 1s-t. r,i�.a.r 1 _�,PYY:.i.. � , l�� ��. __ r.�t��-. .I � •I�' ..... : .1'� '1 .z:f.5 i.. si,c�5r x��■� _ __ �1 �fC. will Ill � �. - 1 +4:L\.r n,pY.rliY���i ,+a III L "':. Inr :: M.. �• litil pit WE will MO �-3kl — ��� t�i : 9��� � ►li t ��e 1 1„ � ti r �riiCrti�.��sJ�d".iN�r..i°� • . Dc!Partrn_:lt of :,1vlron[nC:lial Services Staff Re(wrt TO: Pie .r,i : Comn-,iss;on DATE: Gcto •_r 18, 1983 CASE 10: TT 1S •': and CUi' 21-83 RiQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use perrnit and a 45 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single f::roily lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located. in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of M':riposa Drive, at the e.:sterly end of Poinciana Place. APPLICANTS: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 1. BACKGROUND: A. APPLICATION REQUESTS: The applicant has filed a tentative tract map and conditional use permit for this project. The tentative tract map is to divide the land into residential, common and golf course lots. The conditional use permit is required because the southern part of the area is in a 'D' (drainage way) overlay zone. The conditional use permit procedure in this case is intended for properties prone to flooding. The current flood ordinance the city is operating with was implemented after the 'D' overlay was created and protects and regulates development. Therefore, the purpose of the 'D' overlay is being achieved by the current flood ordinance. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site consists of 22.7 acres of land at the southerly end of Ironwood Country Club. A portion of the area running in an east-west direction through the middle of the site is presently a part of the golf course. Adjacent to the southerly property line and part of the tract is an unlined storm channel that carries water from the west to the golf course on the east. 'The terrain is somewhat hilly with the golf course area raised to separate the storm channel from the area to the. north. The area immediately to the south of the tract rises sharply to rocky hills. C. ADJACENT .'TONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-7/Residential in Ironwood Country Club South: PR-7, D and PR-7, H/Golf course and vacant East: PR.-7, D/Golf course West: PR-7 and PR-7, D/Residential in Ironwood Country Club and Storm Channel D. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Mcdium Density Residential 5-7 d.u./acre fI. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. GENERAL: The applicants wish to create 39 single family lots for residences to be built and sold by the applicant. The typical lots vary in size from 12, 500 square feet to 27,000 square feet with an average 15,000 square foot lot size. Six other lots are provided and consist of common lots, private streets, and the golf course and storm channel. 21 -F3 190 The it a t is sin"!ilar to H onwood's Tract 5564 on runrose t_a-�e which -s a custo n ;ot _L-i,"ie farnily suI division ncarinE colrlple?ion. !; hike the Tract consists of property ui-thin IronwoJd C,o:1ri'r}' C1Ub a I.. . n of the lc •ct is presently o•zned %y the Ci:,ach Ha I \'alley ater !` rHct . (C\'\117) - Id utilized as a storm chr:r„ I (dead Irldi. n). . . atiatio^s care presently ta_hing place betwcen the ar;,!irants and C\'%4 D ,`or a save or exc'ianF,e_ of property to allow These tract e- P F Y boundaries. C\"ti'D has suSrni;ted a letter authorizing the submission of this r1pllc2-Pon. Presently, the channel runs adjacent to the south:;rn be_;idary of the proposed tract. Grading will divert the channel northernly so that it runs between proposed lots 28 through 39 and a relocated turfed levee which will be part of the golf course. Most of the area along street "B" (Lots 28 through 39) will be elevated from approximately 5 feet to 35 feet above existing grades to insure that they are protected from inundation. Access to a majority of the lots would be from new streets constructed off of :Mariposa Drive. One street will be constructed just south 'of iron•: ood's Administrative center on Mariposa Drive and terminates in a twin cul-de- sac near the southern boundary of the tract. This street will be bridge-d in the area where it crosses the storm charnel. The second street would be: an extension of Poinciana Piance which exists north of Mariposa Drive. Due to the excessive length of the cul-de-sac a secondary emergency access will have to be provided, probably from the westerly end of "B" Street to the extension of Poinciana Place or Mariposa Drive B. ANALYSIS: 1. Staff Concerns: Staff's primary concern pertains to provisions for insuring that the tract is safe from flooding. The director of public works has recommended conditions geared to insuring that the lots will be safe from inundation. These conditions include flood review comrnittee approval due to AO depth 3' zone designation prior to approval of a grading plan, submission of drainage studies, hydrology studies, hydraulics and grading plans. Furthermore, plans for stormwater protection will have to be submitted to CVWD for review. Secondary access for emergency purposes can be provided as required by code and the city fire rnarshal. Nevertheless, street ".A" where it crosses the relocated storm channel will have to be engineered to withstand maximum stormwater flows. Since the PR zone does not set Specific setback requirements for single family' cetached structures on individual lots. Che applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan of how the project would be developed. Front setbacks are either 20 feet :from curb for straight- in garages or 15 feet for side-in garages. Side distances between units is in most cases at least 20 feet with rear yards averaging 20 feet, with a minimum of approximately 15 feet. Staff feels these types of setbacks are acceptable and would meet the intent of the municipal code. 2. Findings Needed for Approval of Tentative Tract Map: a. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: The density of the proposed map will be 1.72 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the 5-7 d.u./acre general plan designation. -2- i'f 1 6t: J �d C.UP 21 -S3 October IS, 19S3 b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is Consl5tent \vrth nppIIC:able general dad specific P!Eii"1s. J L'st if;c_at ion: All private struts will be improv,-d and sufficient drainage facilities '.11 �. ?ro. ld ed in conformance with the gcn'_-cal Plan gi.iidelincs, city ordinances and conditions of the director of public .vorks. c. That the site is physically - s..ritable for the type of development. Justification: The site is physically suitable for a majority of the lots with little or no grading necessary. The balance of the lots adjacent to the south boundary of the tract will be filled and graded and protected from the possibility of water darnage. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Justification: The design of the project indicate that g ? 1 s at the site is suitable for the proposed density of development because the site can be served by respective utilities, the city, and existing or proposed circulation system. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Justification: The design will not cause substantial environmental darnage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because it will be constructed in compliance with applicable regulations and the proposed Negative Declaration has determined that there will be no related adverse environmental effects. f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of iiniprovements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Justification: The design will not cause serious public. health rob g A p lens because it will be in compliance with applicable health, safety and building codes. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of irnprovements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Justification: 'There have been no easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Staff feels these findings can be justified in this case. 3. Findings Needed for Approval of Conditional Use Permit; a. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the municipal code and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. . -3- 0 and CiiP 21 -.S3 Cctc,`_er 18, 1383 Just iflcation: The CUP is rr_ .- due to the properties Ioration in an area subject to flop imp. i he intent of the district is to insure -that development is s_`e flooding. The develo,;dent is in accord ih the O jCcti _; ,-nd purposes of tale rn.lni,-ipal code. 'b. the pro c,'_d li>;_::: ;i of the coridilional ''se ._nd the conditions ul�der which it v ould be OOerai2d or rnaintairied will ;io1: be detrimental to the public hr-•aith, safety, or welfare, or be inaterlally inlu"lo�is to properties or limpr0'deiTi271ts In the N'icliaty. _ Justification: The location and conditions of maintenance will insure that the project will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties. Furthermore, compliance with flood damage prevention ordinance and grading ordinance will insure protection of surrounding properties and improvements. C. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the municipal code except for approved variances or adjustments. Justification: The project as designed will comply with applicable municipal codes and do not require any variances and adjustments. d. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. Justification: The general plan land use designation for the project is 5-7 residential dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is 1.72 d.u.Jacre, considerably below the land use designation. Staff feels the findings can be justified in this case. C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of environmental services has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant ad%'erse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. III. CONCLUSIONS:, The project is acceplatle provided the staff, fire marshal and director of public works conditions are complied with. Those primary concerns deal with safe and adequate access to street 'B' and protection of the lots from inundation. IV. STAFF RECOMMIENDATION: Based on the findings and justifications contained in the report staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings for approval; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving TT 19640, subject to conditions. -- C. Adoption of Planning Commission. Resolution No. , approving CUP 21- 83. -- "A Resolution of the Planning Con_imission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a tentative tract map to create -45 lots to allow 39 -4- TT 13640 a:.d CUP 21-83 Oc'obcr 18, 1983 residential units in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironvvood Country Club." "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a condiiioral use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage overlay zone located in iromvood Country Club." V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolutions B. Legal Notice C. Comments from oiher departments and agencies D. Plans and Exhibits Prepared by Re. ie,,ed and App. . .ed by -5- September 27, 1583 \ CITY OF PALM D-SEPT LEGAL NOTICE TT 19<40 and CUP 21 -83 NOTICE 1S H!:RFBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the*Palm Desert Planning Comrni—,ion to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit, and a 48 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 38 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre and Planned .Residential, maximum 7 d.u./ar_re with a drainage overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south site of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portion APN 631-270-010, 016, 051 FCX TA1l. �/ ����q 'ram O t`^,. 1 L ,,----,,ii •�� i//, �� --!SON T-9E-E--\ /hGIAN4 /1 .7 -Z c c3 u SUBJECT , P.R.- 71 D i k PROPERTY CITY OF PALM CESERT C ty Limit - [ MM- ...✓Y, 'x' t>F. r�.y, ^-x•�..k.-r "aw'm ,.,. ..,+,.�_ SAID public hearing will be held on October 18, 1983, at 2:00 p.m. in the council chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post October 7, 1983 1&, 14S3 .` L . loV r' \'1C\\'ed tfic ;,)Cation for i,'le DI.Oj:.ai0 IBA sl cte f(Orn The Cillblts p:'e\':ded. He d,",srri`:rd the la; c<c. nd reccr:mcn���d t _,t the service bay 0�,�^'„ "s be sere Cnc:d 'i�'it!) additional 1._.�"'.s:'n0tri ratl':?_( than 7!'„�ilt OUtcr op'nLng s (t70iJ-d!tion No. 5 to bP ' g '7r' ^nded so ttin L; f ncnde:doval• g in .ace "^aers nee2d `or ' .•' ' 'o =r' _e '.115 Store, li r:`_dUC ed ih-_ Squire footage 1l, for harc fifth major department store from to 54,OJ0. Co ', 1:<SIO���dr ,'lips --k,:•d if Condition N � :o. 6 I leCludes the `,_tore : •n�:rtnicnt store from reyucst' 1 , a \'.:riance for ar' r n:..7g• ,Mr. Soy replied affilrnativ;;. It \\as noted by h\ nissioner Richards :hat if it 'aas nee sti:ry, file re'ention, basin could be p, 1,ed cn f 'j ed for r:�' r••, �I.-11. ]gro'ed t�'3t. it C:VU be a ez<o,na blc Solution. Commissioner 'Vood \\as con erned that an option on a ice of north of the proposed project w' s a basis for approving this request.p operty to the Mr. Diaz explained that the aPPlira \t would have 1c, provide parking as necessary. Commissioner Richards added that at tie time the future store is ready for opening staff will be aware of .any parking prd,Jems and commission cc stepsld take J .,. ,her teen. Chairman Wood op, ---ned public ublic hearing and.as;<ed if the applicant wished to give a presentation. The applicant was not present. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present \\ ished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case; there\lb\g none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt findings as presented by staff; carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commission r Crites, to adopt Plannin���Co �m.ission Pesofution- -No.--$94--�rTrUvin-g ase•, No. DP 12-79 A,, endment #3, subject to conditions as amended (including Condition No. 5 \ amended); carried unanimously 4-0. B. Case No. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES AND SUN- RAY ENGINEERING, Applicants Re_CUeST ;:or approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental lmpact, conditional use permit and a 45 lot tentative tract map to alloy.' the creation of 39 single I amily lots in the PR-7 and PR-.7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side o; :`Mariposa Drive. at the easterly end of Poinciara Place, Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and noted that the applicants are presently in negotiations \:'ith Coachella Valley Water District for a sale or exr_hange o1 property that is ov ned by CVWD. "; Conic]ncl.:ded than staffs rna.,n concern :;as proper pro\^lions for potential flooding. Co nditions included In the resolution address this concern. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Wood op-ened the public hearing and asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. LARRY SPICER, Silver Spur Associates, explained that the construction of Palm Valley Channel had been a mitigation issue and engineers have done a thorough hydraulic study. He assured commission that it can work by properiy raising the pads approximately 10 feet above existing grade. He concurred with conditions. :!arcs Chzzi- :-i---ri .anyone present wished to speak in F,: OR or Opp iTfON io th.'s (min. There bekg none; the public hearing \•ws closed. �10'• '-"d by 011 ndsmoner C,r!ms, s:_conr.led by Colnmissroner Richuds, to sopt :: ri:s_ as j:rescnic-d by staff; carried unani:no,!sly ,_0. hlc%od (Comic over Miles, seconded by Comrn:ssioner Richards, to adopt No. S95, apu;:evin C"C 19C4 �� �• : rs;:,';:- ._. -:rri��d �_�nanGnqusl y 4-0. --- g 0, . i.,,-=t to Mined by Ummissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Panning Corran.ssion Resolution :No. 8° g 5, r:pprov.�y CUP 21 -83, s!: j a to _c, di-::r�s; ;rrii:d .nenimouc)y t,_p. X. "ISCEI_LA:'VI_OUS 1"I'Eh1S - NONE X1. ORAL\COr.i.',SUNICA'r10N5 - NONE COMMEI Corninksioner R v ds commended Director of Public Works Barry 11 '! ll,- \\ c...(•- for tzk:ng care of th._ WRtter of the dip on Portola. Chairman Wood requested a review of the height limitations ordinance. Commissioner Richards reG,hyted an update r e t n the Charles Martin building on Highu'zy 111 . \ Cornrnissioner Crites requested VApdate on the commissioner's request for staff to annex property south of Ironwood Country Club. Staff was instructed to report to council on ,his request. X111. AWOURh:1,1ENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adjourn the mee-ing at 3:30 p.m. \\ A CTEST: R,-%.,ION A. DIAZ, Secretary — - - RALPHE. \t'GOD. Chair mar --- Pr -3- PROOF OF PUE CATION This space is for t. -'ounty Clerk's Filing Stamp (2015.5 C.C.P.) STATE OF CALIFORNIA, County of Riverside I am a citizen of the United States and a CITY OF PALM DESERT resident of the County aforesaid; I am over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to Proof of Publication of or interested in the above-entitled matter. am the principal clerk of the printer of the „CASE, BIOS. TT 19640) & cup 2I-83,,,, ....... DESERT POST (AMMUDMUNT #1) ......................................... .......................................................... CITY OF ..............................................:..... PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE a newspaper of general circulation, printed, CASE NOS.TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amyndment No.1) and published ...;!? 7WEEKLY ...,,., NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public Marine will be held before a' q s �h the Palen Desert Plain" Coed in the City of ...PA&K.D$.$EAT............ SILVER iSPUURR'�A SacuT�ES to County of Riverside, and which news- apprmal of an aneM+ea to a pre+ausly aWM@d conditional use paper has been adjudged a newspaper Parini am 39 recldantial la ten' lative tract map to add One of general circulation by the Superior I residential lot amraAe the tract Court of the Count of Riverside, State of Pyout on27S acres Residocated lathe y lPR ayout (Planned Residential; mulmum 7 DUTAC). PR-7. D (Planned Residential. maximum 7 California, under the date of„xo;;S, 19CL4., IDUTAC with adralrueewSYMarkey) lam PR-7 H (Panned ResganMl. imaximum 7 DUTAC wish hillside Case Number ..83.GSa.....; that the notice, •Murry)Zonate located inlrarlwood counl7 Club on tine soum side of of which the annexed is a printed copy (set Msrom Drive at the easterly em )a pwcama Piece. more Par. in type not smaller than nonpareil), has tkaarodeturbedas. been published in each regular and entire ig�27MI0o00160511 pMIXSa issue of said newspaper and not in any •SAID Public Hearne will be Mld on 00 supplement thereof on the following dates, T Mader '. C 7e17:1 P.M. In i a Council CMmbam at palm pesart Clty Hall,73-510 Fred to-wit: Warine Drivs; Palm Desert, 1/2 7/84 Ca Mottle,ai which time am Pace .................................................... all Interested Persons are Irniad 0 '. ianem am be leer RAMON A.DIAZ. all in the year 19...... secretary lm I certify (or declare) under penalty of city co P.Californiaa perjury that the foregoing is true and 1PDOP'�o27y-'s`),_ correct. Dated at....RALM..DPvERT.................. California,this.27th..dayof.14nr, 1964„ Ina ure Free copies of this blank form may be secured from: CALIFORNIA NEWSPAPER SERVICE BUREAU, INC. Legal Advertising Clearing House 120 West Second St., Las Angeles, Calif. 90012 Telephone: (213) 625-2541 Please raeuest GENERAL Proof of Publication when ordering this form. IRONTREE MANAGEMENT COMPANY INC. February 2 , 1984 's ` � 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT City Council Planning Commission Planning Department Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: Additional interest has developed over Ironwood' s plan to develop additional Real Estate in the canyon area South of existing residential areas within Ironwood Country Club. The enclosed letter demonstrates the concern voiced by significant number of potentially effected Ironwood homeowners . As the Managing agent for Ironwood Owners Association #8 we have been directed to advise you of this concern and further to request your agencies full cooperation in assisting all interested homeowners in obtaining the facts necessary to satisfy their legitimate interests. Very truly yours, David N. Meinecke DNM:dd enclosure 42-600 BOB HOPE DRIVE, SUITE 401 f RANCHO MIRAGE, CALIFORNIA 92270 1 (619) 346-1194 IRONWOOD OWNERS ASSOCIATION VIII 42-600 Bob Hope Drive , Suite 401 Rancho Mirage , California 92270 February 2 , 1984 Dear Fellow Homeowner: Recently we learned of Ironwood' s plans to develop additional real estate across the golf course and up the canyon due South of a portion of our Association area. From what we have seen it would appear that the homes along Poinciana and Mariposa are most directly involved. While we are not necessarily opposed to Ironwood' s current building plans we do feel that additional discussion is necessary. As it stands now, there is very little time left to initiate the dialog necessary to address all our questions. As currently scheduled, the matter is to be presented to the Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 7th at 7 : 00 P.M. at the new Palm Desert City Hall Council Chambers , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive , Palm Desert. We urge any and all homeowners concerned about this development and its possible impact on our property values to be there. We hope, through our presence, to delay approval of the proposal until we all have had sufficient time to review and absorb all the facts pertinent to the issue. Very truly yours, Ironwood Owners Association VIII Board of Directors r • ' WILLIAM S. MCGREGOR February 1, 1984 4 City of Palm Desert �� Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Drive }� PALM DESERT, California l: Attention: Mr. Ramon A. Diaz, Secretary Ec�r o14f J .l�g OF,o, 44 SF Dear Sirs: DFSFRTFS Re: Case Nos. .TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment No. 1) I am the owner of the residential property municipally described as 49-244 Quercus Lane located in Iron- wood Country Club (as marked in red on the attached Legal Notice). My property is in close proximity to and overlooks the area which is the subject of the public hearing to be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 7, 1984. t My purpose in writing is to express my serious concern as to the effect which the proposed amendment will have upon my property as a result of the proposed creation of Lots 34 to 40, inclusive, the relocation of the natural drainage channel so as to accommodate the creation of these lots and the resultant re-designing of the 16th fairway of the golf course. I am particularly concerned about the possibility that the existing teeing areas on the 16th hole may be relocated from the side of the outcrop across from my home to an area closer to my home or somewhat west thereof. I under- stand this to be a possibility so as to protect houses that may be constructed on Lots 39 and 40. Not only would relocation of the existing tees remove an aesthetic feature which had a strong bearing on the purchase of my home (and, accordingly, have a direct bearing on the market value thereof) but relocation thereof would pose a threat to existing homeowners and particularly the swimming pool ////////-2 14th Floor, Petroleum Plaza - South Tower 9915 - 108 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2G8 Telephone (403) 423-1718 - 2 - r City of Palm Desert February 1, 1984 area east of my home which is shared by myself and adjacent homeowners. Also, a parade of golfers immediately in front of my home would create a noise pollution problem and infringe upon my privacy. Accordingly, if the creation and subsequent development on Lots 39 and 40 will necessitate relocating the existing 16th hole tees I strongly object thereto. The elimination of Lots 39 and 40 would, however, presumably remove the necessity of relocating the 16th tees and solve my primary concern with the proposed amendment. I am, however, also generally concerned about development upon Lots 34 to 40, inclusive, as this would: (1) disrupt the view from my home to the east, and; (2) necessitate the relocation of the existing natural drainage channel which at certain times of the year becomes a raging torrent. I do not believe that re-designing the 16th fairway to serve as both a fairway and as a drainage channel is an acceptable alternative. Although I am not a lawyer, I would like to express my surprise that neither I nor homeowners adjacent to me were directly notified of the proposed amendment and public hearing in view of the fact that the same has such a direct impact upon the value of my property and that of adjacent homeowners. For the above reasons I object to the proposed amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you reject the amend- ment or, alternatively, cause the same to be further amended to satisfy the concerns which I have expressed above as, failing which, the same would have a substantial negative impact upon the enjoyment of and the value of my property. Yours truly, W.S. McGREGOR INVESTMENTS LTD. William S. McGregor WSM:jw Attachment CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-93 (Amendment #0 NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of in amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot tentative tract map to add one residential lot and revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC with a drainage-way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more aarticularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 hl I \\\ \\l i✓� o\\ \ Il Q ,,`. i� I� ! 11 �^�\ \\\�• ...:{/'.: �- Y r _ ��-- 1 I I t .\�` \\\ � ,y'.:.: ,�� . I_rl;'�Il�llIl ���Y.1•►➢, CITY C MD Pu'3Iic Hearin; %vill be held an Tuesday, February 7 1984, at 7:00 P.M.in the Council h.:•nbers at Palm desert k.ity Hall, 13-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, .vi)ich time .tnd place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAhION A. DIAZ, Secretary City of Palm I)esert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post 3anu3ry 2J, 1934 tm ,1' 0 � WEBER MOTOR COMPANY )AGGU R 0 VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93003 2611 THOMPSON BLVD. 647-7760 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT / 7 2549 THOMPSON BLVD. (805) 648-7991 647-6087 27D- ,0, Alp � � ;vu' CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment 111) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot tentative tract map to add one residential lot and revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC with a drainage-way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 „ ./ 1 --�� �__� `�_'. _ ..c—� 'tee t• v �/ Ij fOxTAII / �l r`D+p4j N 11 En- �x���ll[F /J �/I 1J 68 III C^ , un i . } i CITY 0 .'` :!crF`.;':rr 5:;::::!;::%;;;y:.3}t,;:- :!:r):; NY Lrmit wry 3 SAID Public Hearing will be held on Tuesday, February 7, 1984, at 7:00 P.M.in the (=;ouncil Chambers at Palm Desert City Hall, 7.3-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Citv of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post January 27, 1984 /t m M3Y ORDINANCE NO. 328 EXHIBIT A 26.48.060 Dedication of land and fees for park and recreation purposes. A. For residential subdivisions of greater than 50 lots, the subdivider shall dedicate land or pay a fee, or combination thereof in such ratio recommended by the commission and approved by the council. Dedication shall be equivalent to 5 acres per 1000 population projected to inhabit said subdivision. The fee shall be based on the -- average appraised current market value of the undeveloped land in the subdivision as { determined by the county assessor. i B. For subdivisions containing 50 lots or less, the subdivider shall pay a fee equivalent to 5 acres per 1000 population projected in said subdivision. Fees shall be calculated according to procedure set forth in Subsection A. C. Projected population shall be calculated by multiplying the number of units to be constructed by the average household size for the entire city as shown on the latest federal census or a census taken pursuant to Section 40200, Chapter 17 of Part 2 of Division 3 of Title 4. D. All land-to be dedicated for park or recreational purposes shall be found to be suitable by the commission and the cognizant recreation agency subject to council approval as to locations, parcel size, and topography for the park. Park and recreation purposes may include active recreation facilities such as playgrounds, playfields, gardens, pedestrian or bicycle paths or areas of particular natural beauty, including canyons, hilltops and wooded areas to be developed or left in their natural state. Also included are land and facilities for the activity of "recreational community gardening," which activity consists of the cultivation by persons other than, or in addition to, the owner of such land, of plant material not for sale. E. Land to be dedicated may include all or part of a proposed facility. Fees are to be used for the purpose of developing new or rehabilitation of existing park or recreational facilities to serve the subdivision. Park and recreation purposes shall include F. Subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes shall be exempted from the requirements fo this section; provided however, that a condition may be placed on the approval of such parcel map that if a building permit is requested for construction of a residential structure or structures on one or more of the parcels within four years the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of such permit. G. If the subdivider provides park and recreational improvements to the dedicated land, the value of the improvements together with any equipment located thereon shall be a credit against the payment of fees or dedication of land required by this ordinance. - H. Planned developments and real estate developments, as defined in Sections 11003 and 11003.1, respectively, of the Business and Professions Code, shall be eligible to receive a credit, as determined by the council, against the amount of land required to be dedicated, or the amount of the fee imposed, pursuant to this section, for the value of private open space within the development which in usable for active recreational uses. 1. The provisions of this section do not apply to commercial or industrial subdivisions; nor do they apply to condominium projects or stock cooperatives which consist of the subdivision of airspace in an existing apartment building which is more than five years old when no new dwelling units are added. I C C ENV,RON&I ;984 ffV ��u/ �i e� ' �- .�a� 32, 33�� �7 .s /2. B✓� P9�DeSfflTfS ✓ems c/��P�/r/ /���:G s /_v� 32 - I'll 88 cre- . .i /771i�. �a� <r eGr s / a,- L�1 32 < 33 trrc /.Gl�c rerrc1117 1/ Y7 ,421 33 = Z 7/ 4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1983 Mr. Joy reviewed the location for the proposed TBA store from the exhibits provided. He described the landscaping and recommended that the service bay openings be screened with additional landscaping rather than prohibit outer opening service bays (Condition No. 5 to be amended so stating). Staff recommended approval. Because of the parking spaces needed for this store, it reduced the square footage available for the future fifth major department store from 70,000 sq.ft. to 54,000. Commissioner Crites asked if Condition No. 6 precludes the future department store from requesting a variance for parking. Mr. Joy replied affirmative. It was noted by Commissioner Richards that if it was necessary, the retention basin could be paved and used for parking. Commission agreed that it would be a reasonable solution. Commissioner Wood was concerned that an option on a piece of property to the north of the proposed project was a basis for approving this request. Mr. Diaz explained that the applicant would have to provide parking as necessary. Commissioner Richards added that at the time the future store is ready for opening staff will be aware of any parking problems and commission could take further steps then. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to give a presentation. The applicant was not present. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case; there being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt findings as presented by staff; carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 894, approving Case No. DP 12-79 Amendment #3, subject to conditions as amended (including Condition No. 5 amended); carried unanimously 4-0. B. Case No. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES AND SUN- RAY ENGINEERING, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit and a 45 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and noted that the applicants are presently in negotiations with Coachella Valley Water District for a sale or exchange of property that is owned by CVWD. He concluded that staff's main concern was proper provisions for potential flooding. Conditions included in the resolution address this concern. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. LARRY SPICER, Silver Spur Associates, explained that the construction of Palm Valley Channel had been a mitigation issue and engineers have done a thorough hydraulic study. He assured commission that it can work by properly raising the pads approximately 10 feet above existing grade. He concurred with conditions. -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OCTOBER 18, 1983 Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none; the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt findings as presented by staff; carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 895, approving TT 19640, subject to conditions; carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 896, approving CUP 21-83, subject to conditions; carried unanimously 4-0. X. MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE Xl. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - NONE XII. COMMENTS Commissioner Richards commended Director of Public Works Barry McClellan for taking care of the matter of the dip on Portola. Chairman Wood requested a review of the height limitations ordinance. Commissioner Richards requested an update on the Charles Martin building on Highway 111. Commissioner Crites requested an update on the commissioner's request for staff to annex property south of Ironwood Country Club. Staff was instructed to report to council on this request. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adjourn the meeting at 3:30 p.m. ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman /lr -3- INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: Director of Environmental Services JA&,� 6 1984 ENvrRo1Vt- FROM: Director of Public Works CITY of. PALM of ECES R SUBJECT: TRACT 19640 (Amend. #1) SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES DATE:January 16, 1984 No new requirements. Original conditions apply. 1J 9PIZ C&-M.^— BARRWMcCLELLAN, P.E. BDM/ms -r , 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-06i1 REQUEST FOR CM-MENTS AND CONDITI014S OF APPROVAL CASE N0: T /�<I, LAC? Ii""'ccv�� PROJECT: APPLICANT: S//_ //�R SFVk> �ISSZJC%i9 %ES Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the-following is being requested: r0rl01 e9� cro( a irae/, /�a[� f' � Q ,2 IV .f ei 7!) y� ✓ � ✓ S U S 7l � o7Pc./ Z)rni�aiC wf. all'r/a .41P& /C^�� The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended Conditions of Approval . The City is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution) and on public resources (e.g. demand for schools , hospitals , parks, Power ation, sewage treatment, etc. ) . gener- Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 5:00 p.m. /-//-�yC in order to be discussed by the Land Division Committee at their meeting of /-/6 fef" The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental Services , City Building Official , City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forviard them to the Planning Commission through the staff report. Any informa- tion received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Committee nor will it be fo nvarded to the Planning Commission for Consideration. ` Sinc •y, i Ramon A�b� �'.F`.:� Paz Director of Environme6l� Services PLEASE RETURII MAP WITH COMMENTS - RIVERSIDE COUNTY '�E p CAUf FIRE DEPARTMENT y~ C UNTY IN COOPERATION WITH THE o, _ CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY • RIVERS] DA V ID L.FLAKE �ENi pF FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 January y4, 1984 TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 nL�3�L a �'/ TD RANCHO H MIRAGHWA FIRE STATION Ramon A. Diaz City of Palm Desert RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 73-510 Fred Waring Drive J A N - 9 1984 Palm Desert, CA 92260 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Reference: Case No. TT 19640, AmeF�3'file'R PM, DA�W cant - Silver Spur Assoc. Dear Ray, The fire protection requirements for this tentative tract have previously been established and remain appropriate in this case. Please have the applicant detail the emergency alternate access road on the tentative tract plans prior to submittal to the Planning Commission. Thank you, DAVID L. FLAKE Fir Qy.� Chief By, ERIC L. VOGT Fire Marshal dpm �1 POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: October 20, 1983 Silver Spur Associates Sun-Ray Engineering 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 - TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of October 18, 1983. Approved by Adoption of Resolution Nos. 895 and 896 Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/lcr / cc: Coachella Valley Water District File PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 895 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 45 LOTS TO ALLOW 39 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE PR-7 AND PR-7, D ZONES LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. TT 19640 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of October, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a tentative tract map to create 45 lots for t 39 residential lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portions APN's 631-270-010-016,051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-891', in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff report for TT 19640 dated October 18, 1983, on file in the department of environmental services, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent _ with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Map No. 19640 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached ( conditions. 4 FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the conditions of approval do include a ` - requirement that the applicant pay fees to comply with the requirements of Article 26.48 of the City of Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance. In return, the City agrees to use said said fees for park purposes in conformance with an adopted master plan, within five (5) years of the recordation of the final map. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert -1- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 895 Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 18, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, RICHARDS, WOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: ERWOOD ABSTAIN: NONE RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 895 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. TT 19640 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations, and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of the approval of conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 3. All on-site utilities, including cable TV, shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of environmental services. 4. Any dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 5. The CC&R's for this development shall be submitted to the director of environmental services for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. L 6. Prior to submittal of the final map, the applicant shall provide the department of environmental services with a list of proposed street names with at least three alternatives. The approval of the final street name shall be made by the director of environmental services. 7. Applicant shall pay a fee in lieu thereof as a condition of the final map for park and recreation purposes per city ordinance. 8. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services; setbacks can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. Department of Public Works: 9. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 10. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the director of public works. 11. Full improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. t 12. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. a 13. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built' plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city. 14. All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid. 15. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. e i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 895 16. Landscaping maintenance on all streets shall be provided by the homeowners association. 17. A portion of this property is in the AO Depth 3' zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. A flood hazard report, as required by Ordinance No. 221 (Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) shall be submitted to the public works department. The report must be approved by the Flood Review Committee prior to approval of a grading plan. 18. All property within the CVWD right-of-way must be transferred to the developer prior to recordation of final map. 19. No residential lots shall be placed within a drainage area that is subject to inundation. The private engineer shall submit a hydrology study, hydraulics and grading plans to indicate drainage mitigation necessary. 20. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required improvements prior to this map recording. City Fire Marshal: 21. Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two-three hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 22. Install Riverside County Super fire hydrants located at each street intersection (a) but not greater than 500 feet apart in any direction. (b) All structures shall be within 250' of a fire hydrant. (c) Exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. (d) Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 1 23. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and J three (3) copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. 24. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract No. 19640 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal." Upon approval, the original plan will be returned to the developer. 25. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 26. Parking restricted on one side of street. 27. Maximum length of dead-end streets is 600 feet. Provide approved alternate access road. /lr I -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 896 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A DRAINAGE OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. CUP 21-83 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of October, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage overlay zone located within the PR-7, D zone in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end Poinciana Place more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portions APN's 631-270-010, 016, 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director environmental services has determined that the project will not have significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has be prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. L , 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 21-83 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert ? Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 1983, by the following vote, to i wit: i ..w AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, RICHARDS, WOOD NOES: NONE ABSENT: ERWOOD ABSTAIN: NONE RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary -1- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 896 ' CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 21-83 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of environmental services, a modified by the following conditions and subsequent revisions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to architectural review, subdivision process and building permits procedures. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services; setbacks can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 5. All conditions of TT 19640 shall be met. 6. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval to implement said CUP, unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by the planning commission. /Ir -2- f:a �11 �1.T1 T7ST 45-275 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESER6 UFpRNIA 0 — r TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 7 in 3 a �o REQUEST FOR COi,TIENTS AND CONDITIONS OF A* _AL ' CASE NO: 44e? PROJECT: APPLICANT: S//_ //F,2 -SFVR �JSs/�C%i4 DES is being requested:Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the-following � /vl�U� Qil a<a�f i� .�4Ftf f zz_') !Y v� z fa ✓ / Q �2 � 7`Tot c f Gc�'cf,o yrP`F of cY'c f lore fo yG J J S rC1r�6w �/cif /.i•�S Grp � - G�fr�s �rq�P�� . Pr/ayJ� _z; 4 �^ � /63i - a 7� 05fa The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you ` for comments and recommended Conditions of Approval .e.g. water and air pollution) ation, sewage treatment, etc. ) . The City is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment ( and on Public resources (e.g. demand for school s , hospitals , parks , power gener- Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 5:00 p.m. / g_/-/ in order to be discussed by the Land Division Committee at their meeting of /-/6 6f4 The Land Division Committee (comprised of Director of Environmental Services , City Building Official , City Engineer, Fire Marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the Planning Commission through the staff report. Any informa- tion received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the Land Division Committee nor will it be forwarded to the Planning Commission for consideration. Sinc y, Ramon iaz Director of Environmegj� Services PLEA ETUR'N MAP WITH COMMENTS INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM City of Palm Desert TO: PUBLIC WORKS AND COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT FROM: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: AMENDED TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 19640 DATE: DECEMBER 30, 1983 On December 28, 1983, our office sent out a request for comments on an amended tentative tract map for Silver Spur Associates. Subsequent to that on December 29, we received another amended map which takes most of the channel out of the tract boundaries. Please review this attached map (dated December 28, 1983) for comments. Thank you. STAN SAWA PRINCIPAL PLANNER SS/lr City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 18, 1983 CASE NO: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit and a 45 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. APPLICANTS: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 I. BACKGROUND• A. APPLICATION REQUESTS: The applicant has filed a tentative tract map and conditional use permit for this project. The tentative tract map is to divide the land into residential, common and golf course lots. The conditional use permit is required because the southern part of the area is in a 'D' (drainage way) overlay zone. The conditional use permit procedure in this case is intended for properties prone to flooding. The current flood ordinance the city is operating with was implemented after the 'D' overlay was created and protects and regulates development. Therefore, the purpose of the 'D' overlay is being achieved by the current flood ordinance. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site consists of 22.7 acres of land at the southerly end of Ironwood Country Club. A portion of the area running in an east-west direction through the middle of the site is presently a part of the golf course. Adjacent to the southerly property line and part of the tract is an unlined storm channel that carries water from the west to the golf course on the east. The terrain is somewhat hilly with the golf course area raised to separate the storm channel from the area to the north. The area immediately to the south of the tract rises sharply to rocky hills. C. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-7/Residential in Ironwood Country Club South: PR-7, D and PR-7, H/Golf course and vacant East: PR-7, D/Golf course West: PR-7 and PR-7, D/Residential in Ironwood Country Club and Storm Channel D. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential 5-7 d.u./acre H. PRO3ECT DESCRIPTION: A. GENERAL: The applicants wish to create 39 single family lots for residences to be built and sold by the applicant. The typical lots vary in size from 12, 500 square feet to 27,000 square feet with an average 15,000 square foot lot size. Six other lots are provided and consist of common lots, private streets, and the golf course and storm channel. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 October 18, 1983 The tract is similar to Ironwood's Tract 5564 on Sunrose Lane which is a custom lot single family subdivision nearing completion. While the tract consists of property within Ironwood Country Club a portion of the tract is presently owned by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and utilized as a storm channel (dead Indian). Negotiations are presently taking place between the applicants and CVWD for a sale or exchange of property to allow these tract boundaries. CVWD has submitted a letter authorizing the submission of this application. Presently, the channel runs adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed tract. Grading will divert the channel northernly so that it runs between proposed lots 28 through 39 and a relocated turfed levee which will be part of the golf course. Most of the area along street "B" (Lots 28 through 39) will be elevated from approximately 5 feet to 35 feet above existing grades to insure that they are protected from inundation. Access to a majority of the lots would be from new streets constructed off of Mariposa Drive. One street will be constructed just south of Ironwood's Administrative center on Mariposa Drive and terminates in a twin cul-de- sac near the southern boundary of the tract. This street will be bridged in the area where it crosses the storm channel. The second street would be an extension of Poinciana Plance which exists north of Mariposa Drive. Due to the excessive length of the cul-de-sac a secondary emergency access will have to be provided, probably from the westerly end of "B" Street to the extension of Poinciana Place or Mariposa Drive. B. ANALYSIS: 1. Staff Concerns: Staff's primary concern pertains to provisions for insuring that the tract is safe from flooding. The director of public works has recommended conditions geared to insuring that the lots will be safe from inundation. These conditions include flood review committee approval due to AO depth 3' zone designation prior to approval of a grading plan, submission of drainage studies, hydrology studies, hydraulics and grading plans. Furthermore, plans for stormwater protection will have to be submitted to CVWD for review. Secondary access for emergency purposes can be provided as required by code and the city fire marshal. Nevertheless, street "A" where it crosses the relocated storm channel will have to be engineered to withstand maximum stormwater flows. Since the PR zone does not set specific setback requirements for single family detached structures on individual lots. The applicant has submitted a conceptual site plan of how the project would be developed. Front setbacks are either 20 feet from curb for straight- in garages or 15 feet for side-in garages. Side distances between units is in most cases at least 20 feet with rear yards averaging 20 feet, with a minimum of approximately 15 feet. Staff feels these types of setbacks are acceptable and would meet the intent of the municipal code. 2. Findings Needed for Approval of Tentative Tract Map: a. That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: The density of the proposed map will be 1.72 dwelling units per acre and is consistent with the 5-7 d.u./acre general plan designation. -2- TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 October 18, 1983 b. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. Justification: All private streets will be improved and sufficient drainage facilities will be provided in conformance with the general plan guidelines, city ordinances and conditions of the director of public works. C. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. Justification: The site is physically suitable for a majority of the lots with little or no grading necessary. The balance of the lots adjacent to the south boundary of the tract will be filled and graded and protected from the possibility of water damage. d. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. Justification: The design of the project indicates that the site is suitable for the proposed density of development because the site can be served by respective utilities, the city, and existing or proposed circulation system. e. That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Justification: The design will not cause substantial environmental damage or injure fish or wildlife or their habitat because it will be constructed in compliance with applicable regulations and the proposed Negative Declaration has determined that there will be no related adverse environmental effects. f. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. Justification: The design will not cause serious public health problems because it will be in compliance with applicable health, safety and building codes. g. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Justification: There have been no easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision. Staff feels these findings can be justified in this case. 3. Findings Needed for Approval of Conditional Use Permit: a. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the municipal code and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. -3- TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 October 18, 1983 Justification: The CUP is required due to the properties location in an area subject to flooding. The intent of the district is to insure that development is safe flooding. The development is in accord with the objectives and purposes of the municipal code. b. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it would be operated or maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. Justification: The location and conditions of maintenance will insure that the project will not be detrimental to the public or surrounding properties. Furthermore, compliance with flood damage prevention ordinance and grading ordinance will insure protection of surrounding properties and improvements. C. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of the municipal code except for approved variances or adjustments. Justification: The project as designed will comply with applicable municipal codes and do not require any variances and adjustments. d. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the City's General Plan. Justification: The general plan land use designation for the project is 5-7 residential dwelling units per acre. The proposed project is 1.72 d.u./acre, considerably below the land use designation. Staff feels the findings can be justified in this case. C. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW: The director of environmental services has determined that the proposed project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. III. CONCLUSIONS: The project is acceptable provided the staff, fire marshal and director of public works conditions are complied with. Those primary concerns deal with safe and adequate access to street 'B' and protection of the lots from inundation. IV. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and justifications contained in the report staff recommends: A. Adoption of the findings for approval; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving TT 19640, subject to conditions. C. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving CUP 21- 83. "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a tentative tract map to create 45 lots to allow 39 -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 45 LOTS TO ALLOW 39 RESIDENTIAL UNITS IN THE PR-7 AND PR-7, D ZONES LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. TT 19640 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of October, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a tentative tract map to create 45 lots for 39 residential lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portions APN's 631-270-010-016,051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project will not have a significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has been prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff report for TT 19640 dated October 18, 1983, on file in the department of environmental services, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Map No. 19640 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the conditions of approval do include a requirement that the applicant pay fees to comply with the requirements of Article 26.48 of the City of Palm Desert Subdivision Ordinance. In return, the City agrees to use said said fees for park purposes in conformance with an adopted master plan, within five (5) years of the recordation of the final map. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert -1- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 18, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. TT 19640 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations, and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of the approval of conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 3. All on-site utilities, including cable TV, shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of environmental services. 4. Any dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 5. The CC&R's for this development shall be submitted to the director of environmental services for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 6. Prior to submittal of the final map, the applicant shall provide the department of environmental services with a list of proposed street names with at least three alternatives. The approval of the final street name shall be made by the director of environmental services. 7. Applicant shall pay a fee in lieu thereof as a condition of the final map for park and recreation purposes per city ordinance. 8. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services; setbacks can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. Department of Public Works: 9. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 10. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the director of public works. 11. Full improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 12. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. 13. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built" plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city. 14. All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid. 15. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 16. Landscaping maintenance on all streets shall be provided by the homeowners association. 17. A portion of this property is in the AO Depth 3' zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. A flood hazard report, as required by Ordinance No. 221 (Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) shall be submitted to the public works department. The report must be approved by the Flood Review Committee prior to approval of a grading plan. 18. All property within the CVWD right-of-way must be transferred to the developer prior to recordation of final map. 19. No residential lots shall be placed within a drainage area that is subject to inundation. The private engineer shall submit a hydrology study, hydraulics and grading plans to indicate drainage mitigation necessary. 20. Offsite improvement plans to be approved by the public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required improvements prior to this map recording. City Fire Marshal: 21. Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two-three hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 22. Install Riverside County Super fire hydrants located at each street intersection (a) but not greater than 500 feet apart in any direction. (b) All structures shall be within 250' of a fire hydrant. (c) Exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. (d) Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 23. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. 24. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract No. 19640 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal." Upon approval, the original plan will be returned to the developer. 25. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 26. Parking restricted on one side of street. 27. Maximum length of dead-end streets is 600 feet. Provide approved alternate access road. /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A DRAINAGE OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. CUP 21-83 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 18th day of October, 1983, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact and conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage overlay zone located within the PR-7, D zone in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end Poinciana Place more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portions APN's 631-270-010, 016, 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director environmental services has determined that the project will not have significant adverse impact on the environment and a Negative Declaration has be prepared. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 21-83 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby approved. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 18th day of October, 1983, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary -I- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO. CUP 21-83 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of environmental services, a modified by the following conditions and subsequent revisions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to architectural review, subdivision process and building permits procedures. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services; setbacks can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 5. All conditions of TT 19640 shall be met. 6. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval to implement said CUP, unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by the planning commission. /Ir -2- September 27, 1983 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE Case No. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit, and a 48 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 38 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre and Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portion APN 631-270-010, 016, 051 . .. __. , ... -is-_�i - �wWE -� ��• tv✓. 1-FOXTA1l �. � �.� p CIDr JEI°®dllW®od �11I�tr I it✓1 0 0 SUBJECT P.R.- 71 D (Z PROPERTY D CITY OF PALM DESERT City Limit SAID public hearing will be held on October 18, 1983, at 2:00 p.m. in the council chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post October 7, 1983 ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONEXXLTER 398-2651 (619) DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS.PRESIDENT LOW ELL O.WEEKS.GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS.VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON.SECRETARY JOHN P.POW ELL VICTOR B.HARDY.AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDW INE AND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BUXTON September 26, 1983 wJ:o H. _f2VIRCi4:::gpJ TILL SEKViCES :'T, CF pl;LP.7 DESERT Ray Diaz City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Dear Mr. Diaz: This letter is to authorize the inclusion of property awned by the District in the South Half of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, S.B.M. in Tentative Tract 19640. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please call Tom Levy at (619) 398-2651. Yours very truly, Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager-Chief Engineer TEL:ra cc: Larry Spicer 49200 Mariposa Palm Desert, California 92260 TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY 49 ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY G^I COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONt61,MT 398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS.PRESIDENT LOWELL O.WEEKS.GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLISCODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POWELL September 16, 1983 VICTOR B.HARDY,AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDWINE AND SH ERRILL,ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BU%TON File: 0163.11 0421.1 �J+:1i1 0721.1 Ely 1 1983 Department of Environmental ServiP�§)iVM'_' City of Palm Desert Cr "A r'Ic Si Post Office Box 1977 < Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Tract 19640, Portion of South Half, Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth 3 feet on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. However we expect the map to be revised during the next revisions. A portion of this tract is within the Dead Indian Stormwater Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This area shall be annexed to the Stormwater Unit of the Coachella Valley Water District. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Yours very truly Lowell 0. Weeks eneral Manager-Chief Engineer RCM:dlb cc: Department of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY C-�C CC POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIAq 26i TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 )gip ENVIRONMENTAL SErVICES ,Ty CF FALM DESERT REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: TT 19640 APPLICANT: SUN-RAY ENGINEERING Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Approval of a tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental impact to allow a subdivision for thirty seven homesites south of Mariposa Drive more particularly described as: A.P.N. 631-270-052 The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution), public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc.) and site and building plan acceptability. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 4:30 p.m. September 12, 1983, in order to be discussed by the land division committee at their meeting. of f-/a.-&3 ` The land division committee (comprised of director of environmental services, city building official, city engineer, fire marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the planning commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the land division committee nor will it be forwarded to the planning commission for consideration. Sincerely, y(� 9/12/83 ` A AREST LOCATION OF GAS DISTRIBUTION Amon A. Diaz MAIN: In Ponciana DR within subject Director of Environmental Services area. No other 4rm omments. RAD/pa en Richards PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS Planning Aide So Cal Gas Company 415-M PRICXLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT, CAUFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 WAR M;r OF BUILDING & SAFETY PR LIMIN RY R TM4 OF PLANS MLS IS NOT A PLAN CF=l ao tm*. CCRI=: BF.I M ANY M= C24-O rs CAN BE MA1E, ADDITIONAL M*10� IS 19= FOR 11Etl'm?.. . [� CaTL= ARC. DR*M= AND SPECIFICATIONS (� cmip TS snui PCk AL DRAWnM AND CAILU ATMIS Obi= H.V.A.C. , E Fr-ru= AND PI3mINc. PLANS & SPECIFICAmis mO x= T= 24 IImuY mN smvATIIXI DOCImm= CM PME GRADING PLANES Q amm PAI CNfII�O, SR. HATE DI ECTOR OF BUILDING & SAFETY CASE NO: TT IQ(o�fO •� �. . EN7IR0N%-=TTAL SERVIC ES DEFT. INITIAL STUDY ENVIR0N31ENTAL EVALUATION CHECKLIST NOTE: The availability of data necessary to address the topics listed below shall form the basis of a decision as to whether the application is considered complete for purposes of environmental assessment. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS (Explanations of all "yes" and "maybe" answers, possible mitigation measures and comments are provided on attached sheets) . Yes Maybe No 1 . Earth. Will the proposal result in: a. Unstable earth conditions or in changes in geologic substructures? b. Oisruptions, displacements, compaction, or �r overcovering of the soil? c. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? V d. The destruction, covering,, or modification of any unique geologic or physical features? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? _ 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? V c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any change in climate, either locally or regionally? • 2f Yes Maybe No 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a_. Changes. in currents , 'or the course or \ `*direction of water movements? V "` . b. Changes in-absorptlon rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and- amount of surface water runoff? I c. Alterations to the cour se or flow of flood waters? d. Alteration of.the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? e. Change in the quantity of ground waters, I either through direct additions or with- drawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? _ f. Reduction in the amount of water other- wise available for public water supplies? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in the diversity of species , or numbers of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass , and crops )? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of plants? c. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? S. Animal. Life. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in the diversity of species, or numbers of any species of animals (birds , land animals including reptiles , or insects)? b. Reduction of the numbers of any unique, rare, or endangered species of animals? _ c. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or result in a barrier to the migration or movement of animals? d. Deterioration to existing wildlife habitat? Ile 3. Yes M� a No 6. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: a. Increase in .•the rate of use of any natural resources? b. Depletion of any non-renewable natural resource? 7. Enerov. Will the proposal result in: \ ' a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? _ v b. Demand upon existing sources of energy, or re- quire the.deselopment of new sources of energy? 8. Risk of Upset. Does the proposal involve a risk o an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including, but not limited to, pesticides, oil , chemicals, or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset conditions? 9. Econo_ r 'c= Will the proposal result in: a. A change in the value of property and improvements endangered by flooding? b. A change in the value of property and improvements exposed to geologic hazards beyond accepted co=unity risk standards? 10. Noise. Will the proposal increase existing noise levels to the point at which accepted caasnunity noise and vibration levels are exceeded? 11. Land Use. Will the proposal result in the a tT eration of the present developed or planned land use of an area? 12. Open Space. Will the proposal lead to a decrease in the -amount of designated open space? 13. Pooulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Alteration or the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human \ population of the City? v b. Change in the population distribution by aye, income, religion, racial , or ethnic \ r group, occupational class, household type? _ _ V 4. Yes Mavbe No 14. Emolovment. Will the proposal result in additiona new long-term jobs provided, or a change in the number and per cent employed, ' unemployed, and underemployed? _ 15. Housing. Will the proposal result in: a. Change in number and per cent of housing units by type (price or rent range, zoning category, owner-occupied and rental , etc. ) relative to demand or to number of families in various income classes in the City? b. Impacts on existing housing or creation of a demand for additional housing? 16. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal ' res ul t in: a. Generation of additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities, or V " demand for new parking? c. Impact upon existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation \ or movement of people and/or goods? �r e. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, _ bicyclists, or pedestrians? 17. Public Seriices. Will the proposal have an effect upon , or result in a need for, new or altered governmental services in any of the following areAs: a. Fire protection? b. Police protection? c. Schools? d. Parks or other recreational facilities? _ IV e. Maintenance of public facilities , including \ roads? 4 f. Other governmental services? 5. Yes Maybe No 18. Public Fiscal Balance. Will the proposal result in a net change in government fiscal flow (revenues less operating expenditures and annualized capital expenditures)? 19. Utilities. Will the proposal result in a need for new systems, or alterations to the following utilities: a. Power or natural gas? b. Communications system? C. Water? d. Sewer or septic tanks? �I e. Storm water drainage? f. Solid waste and disposal? 20. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: a. The creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard? b. A change in the level of community health care provided? 21. Social Services. Will the proposal result in _ an increased demand for provision of general \ social services? v 22. Aesthetics . Will the proposal result in: a. Obstruction of any scenic vista or view \ open to the public? b. The creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? c. Lessening of the overall neighborhood (or area) attractiveness, pleasantness, \ and uniqueness? V 23. Light and Glare. Will the proposal produce new light or glare? 24. Archeological/historical . Will the proposal result in an a teration of a. significant archeological or historical site, structure, object, or building? 6. Yes Maybe No 25. Mandatory Findings of Significance. a. Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment or .to curtail the diversity in the environment' b. Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental .goals? (A short-term impact on the environment is one which occurs in a relatively brief, definitive period of time while long-term impacts will endure well into the future. ) _ c. Does the project have impacts which are indi- vidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (A project may impact on two or more separate resources where the impact on each resource is relatively small , but where the effect of the total of those impacts on the environment is significant. ) d. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects ` on human beings , either directly or indirectly? Initial Study Prepared By: _ P�i�ca PdL PuSnl��- O c-r 11 . foma POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 7, Section 15083, of the California Administrative Code. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: TT 19640 and CUP 12-83 COMMON PROJECT NAME: Ironwood Country Club APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: Silver Spur Associates 49-200 Mariosa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: 45 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. The director of the department of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, California, has found that the described project will not have a significant effect on the environment. A copy of the initial study has been attached to document the reasons in support of this finding. Mitigation measures, if any, included in the project to avoid potentially significant effects, may also be found attached. RAMON A. DIAZ DATE DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES /lr INITIAL STUDY Case No. TT 19640 Environmental Evaluation Checklist comments and possible mitigation measures (categories pertain to attached checklist) 1. EARTH - Conditions and Impacts E. Due to the grading, relocation of the channel, and proposed development there will be a significant modification to the existing topography which presently is vacant or part of the golf course. There could be adverse impact from erosion if grading is not properly done. Mitigation Measures: E. Applicant shall comply with all requirements and conditions of approval as specified by the department of public works. 3. WATER - Conditions and Impacts C. There is proposed a change in the course of the Deep Canyon Storm Channel which runs east-west through the property. The channel currently runs adjacent to the south property line and will be moved northerly to allow a row of homes along the south property line. Mitigation Measures: C. Applicant shall comply with all grading and drainage requirements and conditions as specified by the department of public works. These conditions include but are not limited to the following: No residential lots shall be placed within a drainage area that is subject to inundation. The private engineer shall submit a hydrology study hydraulics and grading plans to indicate drainage mitigation necessary. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 October 18, 1983 residential units in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club." "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage overlay zone located in Ironwood Country Club." V. ATTACHMENTS• A. Draft Resolutions B. Legal Notice C. Comments from other departments and agencies D. Plans and Exhibits Prepared by &, e, L. Reviewed and Approved by /Ir -5- r c r �13 ���// �r e� o�- ,�� �2, 33� �SZ •.s /2. B3 4c. /�1Sclri��� JC'L'C/G jiPC/ /77�c7 5 . % U 3G � -AY . �C- , /2, f . : /77/r-7. Zol G/7 d�- 9 7Zoj� cre�i �v �e�ui:� r>,�.f.ra/ ,s 77. 5 0 171 12 3 T� c z , 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICEST2� CITY OF PALM DESERT l C, SUN-RAY ENGINEERING LAND PLANNING • SURVEYING 125 WEST GREEN STREET • PASADENA, CALIFORNIA 91105 • PHONE(213)449-1226 TRANSMITTAL TO: City of Palm Desert DATE: October 5, 1983 35-275 Prickly Pear Lane Palm Desert, CA 92261 ATTENTION: Stan Sawa JOB NO. 724-003-0 PROJECT: Tentative Tract No. 19640 We are transmitting the following: DESCRIPTION Tracings Tract Map Your request B.L. Prints Parcel Map Your Action Performance Street Plans Your Approval Bonds Sewer Plans Your files Agreements Water Plans Your checking Engineering Grading Plans Bid Purposes Check List Plot Plans UtilityStorm Drain Plans o - `I �y I' �s Letter 1 �3 �'h Tentative Map legal Description PRINTS ARE: OCT 5 1983 Preliminary Final ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Unsigned Signed CITY OF PALM DESERT Unapproved Approved Not Recorded Recorded REMARKS: Encl Osed P1Pasa find tan (,10) rn?iaa of the tentative man pPr changps disgnisspa with Tar,Ty q inPr of Trnncnnd Al SOr Ple your regt s , the largest- lot area is 27, 00n 4 F the srna11Pct lot area iG 121, 900 $ F and the a gp l t 15, 000 S R CC: BY Tnhn rAvananah 46-276 PRICKLY PEAR LANE, PALM DESERT,CAUFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (714) 346-0611 rVAFa' ?r OF BUILDING & SAFETY PFELIMINAlU REVIEW OF PLANS MIS IS NOT A PLAN CHECKI nEVELOPME T. cmto=: BEFM ANY FMMER C34-MM CAN BE MADE, AM=NAL nonft IB IS HEELED FOR REVIF3d.. . �- CMIPI LE AREAL MAWINGS AND SPECIF'ICATIMS (� Cff`1pLF.ZE 911=11MAL DRAWINGS AND CALL ATM;S (z' az.1PL= H.V.A.C. , E 1111 r AND FUMING PLANS & SPECIFICATIONS CCl n= T= 24 FSm= C RaWATIou DOC[A7F2TTATI0N Q CL1 OZIE GRADING PLANS d mm PALL=, SR. DATE DI ECTOR OF BUILDING & SAFETY WATEq ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY X /STRICS COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE)PCN) 398-2651 (619) DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUM MONDS,PRESIDENT LOWELL O.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POWELL VICTOR B.HARDY,AUDITOR PAULW.NICHOLS REDWINEAND SHERRILL,ATTORNEYS STEVED.BUXTON September 26, 1983p3` � SEE' 2 8 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT Ray Diaz City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Dear Mr. Diaz: This letter is to authorize the inclusion of property owned by the District in the South Half of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, S.B.M. in Tentative Tract 19640. If you have any questions or desire additional information, please call Tom Levy at (619) 398-2651. Yours very truly, Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager-Chief Engineer TEL:ra cc: Larry Spicer 49200 Mariposa Palm Desert, California 92260 TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY aYIATEQ ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHON�6(119 1 398-265 1 DIRECTORS ))OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT LOWELLO.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER—CHIEF ENGINEER JOHN P.POWELL VICE PRESIDENT September 16, 1983 BER NA?ICTORB HARDY,AUDITOR PAUL W.N ICHOLS REDW INE AND SH ERRILL,ATTORNEYS STEVE D.BUXTON File: 0163.11 �.,� 0421.1 `J`L=�) ' 0721.1 Department of Environmental Serv4.C'�9/V,y 'Sep 21 1983 City of Palm Desert Of PACMCUFsi,�'� Post Office Box 1977 �! tM Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Tract 19640, Portion of South Half, Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth 3 feet on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. However we expect the map to be revised during the next revisions. A portion of this tract is within the Dead Indian Stormwater Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This area shall be annexed to the Stormwater Unit of the Coachella Valley Water District. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. This area shall be annexed to Improvement District Nos. 54 and 80 of Coachella Valley Water District for sanitation service. Yours very truly Lowell 0. Weeks Aeneral Manager-Chief Engineer RCM:dlb cc: Department of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY T 00 GftlTr oil ������ POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA%2'6�,7,a TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 S F r 1 3 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: TT 19640 APPLICANT: SUN-RAY ENGINEERING Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Approval of a tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow a subdivision for thirty seven homesites south of Mariposa Drive more particularly described as: A.P.N. 631-270-052 The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution), public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc.) and site and building plan acceptability. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 4:30 p.m. September 12, 1983, in order to be discussed by the land division committee at their meeting. ( F 7/I)-83 The land division committee (comprised of director of environmental services, city building official, city engineer, fire marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the planning commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the land division committee nor will it be forwarded to the planning commission for consideration. Sincerely, 9/'_2/83 ` NZAREST LOCATION OF GAS DISTRIBUTION amon A. Diaz RAIN: In Ponciana DR within subject Director of Environmental Services area, No other omments. RAD/pa Carmen Richards PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS Planning Aide So Cal Gas Company i September 27, 1983 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE Case No. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit, and a 48 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 38 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre and Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portion A_PN 631-270-010, 016, 051 77 FOXTAIL - - / / j n`: JCP cr 1 laj Jay\\\ \\gym !/ O 15 7RON7R E E_ \,J/ LTi'®$)lw®®QJt C®ZfiYYCP'','I (! ,iAN 99 ill \\i<i \\\9 i i�.(.'�c—�7a/ '• i y .. \\c- oil i /✓ '/ Q \\ C + SUBJECT PR•' 7+ D PROPERTY CITY OF PALM DESERT - -�y City Limit �`"l 3 SAID public hearing will be held on October 18, 1983, at 2:00 p.m. in the council chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post October 7, 1983 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM ��' G-t �'1 D City of Palm Desert 4 1983 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES TO: Department of Environmental Services CITY OF PALM DESERT FROM: Director of Public Works SUBJECT: TRACT 19640 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES DATE:September 14, 1983 The following should be considered as conditions of approval : (1) Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by City ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. (2) Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. (3) Full improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the Director of Public Works, shall be installed in accordance with City standards. (4) Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. (5) Complete improvement plans and specification shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the City Engineer for checking and approval before construc- tion of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built" plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the City. (6) All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid. (7) Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. (8) Landscaping maintenance on all streets shall be provided by the homeowners association. (9) A portion of this property is in the AO Depth 3' zone as shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. A flood hazard report, as required by Ordinance No. 221 (Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) shall be submitted to the Public Works Department. The report must be approved by the Flood Review Committee prior to nf *h final map. APPMoYAL cpr 4a4.afp.)41 pLApj . (10) All property within the C.V.W.D. right-of-way must be transferred to the developer prior to recordation of final map. (11) No residential lots shall be placed within a drainage area that is subject to inundation. -r'aE OAIVA�E SrN14LC 7 NyD/'AVL,Cs ANJ G(WA G Pr.ANS 70 1"V'tA>E _bRAf"A64! 11717AA7'11,4 NEL c�55.4 ty• (12) Offiste improvement plans to be approved by the Public Works Department and a surety posted to guarantee the required improvements prior to this map /� recording. A607,�f`Cc f%`�cC — BARR LELLAN, P.E. �, • RIVERSIDE COUNTY ��ts f e w- L7 FIRE DEPARTMENT *' IN COOPERATION WITH THE C UN Ty CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RIVERS ..,..,.,r DAVIDL.FLAKE I Of FIRE CHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE September 6, 1983 PERRIS,CALIFORNIA 92370 p TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 Ramon A. Diaz Director of Environmental Services s., 3 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane S C" Palm Desert, CA 92260 C[P s 1g83 Reference: Tentative Tract No. 4 Applicant: Silver Spu6Association ENV(RONNtENTAL DESERT SERVICES Cil j CF PALM Dear Mr. Diaz: Provide the following fire protection in accordance with the Uniform Fire Code: 1. Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 - Along GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two - three hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 2. Install Riverside County Super fire hydrants located at each street intersection (a) but not greater than 500 feet apart in any direction. (b) All structures shall be within 250' of a fire hydrant. (c) Exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. (d) Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 3. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and three (3) copies of the water system plan to the Fire Marshal for review. 4. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil eingineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the' design of the water system in Tract No. 19640 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the Fire Marshal." Upon approval, the original plan will be returned to the developer. 5. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the building site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. gyp Ramon A. Diaz 9/6/83 Director of Environmental Serv. Page 2. City of Palm Desert 6. Parking restricted on one side of street. 7. Maximum length of dead-end streets is 600 feet. Provide approved .alternate access road. Sincerely, DAVID L. FLAKE wMarsha By to cc: Jim Zimmerman, CVWD R E C E I V E © ° C SEP 021983 � ;;gyp 16 1983 SUN-RAY FNGINEERING 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT S O U T H E R N C A L I F ❑ R N I A S ❑ 1 L A N D T E S T I N G . I N C . 6280 RIVERDALE ST. SAN DIEGO. CALIF. 92120 • TELE 280-4321 • P.O. BOX 20620 SAN D.E.O. CALIF. 92120 O 4 - B 3 1 V E L 1 E IN A Y P A L M D E 5 E R T. C A L I F. 9 2 2 6 O • T E L E 3 4 6 1 D 9 B 6 7 B ENTERPRISE S T. E 6 C O N D 1 O D. C A L I F. 9 2 D 2 5 • T E L E T 4 6 - 4 5 4 4 September 1, 1983 Sun-Ray Engineering SCS&T 19127 125 West Greet Street Report No. 2 Pasadena, California 91105 SUBJECT: Ironwood Area K. REFERENCE: Geotechnical Study, Tract No. 15366, Ironwood Country Club, Prepared by Southern California Soil and Testing, Inc. , dated December 18, 1979. Gentlemen: In accordance with your request , we have reviewed the plans submitted to this office by Mr. John Cavanaugh. The purpose of this review was to determine if the new proposed tentative map is within the limits of the referenced report. Based on this review it appears that the portion of the new tentative map north of the storm channel is within the limits of our previous study. The area to the south of the channel , however, was not a part of our study. Due to similarities of the soil conditions between these two areas, it is our opinion that the referenced report can be used for pre- liminary design purposes. S ❑ U T H E R N C A L I F ❑ R N I A 5 ❑ 1 L A N D T E 5 T I N G , I N C . Y SCS&T 19127 September 1, 1983 Page 2 We do recommend that an additional study be performed once the design for this new residential project is further developed. At this time, the preliminary design parameters will either be verified or altered, depend- ing on the in-situ soil conditions, the proposed grading and structural loading conditions. If you should have any questions after reviewing this report , please do not hesitate to contact this office. This opportunity to be of professional service is sincerely appreciated. Respectfully submitted, SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC. p obert R . Russell , R.C.E. #32142 RRR: mw R 0 U T H E R N C A L I F ❑ R N I A S O I L A N ❑ T E S T I N G I N C . n per, og sla(. - c� rs -4 C:) -6 lap POST OFFICE BOX 1977, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 TELEPHONE(619)346-0611 REQUEST FOR COMMENTS AND CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NO: TT 19640 APPLICANT: SUN-RAY ENGINEERING Enclosed please find materials describing a project for which the following is being requested: Approval of a tentative tract map and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow a subdivision for thirty seven homesites south of Mariposa Drive more particularly described as: A.P.N. 631-270-052 The attached data was prepared by the applicant and is being forwarded to you for comments and recommended conditions of approval. The city is interested in the probable impacts on the natural environment (e.g. water and air pollution), public resources (e.g. demand for schools, hospitals, parks, power generation, sewage treatment, etc.) and site and building plan acceptability. Your comments and recommended conditions of approval must be received by this office prior to 4:30 p.m. September 12, 1983, in order to be discussed by the land division committee at their meeting. pF �_Ia-(53 The land division committee (comprised of director of environmental services, city building official, city engineer, fire marshal and a representative of CVWD) will discuss the comments and recommended conditions of approval and will forward them to the planning commission through the staff report. Any information received by this office after the receipt deadline will not be discussed by the land division committee nor will it be forwarded to the planning commission for consideration. Sincerely, amon A. Diaz Director of Environmental Services RAD/pa PLEASE RETURN MAP WITH COMMENTS r IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE TENTATIVE TRACT NO . 19640 SY TIYN `/�-�• U BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF •+T,..� SECTION 32.T.5 S.,R.6 E. ,S.B.B.B M. II- r I\]O• \ SCALE a 1• a 300' SALVO S "SMIATU "-RAT OCINZERIN • /'i�' f ! / MOT. U.. S A. fL5 (619) 344(!] Wl41Y12 NOTES Io Y4 Nam' i i I r - , YA ; CY.C,Y,O. So It Iw 1 O • .• V I \ I A T J I .1� GAS 50. m M. rwn T.T. /! I/ �/ __ �' © ^b- 1 �; t J I,]SFffi6 FAYCL IC•S. t1 • iv viac n rum.n um rvnou v aa.u.ss. ♦ AREA I a.1 l iau ,wr � R Y ii M - /! J ZMIYO I PY-r, AIO AAYIi.LLl1 Mli 2Mm _ _ ~ . ., ._•li`�A 12-. .F_C IATE A W ROYI MAMIQ r ® ry T011��12 � ar,sf ® ••R I nO 1 ! If I I Cit .V.W.D. OTORu C MAuuGlr 2�W^ 4 ti_� � 1 /�1 \- \\• � 11i \\ii S � CusC Ca.aea I^u Cl.irTMi _ Y'C ` / -N_ �1 - /a�B G FGTnJCG STuaTe man ��IGINITY M/aP \\ ' EXHIBIT "A" Reports and statements supplementing application of Tentative Tract No. 19640. 1 . Subdivision building or development plan: Project is a subdivision of custom lots, therefore, said plans are not applicable. 2. Storm water control method: Enclosed hydrology study. 3. Preliminary soils report: Enclosed soils report. 4 . Grading Plan: Shown on tentative. 5. Proposed Landscaping and Irrigation Plan: Not applicable or possible to implement at this time. 6. C.C. & R' s: Will follow existing Ironwood Country Club custom lot subdivisions. 7. Method of Sewage Disposal: Extend existing sanitapy system. 8. Private Street Maintenance Program: Will be maintained by Ironwood Country Club. cuan'j�r o:ff ,p n,x-R, POST OFFICE BOX 1977,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA gn6l G W 1 r-�,.. , �dA• _ y t.•. i'� 4 +a .D� r T-. -' �i ,,, _� __��r��'� `•a'_ c - '"�i� ---s,�._ Imo . • � r CERTIFIED PROPERTY OWNERS' LIST AFFIDAVIT STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) CITY OF PALM DESERT ) hereby certify that the attached list contains the names and addresses of all persons to whom all property is assessed as they appear on the latest available assess- ment role of the County within the area described on the attached application and for a distance of three hundred (300) feet from the exterior boundaries of the -property described on the attached application. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. (signed) (date) '1.c' • it 'r CASE N0. Environmental Assessment Form TO THE APPLICANT: Your cooperation in completing this form and supplying the information requested will expedite City review of your application pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. The City is required .to make an environmental assessment on all projects which it exercises discretionary approval over. Applications submitted will not be considered complete until all information necessary to make the environmental assessment is complete. GENERAL INFORMATION: 1 . Name, address, and telephone number of owner, applicant or project sponsor: - s,L spin Q4�ouATEs Tronwnnd country Club, -94z)AA '`iari= orJup— Palm Tlasart ® .WM00 2. Name, address and telephone number of person t.; be contacted con- cerning the project. (such as architect, engineer, or other repre- sentative): sun Ray Engineering 125 West Green St - . Pasadena CA 91105 (2131 449-1 '�26 3. Common name of project (if any): Ironwood Country Club 4. Project location (street address or general location) : Northerly of Mariposa Drive. 5. Precise legal description of property (lot and tract number, or meets & bounds): Portion of the south one-half of Section 321 Township 5 south Range 6 east, San Bernardino Base & .iuridian. 6. Proposed use of the site (project for which the form is filed; describe the total undertaking, not just the current application approval being sought) : Tentative Tract Map for purposes �. of creating custom lots for single family residences of medium density. 7. Relationship to a urger project or series of projects (describe how this project relates to other activities, phases, and develop- ments planned, or now underway): Portion of Ironwood Country Club 8. List and describe any other related permits and other public approvals required for this project, to go forward, including those required by the City, Regional , State and Federal agencies (indicate sub- sequent approval agency name, and type of approval required): Coachella Valley Water District Appr. of S & w systems, City of Palm Desert, B & S dept. , Grading permit, Improvement plans , and tentative map approva. EXISTING CONDITIONS: 9. Project site area: 529, 641 S.F. 12 . 16 Acres (Size of property in sq. ft. or acreage 10. Present zoning: PR-7 (Proposed zoning): PR-7 11 . General Plan land use designation: 5-7 units oer acre, medium density 12. Existing use of the project site: vacant land & golf course 13. Existing use on adjacent properties: (Example - North, Shopping Center; South, Single Family Dwellings; East, Vacant, etc. ). . ONorth - unusable mountain range, South - duplex condomimiums , East - golf course, West - custom lots with single family dwellings . 14. Site topography (describe): variable from flat existing pp Arlc i-n rnl l i nQ 15. Are there any natural or manmade drainage channels through or adjacent to the property? NO YES xx 16. Grading (estimate number of cubic yards of dirt being moved) : i OGo 000 17. List the number, size and type of trees being removed: None 18. Describe any cultural , historic, or scenic aspects of the project site: r None 19. Residential Project (if not residential do NOT answer) A. Number and type of dwelling units (Specify no. of bedrooms) : 37 units - 3 bedrooms B. Schedule of unit sizes: 2500 S.F. to 3900 S_E C. Number of stories 1 Height is feet. D. Largest single building (sq. ft. ) :a/A (hgt. ) N/A E. Type of household size expected (population projection for the project) : Vacation homes 2 to o" per household. OF. Describe the number and type of- recreational facilities : Swimming pools and tennis courts G. Is there any night lighting- of the project: Yes. H. Range of sales prices or rents: $250 , 000 to $ 350, 000 I. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 % Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . . . . 10 % Landscaping, Open, Recreation Area . . . . . . . 50 % C 20. Commercial , Industrial , Institutional or Other Project: s major function s A. Type of use(s)) and ma� ( ) (if offices, specify type & number) : B. Number of square feet in total building area: C. Number of stories Height feet. O. Largest single building (Sq. Ft. ) (Hgt. ) E. Number of square feet in outdoor storage area: F. Total number of required parking spaces > number provided G. Hours of operation: OH. Maximum number of clients, patrons, shoppers, etc. , at one time: I. Maximum number of employees at one time: J. If patron seating is involved, state the number: K. Is there any night' lighting of the project: Yes No L. Percent of total project devoted to: Building . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . % Paving, including streets. . . . . . . . % Landscaping and Open Space (Recreation) . . % Are the following items applicable to the project or its effects: Discuss below all items checked yes (attach additional sheets as necessary). YES NO 21 . Change in existing features of hillsides, or substantial alteration of ground contours.. x 22.. Change in the dust, ash, smoke, fumes or odors in the project vicinity. 23. Subject to or resulting in soil errosion by wind or flooding-. x 24. Change in ground water quality or quantity, or alteration of existing drainage patterns. _ 25. Change in existing noise or vibration level in the vicinity. Subject to roadway or airport noise. (has the required acoustical report been submitted?) x 26. Involves the use or disposal of` potentially hazardous materials, such as toxic substances, flammables or explosives. 27. Involves the use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy. x 28. Changes the demand for municipal services (police, fire, sewage, etc. ) _ 29. Changes the. demand for utility services , beyond those presently available or planned in the near future. x 30. Significantly affects any unique or natural features, including mature trees. _ 31 . Change in scenic views or vistas from existing residential areas or public land or public roads. x 32. Results in the dislocation of people. x YES NO 33. Generates controversy based on aesthetics or other features of the project. _:�-- [. ] Additional explanation of "yes" answers attached. CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the. data and information required for this initial evaluation, to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements and information presented are true and correct to the best of my,knowledge and belief. rcrr�� C-zu,-r�o�Jr14 e:sur; Name Print or Type r For G= 0 / ignature 1�7/ Date T INITIAL STUDY FEE: $30. 00 (Make check payable to the City of Palm Desert and sub- mit with this form. ) V FORK H0.7 C07T OF PALM DESEP7 ' 49 271 rlaftOb 0�P Lam, PsOmm Dow Ca.22260 ti SUBDIVISION MAP APPLDCA700H FORK: d®pemffmment of ®nvIrionmentsO r erwk®e a pooh mig dowO ecn a SUN — RAY ENGINEERING Applicant (pleas Drint) 125 ST GREEN STREET (213) 449-1226 Mailing Address Telephone ASADEN\A91105 City State Zip-Code REQUEST! (Describe specific nature of approval requested). APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE AND FINAL TRACT MAP NO. 19640 FOR SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: " Portion of the South one-half of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino,Base & Meridian. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. Book 631 , Page 27, Parcel 52 & portions of Parcels 10 , 16 & 51 EXISTING ZONING PR-7 and partially not zoned. Property Owner Authorization The u srsi reed fates that they are iM owner la) of iM property described Mroin and hereby give authorr izatig(i for M inq of Mla applicotlon. Sla1 �63rS'� nature Dots Agreement absolving the City of Palm Desert of al liabilities relative to any dead restrictions. 1 DO I1Y MY SIGNATURE ON IS AGR EMENT, Absolve tie City of Palm Desert of all liabilities regarding any dead restrictions Mat may be applicable to the property described herein. nhry Signature Date Applicant's Signature Signature Dat (FOR STAFF USE ONIX) Environmen Status Accepted by. ❑ Mlnis"dof Act E.A.No. ❑ Categorical Exemption ((�/.��)c�.. LnlOa ❑ Negative Declaration CARE IN ❑ Other Reference Case No. reM110waCNT4 6rA'C6 �1s a-I)-a2 Ironwood Country Club Ironwood Country Club 49200 Mariposa Drive 49200 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ironwood Country Club Sun-Ray Engineering 49200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green St. Palm Desert, CA 922.60 Pasadena, CA 91105 Sun-Ray Engineering Sun-Ray Engineering 125 W. Green St. 125 W. Green St. Pasadena CA 91105 Pasadena, CA 91105 City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission FROM: Director of Environmental Services SUBJECT: TT 19640.a6d CUP 21-83 Addendum to Staff Report DATE: April 3, 1984 This matter was continued from February 7, 1984, to permit staff to re-advertise and further analyze the issue of previous county approval and agreements reached between the Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert and Silver Spur Associates. The matter was re-advertised per commission's instructions. In regards to previous approvals, pages 2 and 3 of the director of environmental services response to Mr. Edward Malone set forth what staff has discovered: 1. On January 24, 1972, an application for a conditional use permit and variance covering some 894 acres was filed with the County of Riverside. The area was permitted 5355 dwelling units under the existing county zoning. 2. The conditional use permit was to allow the construction of a planned residential development of 3148 units; while the variance was to reduce parking and improvement standards. 3. A group called Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert retained legal counsel to oppose the development. 4. The original proposal would have called for 3148 dwelling units on 362.1 acres of the original 894 acres, 428 acres were shown as golf course, and 106 acres defined as P,Q,R were shown as having zero units. The staff report stated "The attached conditions modify the density and height limitations." Among the conditions were: a. Permission for three story - 35' heights in area "k" with a 15 unit per acre density. b. 22' two-story heights in area H at 10 units per acre density. C. Reduction in the total number of units to 2716. 5. A condition also set forth in the approval of CUP 1382 stated "This permit shall become null and void on June 30, 1982, as to any undeveloped portion of the project." 6. Riverside County Planning Commission approved March 8, 1972, Board of Supervisors on May 2, 1982, subject conditions. 7. Lawsuit was filed by group called Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert. Silver Spur Associates and Riverside County prevailed in the first hearing, citizens appealed. 8. September 8, 1972, agreement reached between opposing parties. 9. Press release from Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert on September 19, 1972, revealed the following: a) An agreement reached brought an end to the litigation b) Agreement reduced density 28% (2530 from 2716) c) Permitting construction in hills if not visible from adjacent -1- TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 Addendum to Staff Report April 3, 1984 properties. 10. The agreement increased the area to be developed from 362.1 to 468.4 acres with describing how areas P,Q,R would be developed. 11. Riverside County Director of Planning, W.R. Livingstone asked Riverside County Counsel because of the agreement "I want to know if you feel necessary for the county to now reverse the conditions of approval for the Silver Spur development. If not how should we treat any future development plan which is content with this agreement but not and future development plan which is consistent with this agreement but not in substantial conformance with conditional use Case No. 1382..:' There was no written response to this memorandum and no further official action taken by Riverside County Board of Supervisors. To date all developments reviewed by the City of Palm Desert have been evaluated in terms of the limitations of the September 8, 1972, agreement; while said agreement was not recorded it is the opinion of the city attorney that its past implementation constitutes revision of CUP 1382 as approved by Riverside County. It would appear that the original approval by the County of Riverside did not envision the 106 acres within the areas described as P,Q,R were to remain vacant for all time. Certainly the condition of approval stating "This permit shall become null and void on June 30, 1982, to any undeveloped portion of the project" indicates that those areas were not to be under the control of the permit after June 30, 1982. In any event the limitations placed by the September 8, 1972, agreement does control the development in those areas and staff would recommend that the agreement should continue to be implemented. Section 66474 of California Subdivision flap Act sets forth the grounds for denial of a tentative tract or parcel map. The findings anyone of which if made can deny approval of tentative map are: "(a) That the proposed map is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans as specified in Sections 65451. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is not physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public-at-large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. In this connection, the governing body may approve a map if it finds that alternate easements, for access or for use, will be provided, and that these will be substantially equivalent to ones previously acquired by the public. This subsection shall apply only to easements of record or to easements established by judgement of a court of competent jurisdiction and no authority is hereby granted to a legislative body to determine that the public-at- large has acquired easements for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision." The proposed map is consistent with the city's adopted general plan in that the density of the proposed tract map is 1.72 dwelling units per acre while the city's adopted general plan has established a density of 5-7 units per acre. The design or improvements of the proposed subdivision is consistent with i i -2- I TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 Addendum to Staff Report April 3, 1984 applicable general and specific plans in that the drainage facilities, streets, and lot locations are in conformance with city guidelines, drainage requirements, and have been reviewed by all affected agencies and meet their specific requirements. The site is suitable for the proposed type of development in that large single family detached lots is the best manner in which to develop the area in question with homes comparable and compatible to those in adjoining areas. The site is suitable for this type of development in that no special considerations or modification of city or previously agreed to development standards are required. The site is physically suited for the proposed density in that it can be accommodated without waiver or modification of development standards, and the number of units can be accommodated by the existing public infrastructure. The design of the subdivision and improvements will not damage or avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The site does not contain any rare or endangered specieis of flora or fauna. The grading which will improve regional protection facilities will have a positive impact in protecting existing downstream areas. The design of the subdivision or improvements will not cause public health problems because all local, state, and federal applicable legislation has been or will be adhered to. The increasing of flood protection should mitigate this damage to public health and safety. There are no existing easements that would be lost by this subdivision. In summary, all findings required for approval of this map can be made affirmatively. Staff would continue to recorfimend approval of the TT 195640 and CUP 21-83. i RAMON IAZ 11�RD/lr -3- i i PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF 40 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THE PR-7, PR-7 D AND PR-7 H ZONES LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. TT 19640 (Amendment #0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued hearing on March 6, 1984, and April 3, 1984, to consider SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved 39 residential lot tentative tract map to revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre) PR-7 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with Case No. TT 19640 and therefore, no additional documentation is deemed necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff report dated February 7, 1984, on file in the department of environmental services, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for I purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the i City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Map No. 19640 (Amendment #1) for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of April, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. TT 19640 (Amendment #1) Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations, and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of the approval of conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 3. All on site utilities, including cable TV, shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of environmental services. 4. Any dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 5. The CC&R's for this development shall be submitted to the director of environmental services for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 6. Prior to submittal of the final map, the applicant shall provide the department of environmental services with a list of proposed street names with at least three alternatives. The approval of the final street name shall be made by the director of environmental services. 7. Applicant shall not pay a fee in lieu thereof as a condition of the final map for park and recreation purposes per city ordinance unless required by terms of city council Resolution No. 78-92. 8. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services setbacks can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 9. Cul-de-sac at south end of "C" street to be on assessors parcel Nos. 631-270-010 and 051 only, unless Riverside County approval is obtained to have cul-de-sac in unincorporated area. 10. A covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all building rights on lot 43 to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the city. Department of Public Works: 11. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. 12. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the director of public works. 13. Full improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 14. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 15. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built" plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city. 16. All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid. 17. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. 18. Landscaping maintenance on all streets shall be provided by the homeowners association. 19. A portion of this property is in the AO Depth 3' zone as shown on the flood insurance rate map. A flood hazard report, as required by Ordinance No. 221 (flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) shall be submitted to the public works department. The report must be approved by the flood review committee prior to approval of a grading plan. 20. All property within the CVWD right-of-way must be transferred to the developer by certification of final map by CVWD prior to recordation of final map . 21. No residential lots shall be placed within a drainage area that is subject to inundation. The private engineer shall submit a hydrology study, hydraulics and grading plans to indicate drainage mitigation necessary. 22. Off site improvement plans to be approved by the public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required improvements prior to this map recording. City Fire Marshal: 23. Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two-three hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 24. Install Riverside County Super fire hydrants located at each street intersection a. but not greater than 500 feet apart in any direction. b. All structures shall be within 250' of a fire hydrant. C. Exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. d. Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 25. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. 26. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract No. 19640 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal." Upon approval, the original plan will be returned to the developer. 27. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the buiding site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 28. Parking restricted on one side of street on "A" do "B" streets. 29. Maximum length of dead-end streets is 600 feet. Provide approved alternate access road. /lr -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A a RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A DRAINAGE AND HILLSIDE OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued hearing on March 6, 1984, and April 3, 1984, to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit for a residential development on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre) PR-7 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with Case No. CUP 21-83 and therefore, no additional documentation is deemed necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 21-83 (Amendment #0 is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of April, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: I AYES: NOES: ABSENT: jl ABSTAIN: AL H B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO._ A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A DRAINAGE AND HILLSIDE OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued hearing on March 6, 1984, and April 3, 1984, to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit for a residential development on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre) PR-7 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with Case No. CUP 21-83 and therefore, no additional documentation is deemed necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 21-83 (Amendment #1) is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of April, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of environmental services, and modified by the following conditions and subsequent revisions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to architectural review, subdivision process and building permits procedures. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services; setback s can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 5. All conditions of TT 19640 (Amendment #0 shall be met. 6. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval to implement said CUP, unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by the planning commission. Ar City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: March 6, 1984 continued from February 7, 1984 CASE NO: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #I) REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7, D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. APPLICANTS: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 1. BACKGROUND: A. PREVIOUS HEARING: This request was previously reviewed at the meeting of February 7, 1984. At that hearing, a number of homeowners surrounding the project area spoke or indicated their opposition to the project. As a result of the concerns, the planning commission continued this request in order to allow the applicant to meet with the homeowners to resolve their differences. On February 17, 1984, the applicant met with a number of homeowners at city hall. The applicant presented his proposal in detail with the use of graphics. The homeowners indicated their concerns which generally included the following: 1. Relocation of golf tee. 2. View disruption. 3. Property values. 4. Drainage. B. REVISED PROPOSAL: As a result of that meeting the applicant has submitted a revised tentative tract map deleting one residential lot at the end of the "B" street cul-de- sac. Additionally, he has indicated that after consultation with his golf course architect, it has been determined that the location of the existing tees will not be relocated. This decision necessitated the elimination of the one residential lot on "B" street. These are the only changes proposed to the tentative tract map. The original staff report is attached for your review and use. The findings as noted there still apply to this revised map. C. PARK AND RECREATION REQUIREMENTS: At the last hearing staff had recommended that park and recreation fees be paid pursuant to municipal code requirements. It has been brought to staff's attention that the 15 acre park dedicated to the city in 1978 by the applicant for Ironwood Country Club is applicable to this development. Thus, there would not be any fees required by this tract. However, city council Resolution No. 78-92 which sets forth the terms will have to be reviewed in detail to verify this fact. II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff-feels this revised request is acceptable and recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; -1- B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving TT 19640 (Amendment #1), subject to conditions. C. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving CUP 21- 83 (Amendment #I). "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7, PR-7 D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club." "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage and hillside overlay zone located in Ironwood Country Club." VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolutions B. Staff Report dated February 7, 1984 C. Planning Commission Minutes dated February 7, 1984 D. Letters from surrounding property owners received since last meeting E. Revised Tentative Tract Map Prepared by l Reviewed and Approved by Ar -2- City of Palm Desert Department of Environmental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: February 7, 1984 CASE NO: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #1) REQUEST: Approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 40 single family lots in the PR-7, D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of 'Mariposa Drive, at the easerly end of Poinciana Place. APPLICANTS: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 49-200 !Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 I. BACKGROUND: A. PREVIOUS PERTINENT CASES: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 were approved by the planning commission on October 18, 1983. At that time the approval was for 39 single family lots and 6 other common or street lots. B. APPLICATION REQUESTS: The applicant has filed a revised tentative tract map and conditional use permit for this project. The tentative tract map is to divide the :and into residential, common and golf course lots. The conditional use permit is required because the middle part of the area is in a 'D' (drainage uay) overlay zone. The conditional use permit procedure in this case is intended for properties prone to flooding. The current flood ordinance the city is operating with was implemented after the 'D' overlay was created and protects and regulates development. Therefore, the purpose of the 'D' overlay is being achieved by the current flood ordinance. Another purpose of the conditional use permit in this revised request is to comply with the hillside ordinance which affects the area south of "B" street and west of "C" street. This area was not a part of the original tract. C. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site now consists of 27.5 acres of land (original 22.7 acres) at: the southerly end of Ironwood Country Club. A portion of the area running in an east-west direction through the middle of the site is presently a part of the golf course. Near the southerly property line and now not a part of the tract is an unlined storm channel that carries water from the west to the golf course on the east. The terrain is somewhat hilly with the golf course area raised to separate the storm channel from the area to the north. The area immediately to the south of the tract rises sharply to rocky hills. The south boundary of the tract is now extended south to the city limits. D. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-7;Residential in Ironwood Country Club South: N-A (Riverside Co.)/vacant East: PR-7, D/Golf course West: PR-7 and PR-7, D/Residential in Ironwood Counrrry club and Storm Channel E. GENERAL PLAN LAND 11SE DESIGNATION: -1- Staff Report TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amend #0 Medium Density Residential 5-7 d.u. acre II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. GENERAL: The original approval in October of 1983, was for 39 single family lot varing in size from 12,500 to 27,000 square feet, and six lots for common areas, private streets, golf course and the storm channel. The revised request is to permit 40 single family lots, 2 lots for recreational use, one lot for open space and three lots for private streets. The size of the tract has been increased from 22.7 acres to 27.5 acres with most of the expanded acres in the hillside area to the south. A portion of the area within the sotrm channel has been removed from the boundaries of the tract. As before, the tract consists of property within Ironwood Country Club a portion of the tract is presently owned by the Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) and utilized as a storm channel (dead Indian). Negotiations are presently taking place between the applicants and CVWD for a sale or exchange of property to allow these tract boundaries. CVWD has submitted a letter authorizing the submission of this application. B. CIRCULATION/LAYOUT: While the layout of the revised request is similar to the original, there have been some changes. Poinciana Place was originally going to be extended into the tract. Now there will be a cul-de-sac from within the tract which will not go through to Mariposa Drive. The other major change is that "C" street will be extended further south and terminates at the southern city limits. As before, an alternate emergency access will be provided frorn the westerly end of "B" street to Mariposa Drive. This will comply with fire and zoning requirements for cul-de-sacs. Presently, the submitted map shows the southerly cul-de-sac on "B" street encroaching over the city limits. The applicant indicates that this cul-de- sac will be placed within the city limits unless he can obtain Riverside County approval to have the cul-de-sac on unincorporated area. Presently, the channel runs adjacent to the southern boundary of the proposed "B" street. Grading will divert the channel northernly so that it runs north of proposed lots 34 through 40 along a lowered turf area which will be part of the golf course. Most of the area along lots 25-31 and will be elevated from approximately 5 feet to 20 feet above existing grades to insure that they are protected from inundation. C. HILLSIDE CONSIDERATIONS: The area south of "B" street and west of "C" street has been added to the area of the tract. By code, this 12.8 acre area is hillside and thus subject to the hillside regulations. The lots affected by these regulations are lots 32, 33, and 43. In order to comply with the hillside requirements, the applicant will be required to record a covenant dedicating all building rights to the city, thus assuring preservation of natural areas. The applicant has submitted architectural plans for this tract including hillside lot Nos. 32 and 33. The architectural committee has approved these architectural and landscaping plans at their meeting of January 10, 1984. Staff feels the sitting of the units is acceptable. III. ANALYSIS: A. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE TRACT :MAP: -2- Staff Report TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amend #0 The findings as noted for the original approval of the tentative tract map in the staff report dated October 18, 1983, are still applicable and would apply to this request. That staff report is attached for your review. B. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: The original findings for the conditional use permit are also applicable to this request. The only difference is that this request is also for development of the hillside lots. The findings can also justify approval of the residences. IV. CONCLUSIONS: The staff concerns as noted in the original staff report still apply. Furthermore, compliance with the hillside ordinance alleviates major concern with development of the hillside areas. f V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff feels this request is acceptable and recommends: A. Adoption of the findings; B. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. , approving TT 19640 (Amendment /f 1), subject to conditions. C. Adoption of Planning Commission Resolution No. approving CUP 21- 83 (Amendment /fl). "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a tentative tract map to allow the creation of 40 single family lots in the PR-7, PR-7 D and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club." "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage and hillside overlay zone located in Ironwood Country Club." VI. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolutions B. Legal Notice C. Staff report dated October 18, 1983 D. Planning Commission Minutes dated October 18, 1983 E. Plans and Exhibits Prepared by �" t Reviewed and Approved by /Ir CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE \SE NOS. 1-1' 196:G 3n'd (.UP 21-83 (Amendment uU "NOTICE IS HEREUI' GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the Palm Desert " :nnin, _"o-,)m!ss;o, to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of C� 1' :`revio'15l\ approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot • :atrve tra,-t :nap to add one residential lot and revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres _;:-d :n :-e PR-- (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC), PR-7, D (Planned 'e,:denttal, n,almuri 7 DU/AC with a drainage-way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned 2esidenual. na\imum 7 DU/AC with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Co.lntry ` on the s.)uN' side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more �nlarly drs-�loed .?5: \P% 631-270-052 and portions of 31-2 70-010, 016, 051 17 ITL oun TJ - -- __ v CITY y fLimil x I. February 7, 1984, aL 7:00 P.bt.ut tht Frec: \\ aring Drive, Dalm Desert, Cil:ior'rta. • . . :t•"?•:'.t•'1 D—Orl< gr,+ Invited 'O attend and be /lean±. -'!�' of Pal.., Cakfor-.ia 1 E Z7�rc: /�� /� 6 = G `,•'! "gar C71e.G /.r � J r /eSS T/7d/'7 e / s.► RIVERSIDECOUNTY jS AUF FIRE DEPARTMENT IN COOPERATION WITH THE •� C UN7Y�s ••I CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FORESTRY RIVER .... ,... DAVID L. FLAKE FIRECHIEF 210 WEST SAN JACINTO AVENUE PERRIS.CALIFORNIA 92370 January 4, 1984 TELEPHONE:(714)657.3183 e RANCHO MIRAGE FIRE STATIC Ramon A. Diaz (ETUT 'J 70e00HIGHWAY112 City of Palm Desert RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ENVIRONMENTAL SFRVICES Reference: Case No. TT 19640, AmAldiflerir lP V L'AoWcant - Silver Spur Assoc. Dear Ray , The fire protection requirements for this tentative tract have previously been established and remain appropriate in this case . Please have the applicant detail the emergency alternate access road on the tentative tract plans prior to submittal to the Planning Commission . Thank you, DAVID L. FLAKE Fir Chief . e-I By, ERIC L. VOGT Fire Marshal dpm Lle 'i — — ./, R fit•:�!. RAY IS-eD f�C�(� ski c��C�aIl �3��C� ��la7s��, • �� _ __ ,, ,., ironwood fairway estates' 1 • " << '� °� /• lr.IMl15 p 70)'T11LTO11. .:�q:�:,i(e:5r-,,•!`�1, .^;I"1.��.5rl. .l�llf)t.l.il;:•I .*t � `.K-. =G:: � .:I•. j?�,� - I',.•UVI-.- . •- .. vKNrr Mu IAr ATKW$ -- ,•/� / • �w� n.. I Qv • � AONAIO O°100R1. ASl4 ' �tr• InnA•mp An6:u•rw• /• I 1 _I—)� \�,a .Grp\ 1,'°• _ .�,. � IL-LA I D Pjr, y 1! ` ►`' �'` T, AN e Vc L J T ir of 4:Y y I _ E• _ u n ;i � mil.• ,.\" ��:�`g _=_- �� :1� i' !1 `•ems.,•,.. 3 r r,C� • 4��^h tt�,y, V4i �i� TV 7 . { •�i P � _ 'I UNIT C I ....... I•RRl,if4 ARCHITECT: IRON\tOOD COLNTRY CLUB SITE. FLOOR PLAN FAIR1v AY ESTATES � .-., . . ,.. I ELFv\TIO.tic l � ' 4•� r'�s _•_ Si fT= I' �� ®IL m 17. c,t s ciHIM CC w �J Y �}jamV' ;2 -04 r•�.u�t'_b � :M�` v t. yA�ly��t.• f � fZ 'OIRONW "'• UNITD URRUTIA ARCHITECTS • .FAIR YpYTADTES TRV CLUB SITEIFVONS N •••�,•`e 0 q City of P;_Im 4 D--partment of cnvironrnental Services Staff Report TO: Planning Commission DATE: October 18, 1983 CASE NO: TT 19!'--] and CUP 21-83 REQUEST: Approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit and a 45 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of %;:ripcsa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. APPLICANTS: SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 1. BACKGROUND: A. APPLICATION REQUESTS: The applicant has filed a tentative tract map and conditional use permit for this project. The tentative tract map is to divide the land into residential, common and golf course lots. The conditional use permit is required because the southern part of the area is in a 'D' (drainage way) overlay zone. The conditional use permit procedure in this case is intended for properties prone to flooding. The current flood ordinance the city is operating with was implemented after the 'D' overlay was created and protects and regulates development. Therefore, the purpose of the 'D' overlay is being achieved by the current flood ordinance. B. DESCRIPTION OF SITE: The site consists of 22.7 acres of land at the southerly end of Ironwood �g Country Club. A portion of the area running in an east-west direction i through the middle of the site is presently a part of the golf course. f9 Adjacent to the southerly property line and part of the tract is an unlined storm channel that carries water from the west to the golf course on the east. The terrain is somewhat hilly with the golf course area raised to separate the storm channel from the area to the north. The area immediately to the south of the tract rises sharply to rocky hills. C. ADJACENT ZONING AND LAND USE: North: PR-7/Residential in Ironwood Country Club South: PR-7, D and PR-7, H/Golf course and vacant East: PR-7, D/Golf course West: PR-7 and PR-7, D/Residential in Ironwood Country Club and Storm Channel D. GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION: Medium Density Residential 5-7 d.u./acre II. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A. GENERAL: The applicants wish to create 39 single family lots for residences to be built and sold by the applicant. The typical lots vary in size from 12, 500 square feet to 27,000 square feet with an average 15,000 square foot lot size. Six other lots are provided and consist of common lots, private streets, and the golf course and storm channel. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 October 18, 1953 residential units in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Irom;rood Country Club." "A Resolution of the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, approving a conditional use permit to allow a residential development in a drainage overlay zone located in Ironwood Country Club." V. ATTACHMENTS: A. Draft Resolutions B. Legal Notice C. Comments from other departments and agencies D. Plans and Exhibits Prepared byi1 Reviewed and App. _ .ed by ;�tl /ir -5- SepteX13 CITY O PALM DESERT �i LEGAL NOTICE CaseVo. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the'Palm Desert PlanningCommission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of a negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit, and a 48 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 38 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre and Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Slariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 Portion APN 631-270-010, 016, 051 1 -1 ram- i _w NE � '�� 1�+✓ FOX PC JJ\ \ l J I= C=\ �7l\ C - /a Ironwood (CCUDLT I r r r jCiANA SUBIEtT ~� •~ , P. 7, D lit ( f►1 i PROPERTY D N � V\ CITY OF PALM CESERT _. .._ _:,_..:_,_ •,.,.,., ,. ..;-.;.i._.:_.\_i'.'_•Y SAID public hearing will be held on October 18, 1983, at 2:00 p.m. in the council chambers in the Palm Desert City Hall, 45-275 Prickly Pear Lane, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission PUBLISH: Desert Post October 7, 1993 FAI-'„ DE;rRT i t-.0 X. (N- i OBER 18, 1983 1% . Joy reviewed t;-Ie location for the proposed TBA store from the exhibits pro 'ded. He descri`:ed the landsca^:r.g and reeommisdcd that the service bay opens s be screened with additional :----escaping rather than pro`Jt�lt outer opening service b.:ys (Condition No. 5 to he ar:ended so steting). Staff recommended approval. Because of t e parking spaces needed for this store, it reduced t`,e square footage available for t future fifth major department store from 70,000 sn.ft. to 54,000. Commissioner ites asked if Condition No. 6 precludes the future department store from request g a variance for parking. Mr. Joy replied affirmative. It was noted by Co issioner Richards that if it was necessary, the retention basin could be paved an used for parking. Commission agreed that it would be a reasonable solution. Commissioner Wood was con erned that an option on a piece of property to the north of the proposed project w s a basis for approving this request. Mr. Diaz explained that the applica t would have to provide parking as necessary. Commissioner Richards added that at e time the future store is ready for opening staff will be aware of any parking pro lems and commission could take further steps then. \ Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and,asked if the applicant wished to give a presentation. \ The applicant was not present. Chairman Wood ads ed if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case; there eing none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Comm' sinner Crites, to adopt findings as presented by staff; carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commission r Crites, to adopt Plannin C _ _z a ase No. DP 12-79 A endment 913, subject to conditions as amended (includingondition No. 5 amended); carried unanimously 4-0. B. Case No. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES AND 5UN- RAY ENGINEERING, Applicants Request for approval of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, conditional use permit and a 45 lot tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7 and PR-7, D zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of 'Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and noted that the applicants are presently in negotiations with Coachella Valley Water District for a sale or exchange of property that is owned by CVWD. He concluded that staff's main concern was proper provisions for potential flooding. Conditions included in the resolution address this concern. Staff recommended approval. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant cared to make a presentation. MR. LARRY SPICER, Silver Spur Associates, explained that the construction of Palm Valley Channel had been a mitigation issue and engineers have done a thorough hydraulic study. He assured commission that it can work by properly raising the pads approximately 10 feet above existing grade. He concurred with conditions. -2- iNUTES PALM DESERT 21-,% ? G COMMISSION OCTOBER 1.9, 1183 Chairman ',.ood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none; the public hearing was closed. ?loved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt findings as presented by staff; carried unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution Nor. 895, approving TT 19640, sub r-ct to conditions; carried -unanimously 4-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 896, approving CUP 21-83, subject to conditions; carried unanimously 4-0. X. AISCELLANEOUS ITEMS - NONE XI. ORAL OMMUNICATIONS - NONE XII. COMMENTS Commissioner Ri ards commended Director of Public Works Barry :McClellan for taking care of the tter of the dip on Portola. Chairman Wood requeste a review of the height limitations ordinance. Commissioner Richards requ sted an update on the Charles Martin building on Highway 111. Commissioner Crites requested an date on the commissioner's request for staff to annex property south of Ironwood untry Club. Staff was instructed to report to council on this request. XIII. ADJOURNMENT Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by mmissioner Crites, to adjourn the meeting at 3:30 p.m. RAMON A. DIAZ, Sec,etary ATTEST: RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman /lr -3- 1 � • 11Zt).�T zT1 EE COMPANY INC. } 7 February 2 , 1984 Kr I City Council Planning Commission Planning Department Palm Desert_ City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert , CA 92260 Gentlemen : Additional interest has developed over Ironwood ' s plan to develop additional Real Estate in the canyon area South of existing residential areas within Ironwood Country Club . The enclosed letter demonstrates the concern. voiced by significant number of potentially effected Ironwood homeowners . As the Managing agent for Ironwood Owners Association 48 we have been directed to advise you of this concern and further to request your agencies full cooperation in assisting all interested homeowners in obtaining the facts necessary to satisfy their legitimate interests . Very truly yours , David N . Meinecke DNM: dd enclosure 42 600 808 HOPE f)PIVE SUITE 401 : RANCHO MIRAGE. CALIFORNIA 92270 • (619) 346 ' '91, IRONWOOD OWNERS ASSOCIATION VIII 42-600 Bob Hope Drive , Suite 401 Rancho Mirage , California 92270 February 2 , 1984 fair. F'elow Homeowner. : ^:"cnti we lealnEsd of ironwood ' s plans to develop additional reil estate across the golf course and up the canyon due South of portion of our Association area. From what we have seen it would appear that the homes along Poinciana and Mariposa are most directly involved . While we are not necessarily opposed tc Ironwood ' s current building plans we do feel that additional : scussion is necessary . As it stands now, there is very little time left to initiate the dialog necessary to address all our questions . As currently d1.2d , the matter is to be presented to the Palm Desert PI .,.nning Commission on Tuesday , February 7th at 7 : 00 P .M. at the nalm Desert City Ball Council Chambers , 73-510 Fred Waring Drive , Palm Desert . We urge any and all homeowners concerned about this development and its possible impact on our property e-alues to be there . We hope , through our presence , to delay �ocnova: - f the Proposal until we all have had sufficient time to aH. =.n,? absorb all the facts pertinent to the issue. a truly yours , : cunwood Owners Association VII1 -.ard n` Directors ® I WEBER MOTOR COMPANY JAGiJAR VENTURA. CALIFORNIA )3 ' UANPW 2611 T. OMPSON BLVD d47 `�77JJ80 V 2549 THOMPSON BLVD. ,805) 848 7991 � �s7.8087 C' 2 77 i 9 a I L� �+�m► WIWAM S. MCGREGOR February 1, 1984 City of Palm Desert Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Drive PALM DESERT, California Attention: Mr. Ramon A. Diaz, Secretary Dear Sirs : Re: Case Nos. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment No. 1) I am the owner of the residential property municipally described as 49-244 Quercus Lane located in Iron- wood Country Club (as marked in red on the attached Legal Notice) . My property is in close proximity to and overlooks the area which is the subject of the public hearing to be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission on Tuesday, February 7, 1984. My purpose in writing is to express my serious concern as to the effect which the proposed amendment will have upon my property as a result of the proposed creation of Lots 34 to 40, inclusive, the relocation of the natural drainage channel so as to accommodate the creation of these lots and the resultant re-designing of the 16th fairway of the golf course. I am particularly concerned about the possibility that the existing teeing areas on the 16th hole may be relocated from the side of the outcrop across from my home to an area closer to my home or somewhat west thereof. I under- stand this to be a possibility so as to protect houses that may be constructed on Lots 39 and 40. Not only would relocation of the existing tees remove an aesthetic feature which had a strong bearing on the purchase of my home (and, accordingly, have a direct bearing on the market value thereof) but relocation thereof would pose a threat to existing homeowners and particularly the swimming pool ////////-2 14th Floor, Petroleum Plaza - South Tower 9915 - 108 Street, Edmonton, Alberta T5K 2G8 Telephone (403) 423.1718 City of Palm Desert February 1, 1984 area east of my home which is shared by myself and adjacent homeowners. Also, a parade of golfers immediately in front of my home would create a noise pollution problem and infringe upon my privacy. Accordingly, if the creation and subsequent development on Lots 39 and 40 will necessitate relocating the existing 16th hole tees I strongly object thereto. The elimination of Lots 39 and 40 would, however, presumably remove the necessity of relocating the 16th tees and solve my primary concern with the proposed amendment. I am, however, also generally concerned about development upon Lots 34 to 40, inclusive, as this would: (1) disrupt the view from my home to the east, and; (2) necessitate the relocation of the existing natural drainage channel which at certain times of the year becomes a raging torrent. I do not believe that re-designing the 16th fairway to serve as both a fairway and as a drainage channel is an acceptable alternative. Although I am not a lawyer, I would like to express my surprise that neither I nor homeowners adjacent to me were directly notified of the proposed amendment and public hearing in view of the fact that the same has such a direct impact upon the value of my property and that of adjacent homeowners. For the above reasons I object to the proposed amendment to the previously approved conditional use permit. Accordingly, I respectfully request that you reject the amend- ment or, alternatively, cause the same to be further amended to satisfy the concerns which I have expressed above as, failing which, the same would have a substantial negative impact upon the enjoyment of and the value of my property. Yours truly, W.S. McGREGOR INVESTMENTS LTD. William S. McGregor WSM:jw Attachment CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE .NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Arnendment #0 \0TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing; will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of ':rr amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot tPntative tract reap to add one residential lot ar.d revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 DU/AC with a drainage-way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned >_sidential, •naximurn 7 DU/AC with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country "Irrb on the south sidr` of Mariposa Ilrive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more •artir'ul..iriv dniCrlbes'f is: -NPN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 --1 r-%67r.TC __4 �; off\ 4 l _ •� Ili r / / 7 t �\\� `-� I � : r �t� �t / i.•� ` \I � ` �l Q)uI1\•` \`\` // �` .. \ I 1vluA • - 'AZ \ `� t ; \ 1 CITY •,,, r (`.•mar \ n � ` ••.I'-' PLJ�11C Hearn,,; .kill be hr!II -,rrr TneSday, February 7, 1984, at 7:0A P.\t.in the Council h ry at P.ikri ncs,`ri —itv Hall. 11-510 Frrd Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, v;i:ch n—e .rn•I p!;c^ all rnterr-• ted orrsons are invited to attend and be heard. li:\,MON A. DIAZ, Secretary City of Palen I)esert, California L!SH: Desert Post 1,tnu7n 2 19N4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1984 i Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve ngs as stated in the staff report of December 20, 1983. Carried ly 5-0.y missioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to adopt Comm• sion Resolution No. 929, approving CUP 23-83 with 8 machines to or the ar de area and a 6 month trial period. Carried unanimously 5-0. ntinued Case os. C/Z 10-83 and TT 19775 - LEWIS HOMES OF LIFORNIA, App t request for approval a change of zone from O.S. to R- 10,000 and a 23 lot t tative tract map for 6 acres nerally located on the rth side of Haystack Road tween Highway 74 and Porto Avenue. Mr. Diaz explained that staff is reques • g a continuance in order to review information received with the city attorney. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded b mmissioner Crites, to continue e ruary , unanimously 5-0. E. Case Nos. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment 01) - SILVER SPUR E ASSOCIATES AND SUN-RAY ENGINEERING, Applicant fj Request for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 40 single family lots in the PR-7, D f and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the 4 south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. Mr. Diaz reviewed the revised tentative tract map and the revisions proposed. ! Staff recommended approval. Commissioner Crites asked staff if the applicant was aware of the hillside ordinance and if he would be meeting all its regulations. Staff replied affirmative. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. LARRY SPICER, representative of Silver Spur Associates, 49-200 Mariposa Drive, gave the background to this project and explained the advantages to the amendments proposed. In reviewing the concerns expressed in letters received, he explained that the 16th tee would probably not be moved. He described what lots would have their views obscured and noted that development in that area was always a possibility. Mr. Spicer briefly explained the location and impacts of the storm channel. He also described the elevations in certain portions of the development. Commissioner Crites asked Mr. Spicer if premium prices were paid for cul-de-sac lots with a view. Mr. Spicer replied that they did. Commissioner Crites asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. MR. PHILIP CRACKO, Sherman Oaks, representing Chuck Craigs of 73-364 Poinciana, listed a number of serious issues some of which were. 1) hazards of tee locations, and 2) property value. He requested a continuance in order to give the property owners and Ironwood Country Club Association an opportunity to discuss and study this matter together. A count was taken of haw many people were present to speak in opposition of this -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 7, 1984 case and being that there were approximately 25 people, the commission felt that perhaps a continuance would be in order to give the applicant an opportunity to satisfy the concerns of all the property owners present at the meeting. 1 Mr. Spicer noted that this request was only an amendment and did feel that the amendment would be an improvement to the original proposal. He felt that since all the drainage and geology issues were measured and presented correctly no continuance is necessary. Chairman Wood announced that the commission would like to see all the issues worked out between the property owners and the applicant, therefore, would like a one month continuance. Mr. Spicer agreed but was optimistic in resolving the problems. MR. DAVE KELM, Surry B.C., Canada, spoke on behalf of F. David Gooding (letter received), who was concerned with the destruction of his view from his home, and also the hazards which may arise from the relocation of the 16th tee. Mr. Kelm felt there were some questions unanswered and also requested a continuance. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to continue this matter to March 6, at 7:00 p.m. Carried unanimously 5-0. A FIVE MINUTE RECESS F. Case No. PM 18764 - CARVER MANAGEMENT CO., Applicant Request for approval of a parcel creating nine (9) parcels or sale, financing and/or leasing purposes on a PC (2) ( ned District Commercial) zoned property approved for a s pping center located at the southeast corner of Coun Club Drive and Monterey Avenue. Mr. Diaz review d the staff report and recommended approval. Mr. McClellan not an addition to Condition No. 15 to read: "If median is installed by applican reimbursement shall be made by property owners north of Country Club Drive west of Monterey, when that property (or properties) is (are) developed for l4 the ost." Chairman Wood opened th public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. STAN MORSE, 73-25 El Paseo, agreed to all the conditions of approval and was present to answer a y questions the commission might have. Chairman Wood asked if anyone prese t wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION of this case. MR. BOB RITCHEY, 4349 Sugar oaf Ct., noted that the conditions of approval for a precise plan on this pr 'ect would be carried forward. Chairman Wood closed the public hearing d asked for the pleasure of the commission. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Comm sioner Erwood, to approve the findings as presented by staff. Carried unanimously 5- . Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commi loner Erwood, to adapt Planning Commission Resolution No. 930, approving M 18764, subject to conditions as amended. Carried unanimously 5-0. G. Case No. PM 19896 - COOK-HOVLEY STREET PROPERTIES, Applicant -5- X'� Mr. S Mrs. John Bowen 73-440 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 February 15, 1984 Planning Commission City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: In October, 1983 we received a notice from the Palm Desert Planning Commission regarding a public hearing on the proposed development of property directly across from us on Mariposa. We attended this meeting as we are definitely interested in the development in our vicinity. We were favourably impressed with the proposed plans for the development and the architectural design of the homes . We were the only homeowners who attended this meeting, where the Planning Commission approved the project. We were taken by surprise that our Association 8 were taking a stand to delay this project. We had not been informed of any meeting regarding this action by our Association 8 . We attended the February 7, 1984 meeting and as you know the project was delayed for 30 days. It seemed all those who attended the February 7 meeting were in favour of this negative action. A show hands was asked for regarding the negative, however, a show of hands was not requested for those in favour of the project. The enclosed letter is also urging those who wish to protest to attend the February 17 meeting. We will not be able to attend this meeting and would like to state our position regarding the positive aspect of this project. Sincerely, Do or Bowen) John Bowen February 9 , 1984 D I Mr. Ralph Wood, Chairman City Planning Commission Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Silver Spur Hearing 2-7-84 in re Tract `*19&4b`; : Dear Mr. Wood: Please consider my remarks in your considerations for approval of subject tract plans at Ironwood Country Club. I have had an opportunity to study lot plats and home designs proposed for subject tract. Home plans exceed presently built homes in design, quality and size. Open spacing of 1' units per acre far surpasses past building density of 7 units per acre. The planned development can only increase the value of surrounding and nearby homes . The biggest proportion of the land to be developed has been staked and designated as future development for several years . Owners of homes adjacent to the planned development knew at the time of purchase that additional future homes would be placed on these lots . In fact, the writer is so impressed with the new development plans that he has requested a right to purchase a lot and home when they are offered. It is the type of development a family could use as a permanent residence, thus adding to the com- munity of Palm Desert. I sincerely hope for an approval from the Commission. Sincerely, �i F . M. Stevenson 73-315 Boxthorn Ln. Palm Desert, CA 92260 • i AT.st\? R. TALT ATTORNEY AT LAW 61S SOUTH FLOWER STREET • SUITE 806 LOB ANGEL CALIFORNIA 80017 (213) 026.5829 • _.: February 17, 1984 City of Palm Desert Attn: Mr. Ramon A. Diaz Secretary Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California Re: Case Nos. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 Amendment No. 1 Gentlemen: We recently purchased a home at 73-372 Poinciana Place . in Ironwood. This area is especially attractive due to its interesting view. At the time of the purchase, I was advised that there would be some further development, but I was not advised that it would extend into the area where lots 34 through 40 are now proposed in the amendment. In addition to partly destroying the view, it appears that the tee for the 16th hole would have to be moved in order to protect any homes built on proposed lots 39 and 40. Such a relocation is apt to place flying golf balls in the recreation area immediately adjacent to our home as well as into the home itself. This area will be used not only by us , but by our young grandchildren, who are expected to multiply. The thought of their being subjected to the hazards of hard hit golf balls is very disquieting. We spent two years searching for a location having the aesthetic and safety features of our location in its present condition. There is a substantial hill across from our residence and a drainage area between the hill and our residence. I am told that during storms this hill is capable of collecting sub- stantial amounts of water, which is then drained off in the drainage area. A portion of the proposed development lies in the path of this drainage area, suggesting the possibility of erosion of the elevated site on which our home is situated as well as hazard to the proposed new homes. City of Palm Desert Attn: Mr. Ramon A. Diaz February 17, 1984 Page Two Re: Case Nos. TT 19640 and CIP 21-83 Amendment No. 1 I am told by my neighbors that they all paid substantial pre- miums for their property because of the view afforded in that area, and we certainly did. A continuation of that price trend generates higher property tax revenues for the community without any additional attendant services. Many people, not just our neighbors , come to view the beautiful area in which these lots are now sought to be located. So far as I have been able to gather, there is no public urgency for the addition of seven more residences in the valley. On the other hand, the continuance of the present natural beauty is beneficial to both private and public interests. I respectfully request that you deny the amendment insofar as it seeks to add lots 34 through 40. Respecfully submitted, Alan R. Talt ART/blm cc. The Honorable Walter Snyder February 20 ,1984 City of Palm Desert ��=+`\ IT Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred '.Daring Drive Palm Desert, California E1gV1RoN('1ENTAL SErv,r^)Ty CF PALM GESERT Attention: Mr. Ramon k. Diaz , Secretary Dear :firs: Re : Case Nos. TT 19640 and CUP 21 -83 (amendment No. 1 ) de are the owners of the residental property at 49-245 Quercus Lane in Ironwood Country Club. We purchased this property in November 1978. Since these lots were in. a prime and desireable area, a lottery was held and drawing high in the lottery 0io .9) we had one of the first picks. We chose Lot #114 as it has a lovely view of the golf course and lies directly across from the 16th tee. While we are not against development at Ironwood; we would not have ..gotten our property if we were , we are against the proposed development upon lots 34 to 40. Not only would it affect our view, it necessitates the relocation of the natural drainage channel. Our greatest concern however is the relocation of the 16th tee . As a golfing family with four sons who also play you are taking away one of the finest playing holes on the -:or`,h course and subjecting our homes and pool area to noise and safety hazards . It does seem you should give careful consideration to the objections being expressed by us and other homeowners in this area as we were never directly notified of the changes in this location which will have such a profound and negative impact on the enjoy0ent and value of our homes. Yours Truly Dr. and Mrs. C.T. Kunelis J. K. McArthur A. Shirley McArthur 424 19th NE � _�' � .+. '1 E. Wenatchee, WA 98801 February 29, 1984 :cna,t;ir.� SFHvicES ::Cry CF r:1Lh1 Dt.`ERT PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION PALM DESERT, CA 92260 Dear Sirs: We are property owners at 73-488 Poinciana Place in Ironwood. Our condominium is located on the southeast corner of Mariposa Drive and Poinciana Place directly adjacent across Mariposa to proposed building lots 7 , 8 and 9 of the Silver Spur Associates new development. We purchased our condominium in February 1981 through the Ironwood Sales office. Mr. Larry Hauser was the real estate broker. Our condominium presently has an excellent view of practically all of the Ironwood South golf course and good portion of the North course. The view was a major reason for buying at this location and we paid a premium of S30,000.00 for our unit over comparable locations without a similar view. We were told by Larry Hauser of the Ironwood Sales office that the adjacent lots would eventually be developed and condominiums built. We understood we would have to give up a part of our view but were assured would still see a good portion of the golf courses over the roof line of the new homes and thus still retain a premium view. At that time the lots were already rough graded to elevation. Mr. Hauser told us the existing grade would be the elevation of the new construction. Based on this, we obtained a 2 x 4 and Mr. Hauser held it vertically about 16 feet in the air to approximate the roof height of a new home while I sighted across the top from our patio. We did this for several sightings on Lots 8 and 9. Lots 17 and 18 were also in our view line to the South course but being lower elevation we were assured that construction on them would not affect our view. By doing this sighting Mr. Hauser satisfied us we would still have a good view of the golf courses after the new construction and on this basis made the sale to US. We are now finding that the developer is filling and raising the elevation of Lots 8 , 9, 17 and 18 which are the lots in front of us in our line of sight. Lot 9, the main lot which will be affecting our view is receiving an additional fill of at least 8 feet. When the new homes are built on it we believe they will completely cut off our view of the South golf course. Lots 8, 17 and 18 are also being filled and raised in elevation to a lesser degree. The other lots along Mariposa Drive - Lots I through 7 are following the original elevations and contour and receiving no fill . We believe Lots 8, 9, 17 and 18 are receiving much additional filling by the developer in order to make them even more valuable. They are already golf course view lots and would not need the extra elevation to sell at a premium. In so doing , the developer is taking away the view that we had been promised by the Ironwood Sales office that we would retain. We believe that mis-representation has occurred. We also believe we will have a large diminution in our property value because the new higher elevations of Lots 8, 9, 17 and 18 will practically eliminate our view contrary to what the Ironwood Sales office promised us at the time we purchased our property. We respectfully request the Planning Commission to disallow the previously approved conditional use permit to the developer and the requested amendment. We regret that we are not able to be present at this meeting. Very truly yours, f � n J. K. McArthur A'. Shirley Mc7 hu JKM/bss CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED SINCE LAST HEARING i i I I IRONWOOD March 15, 1984 Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Wearing Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear .Ray: I am in the process of preparing for the April 3 continued hearing for Amended Tentative Tract 19640. I have itemized what I perceive are the new objections raised by the opponents at the public hearing on March 6, and I wish to offer my responses to you in advance so that Staff will have time to evaluate them for the Planning Commill sion. They are as follows : 1. Legal Notice. All owners appearing on the tax rolls who own property not only within the 300 foot distance requirement but also many more with property beyond this boundary who might also be affected by the development, have been identified. Address labels have been preparec and provided to Staff. Area Q and C.U.P. 1382. The legal opinion I have received is that the adootion of the Palm Desert General Plan in 1975 makes the General Plan the controlling document. The relevance of C.U. P. 1382, approved by the County Planning Commission on March 8, 1972, to Tentative b'ap No. 19640 is subject to further question because of Condition Nc . j 10 which states that "This permit shall become null and void on June 30, 1982 as to any undeveloped portion of the project. " 3. Disclosure of Potential Development in Area Q. Some opponents have asserted that they were told by an Ironwood salesman that there would never be any development south of the sixteenth fairway in Area Q. (A portion of Lots 32 to 39 lie in Area Q) . I can only say that if such statements were made, they were speculations made in good faith because the homes were offered for sale well before anyone knew the Palm Valley Channel would be built and the Water District would trade this land for needed flood control work in Deep Canyon. IRONWOOD 49-200 kAARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 346.0551 i Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert March 14, 1984 Page -2- If a prudent buyer of a home in Tract 5565-3 on the end of Poinciana Place or Quercus Lane wanted to investigate whether development in Area Q was legally possible, he could have referred to the Palm Desert General Plan which clearly shows "medium density residential , 5 to 7 units per acre. More easily, he could read the Department of Real Estate Final Subdivision Public Report, File No. 42401, page 3, fifth paragraph , which reads as follows: "You will also become a member of the Ironwood Master Maintenance Association, an incorporated association. This Association is proposed to eventually include 1801 residential lots in a location described as areas 0, E, H, J, K, L, P and Q, of the map: included as Exhibit A to the Conditional Use Permit No. 1382. This association has the right to levy assessments against you for maintenance of Mariposa Drive and Portola Avenue meridian, for operation of security gates, and for operation of other security services in this area. There is no assurance that all 1801 residential lots will be completed as planned." 4. Elevation Lots 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18 of Tentative Tract 19640. The Planning Commission received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. McArthur and i heard testimony from Mr. Willard, alleging that the elevations of i these lots was being substantially increased to the detriment of their views. The approved grading plan and tentative map clearly indicate only nominal changes, as follows: Pad Elevations Prior Elevation Grading Plan Lot No. Low Point High Point 11-3-83 Change Ft. 8 515 518 516 +1 to -2 9 510 515 515 +5 to 0 17 504 506 506 +2 to 0 18 504 507 506 +2 to -1 Mr. and Mrs. McArthur' s concerns may be somewhat mitigated when they realize that there will be at least 20 feet of separation between the new homes on these lots and that their home is still 9 to 10 feet higher than Lots 8 and 9. In the case of Mr. Willard, his home is more than 500 feet distant from Lot 8. At elevation 522.6, it is doubtful that he would be able to see over the roof of a home on Lot 8 even if it could be lowered. Both Mr. Willard and Mr. and Mrs. McArthur acknowledge they knew that homes would be built on Mariposa Drive before they purchased. • Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert March 15 , 1984 Page -3- 6. Drainage. Our engineer, Leonard Czarnowski , made a presentation to the Planning Commission and his analysis was supported by the City Engineer, Barry McClellan. I believe the foregoing facts and analysis create for the Planning Commission a reasonable basis for approving this amendment. In addition, this proposed amendment is clearly a superior land plan to the previously approved tentative tract map. While bath plans contain 39 residential lots , the amended plan provides lower density, more open space and a wider sixteenth fairway. Sincerely, R.R. L.. cer Preside RLS: sb Enclosure: Public Report No. 42401 IRONWOOD CE March 27, 1984 Mr. Dick 'Willard 73-477 Irontree Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Willard: I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss your concerns about the grading of lots on Mariposa Drive, this area being a portion of Tentative Tract 19640. You pointed out that while you were advised at the time of your purchase from the previous owner (Mr. Ward) that these lots would be developed, you assumed the lot elevations would remain essentially unchanged. Further, you mentioned that your "view corridor" is mostly over Lot 8 and partly over Lot 9 of Tract 19640. In reviewing the rough grading plan together, I believe you agreed with me that Lot 9 has received fill varying from five feet in depth at the north edge to zero at the south edge and that Lot 8 received one foot of fill on the north and was cut two feet on the south. Thus, the average change on Lot 9 is 2.5 feet higher and on Lot 8, 0.5 feet lower. However, after I talked with you our civil engineer pointed out that he has lowered Lot 9 by 1 .5 feet and Lot 8 by 1 .0 feet as indicated on the precise grading plan dated MSarch 6, 1984, to improve the driveway design. Thus, the new elevations of Lots 8 and 9 are 515.0 and 513.5, respectively. We then discussed that when a house is built on Lot 8, its roof line would be substantially higher than the line of sight from your home on Irontree Drive which is about 550 feet distant to the northwest. If the elevation of your home is 522.6 as in- dicated d o n the to plan and the elevation of Lot 8 is 515 feet, c plot then an 18 foot roof height on Lot 3 would be at elevation 533, or more than 10 feet above your floor level . Thus, it seems to IRONWOOD 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 346-0551 • ,1 Mr. Dick Willard March 28, 1984 Page -2- Y me that lowering Lots 8 and 9 to even below the previous elevations would not be especially helpful . Nevertheless, I did want you to know that Lots 8 and 9 are at least somewhat lower than you thought they would be. Again, thank you for the courtesy of a meeting. ncerely, R. L. Spicer President RLS: sb cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert IRONWOOD iu'.AR 2 91984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM CESERT March 27, 1984 Mr. Dick Willard 73-477 Irontree Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Willard: I enjoyed the opportunity to meet with you today to discuss your concerns about the grading of lots on Mariposa Drive, this area being a portion of Tentative Tract 19640. You pointed out that while you were advised at the time of your purchase from the previous owner (Mr. Ward) that these lots would be developed, you assumed the lot elevations would remain essentially unchanged. Further, you mentioned that your "view corridor" is mostly over Lot 8 and partly over Lot 9 of Tract 19640. In reviewing the rough grading plan together, I believe you agreed with me that Lot 9 has received fill varying from five feet in depth at the north edge to zero at the south edge and that Lot 8 received one foot of fill on the north and was cut two feet on the south. Thus, the average change on Lot 9 is 2.5 feet higher and on Lot 8, 0.5 feet lower. However, after I talked with you our civil engineer pointed out that he has lowered Lot 9 by 1 .5 feet and Lot 8 by 1.0 feet as indicated on the precise grading plan dated March 6, 1984, to improve the driveway design. Thus, the new elevations of Lots 8 and 9 are 515.0 and 513.5, respectively. We then discussed that when a house .is built on Lot 8, its roof line would be substantially higher than the line of sight from your home on Irontree Drive which is about 550 feet distant to the northwest. If the elevation Of your home is 522.6 as in- dicated on the plot plan and the elevation of Lot 8 is 515 feet, then an 18 foot roof height on Lot 8 would be at elevation 533, or more than 10 feet above your floor level . Thus, it seems to IRONWOOD 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 346-0551 Mr. Dick Willard March 28, 1984 Page -2- me that lowering Lots 8 and 9 to even below the previous elevations would not be especially helpful . Nevertheless, I did want you to know that Lots 8 and 9 are at least somewhat lower than you thought they would be. Again, thank you for the courtesy of a meeting. ncerely, ILI R. L. Spicer President RLS:sb cc: Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert a• THE DELMA CORPORATION March 22 , 1984 Cl7V' Cs ?yi;, DS_RT"' � I, Palm Desert Planning Commission Palm Desert, California 92260 RE: Silver Spurs Proposed Plat of 40 Residential. Lots in Ironwood Gentlemen : Approximately three years ago my wife and I acquired an Ironwood condominium at 73471 Irontree Drive . In addition to my other business responsibilities , I an, a California licensed general contractor and one of the divisions of my company .is also a licensed general contractor . Because of this tackground and experience , :[ was concerned and inquired about the undeveloped property along t•tariposa . I was informed by the sales staff that. there was a plan to build residences there in the future and that , while some obstruction might occur , it would be minimal . I agreed with t:llat. observation , and we went ahead with our purchase . As a matter fact , I liked the idea so much I put my name on a waiting list: :`. or the purchase of those new homes . My concern in writing you is that the developer has raised the •grade substantially above the grade I saw originally--I would estimate some 12 to 14 feet . I feel this is unfair to the property owners including myself who will have their views seriously impacted , Certainly it goes without saying the values of our properties will be impacted adversely as well . As a developer, I am puzzled as to why the pads were raised in the first place since the slope of the terrain provided excellent views for the new homes . The increase :in height is unnecessary and it is unwarranted . Please be assured I am not opposed to the development , but I feel :in the interest of reasonableness and fairness , your commissicr, Should reevaluate any approvals given the Silver Spurs which raise the pacts to such unnecessary height ht and reduce them at least ten feet . Thank you for your attention. Sincerely yoRxrs , c Robert J . Z nn.grabe 18800 Delaware Street Suite 1100 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 7141842.7724 I i H . L. SWARTZENDRUBER P.O. BOX 16206 WICHITA, KANSAS 67216 PH. 316-522-1842 March 9, 1984 -j= — �;;e City Planning Commission Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California Subject: Case #TT19640 & #CUP21-83 Gentlemen: A golf course could be compared to a family. Like children, each hole has a different personality and character. Holes 15, 16, 17 and 18 of the back nine on the north course of Ironwood Country Club excel in per and and are prized have very strong character. They are excellent holes to play by every golf player of Ironwood. The highlights of 16 are the tee boxes located on the mountain and a ridge running perpendicular across the fairway that is a challenge for the golfer to drive over. If the golfer fails to drive over the ridge, he is penalized with a blind shot to the green. If he drives over the ridge, he is rewarded with a relatively short shot to the green. If an errant shot finds its way into the wash, the golfer has a different set of problems. Number 17 has high elevated tees with the challenge of driving between a natural rock knoll in the middle of the fairway and the mountain extending into the fairway on the right. If the golfer is successful in driving be- tween these two natural obstacles and over the ridge between them, he is rewarded with an opportunity to put his second shot onto the green. If he fails to clear these natural obstacles, it is not possible to reach the green in two, and a resulting high score is to be expected. The 18th hole is a long par 5 that taxes the average golfer's ability. Three excellent shots to the green on a wide fairway can reward the golfer with par. Shorter shots with the passibility of going into the lake may cause the golfer to run up a high score. The substantial changing of these three holes to accommodate the building of fourteen additional houses on the mountainside of 16 and 17 fairways is ob- jectable to this golfer and homeowner. Page 2 To leave both tees on 16 in their present locations by eliminating house site 40 would reduce the damage to this hole. However, to remove the ridge and replace it with a valley for water to drain down the fairway will reduce the quality of the hole dramatically. It changes the 16th fairway from a beautiful exciting fairway to a drainage canal subject to the whims of the weather. On 17, the natural rock knoll, mountain to its right and the ridge between them would be leveled and replaced with #30, #31, and #32 house sites. The five house sites on the right side of 17 will replace three-fourths of the width and length of the present fairway. The tees will need to be moved a substantial distance to the left and the natural obstacles outlined above removed. This will change the present fairway from a beautiful challenging golf hole to "just another hole." The above relocation of the 17th fairway will be at the expense of the 18th that parallels it. The approximate 200 feet taken off the right side of the 17th fairway will squeeze the 17th and 18th fairways together. At the Home- owners meeting on Friday, February 17, 1984, held in the City Hall, Mr. Spicer said they were considering adding a three-par hole between the pres- ent 17th and 18th. If this was done, it would reduce the 18th hole from a five-par to a four-par hole. This would reduce the present short par 70 north course to a par 69. I object to such changes as it would reduce the quality of the course. While playing 15, 16, 17 and 18, I have seen coyotes (two one time crossing the 17th fairway) , quail can be heard or seen on most rounds, and a pair of roadrunners were observed just off the cart path after playing the 17th green last week. Numerous other animals and birds are heard and seen on every round. The proposed fourteen houses will eliminate most of this enjoyment. Holes 15, 16, 17 and 18 are the most beautiful and exciting holes on the north course. I object to the changes in these holes to accommodate the creation of seventeen additional house sites #16 and #25 through #40, I do not object to changes which improve or enhance the area. In this case, it reduces the quality of one-third of the back nine of the north course. When I purchased our condominium at 73-448 Mariposa in February 1981, the sales agent for Ironwood, Bill Ramsey, told me there would be fairway houses built across the street where the pads had been rough-graded. There would be no more building beyond that area. The twenty-four additional house sites, #12 through #16 and #22 through #40, are a misrepresentation of what he told me. I would ask the Planning Commission to consider the following: 1. Substantial changes that will need to be made in the golf course which would reduce its quality, personality and character; Page 3 2. This club member and owner was told by an Ironwood agent there would be no houses built in the area now proposed to create house sites 012 through #16 and #22 through #40; 3. The environmental change created by these additional house sites; along with the other problems that have come before you and deny the subject. Very truly yours, H. L. Swartzendruber HLS:vmb (ret . ) 3/22/84cit ° a City ofapalmgDeseerrtBsion FIVViRo 2b -984 City Hall Palm Desert, CA 9226o C/ry oFP4 o f HVI 71 Gentlemen: per the controversy at Ironwood Country Club, and the Silver Spur Association request for almost unlimited expansion of single family home lots, the emasculation of a beautiful golf course, and a desire to destroy the natural beauty and habitat of the mountain areas surrounding the 16th & 17th fairways, I respectfully ask that your Commission deny all segments of. the Silver Spur request . Not only has Silver Spur falsified their building programs to homeowners like myself, as to all future developements, but I feel they are actually in "contempt" of your own Commission. Despite the Commission having delayed a decision for the past 2 months, Silver, Spur has gone merrily on it 's way bull-dozing, surveying, etc ., as if nothing can stop their expansion at all. I sincerely hope your Commission will unanimously disapprove this autocratic and greedy display of power, as generated by the officers of Silver Spur, and their Eastern manipulators . Very truly yours, -" b&, P,-i; A e R. Blumenfel VANCE C. MAPE 73-163 Silverleaf Court Palm Desert, CA a r Planning Commission Palm Desert .r. „.a City of Palm Desert, California ' c; A, s: =lrt Gentlemen: I am a homeowner in Ironwood Country Club. The address of my home is 73-163 Silverleaf Court. I attended the Planning Commission meeting on March 6, 1984, wherein the proposed Tentative Tract Map No. 19640 showing some forty lots to be developed by Silver Spur Associates was discussed. The outcome of the meeting, as I understand, was that property owners within a radius of three hundred feet of the proposed development would be re-noticed to conform to the Palm Desert requirements and that the exact status of Area Q would be determined before further action was taken. A thirty-day continuance was authorized by the Commission for these purposes. One item not discussed, but very important to all Ironwood homeowners, was the fact that if this development is allowed to go through, holes 16, 17 and 18 of the North Course would have to be materially changed. One of the major considerations of home buyers in Ironwood was the existence of the golf course and the homeowners' use of same. In fact, each homeowner has a vested interest in the golf course and the vast majority are members of the golf club and have paid substantial membership fees to join the club and continuing monthly dues for the use of the courses. They truly do have a vested interest in the courses. The current plans do show to some extent the realignment of the sixteenth hole, which is a definite down grading of the existing hole, but nothing as to what happens to the seventeenth and eighteenth holes. The vast majority of homeowners, ninety percent of whom are not perma- nent residents, have no knowledge of this proposed development by Silver Spur Associates inasmuch as they have not received a notice, and consequently have not been able to express their opinions on this development for your consideration. The golf courses are important to all of us at Ironwood. Those homeowners, some 200 as I understand, who rent their homes through Silver Spur are obligated as a condition of renting to be members of the Country Club as well as the tennis facilities. Inasmuch as the plans do not show what happens to the golf course and because of the extreme importance of the courses to the Ironwood homeowners and their vested interest therein, it is my opinion that all Ironwood homeowners should be noticed of this proposed development prior to proceeding further. It further appears to me that the development of Lots 25 through 40 is being forced to the detriment of the natural terrain that exists. Why carve up a mountain with its natural beauty for the benefit of a few lots? As late as last year I was told by Roger Lightfoot, a member of the Ironwood Sales Staff, that there would be no further development of homes in Ironwood other than the area now being developed east of Portola at the extension of Irontree and the lots along Mariposa which I understood to be Lots 1 through 24 showing on the Tentative Tract Map. By this letter, I am urging the Commission to take into consideration the rights of all Ironwood homeowners to express their opinion of this develop- ment prior to taking further action due to the fact of the great importance of the golf courses to Ironwood and the fact that the Tentative Tract Map does not address itself to the severe dislocation of the seventeenth and eighteenth holes. Arbitrarily redesigning three holes on a golf course without notifying or con- sulting the homeowners is a grave injustice, particularly when the existence of the fine golf courses was a prime reason of most owners in purchasing at Ironwood and is a material factor in maintaining the value of their homes in I ronwood. In the interest of time, perhaps the Homeowners' Association could be contacted by the Planning Commission so that they could circulate their members for their reaction to this development and the results given to the Commission for their consideration. Yours truly, Vance C. Mape i � r VCM: jm a ri Vr� V`VryOVMENTAt SEHYICCS March 23, 1984 DESERT Planning Commission Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen : I am a homeowner in Ironwood Country Club. My home address is 73-463 Iron Tree Drive. On March 6, 1984, 1 attended the Planning Commission meeting where the pro- posed tentative Tract Map No. 19640, which showed approximately 40 lots to be developed by Silver Spur Associates, was discussed. As I understand, the outcome of the meeting was that property owners within a radius of 300' of the proposed development would be re-noticed to conform to the Palm Desert requirements and that the exact status of Area Q would be determined before further action was taken. A 30-day continuance was authorized by the Com- mission for these purposes. The vast majority of homeowners, 90% of whom are not permanent residents, have no knowledge of this proposed development by Silver Spur Associates, inasmuch as they have not received a notice, and consequently, have not been able to express their opinions on this development for your consideration. By this letter, I am urging the Commission to consider the rights of all Ironwood homeowners to express their opinions on this development prior to taking further action, due to the fact of the great importance of the golf courses to Ironwood, and the fact that the tentative Tract Map does not address itself to the severe dislocation of the 17th and 18th holes. Arbitrarily redesigning three holes on a golf course without notifying or consulting the homeowners is a grave injustice, particularly when the existence of the fine golf course was a prime reason that most owners purchased at Ironwood and is a material factor in maintaining the value of their homes in Ironwood. Niore important, to me as an individual resident, is the exaggerated land fill which Silver Spur has placed on Lot Numbers 8 and 9. Lot dumber 9 has a pad elevation at its Northwesterly corner of approximately 13 feet above street grade. The residence which Silver Spur intends to build on this Lot will have a ridge elevation of 18 feet, or approximately 33' above street grade. Surrounding trees will eventually exceed even this. All of the above will seriously impact the value of our view in a negative manner, for now we will lose our view of the South Course, for which we paid a premium. Planning Commission March 23, 1984 Page two No one told us that these Lots would be "filled" in this manner and we strongly object to its affect. In the interest of time, perhaps the Homeowners' Association could be contacted by the Planning Commission, so that they could circulate among their members, for their reaction to this development, and the results given to the Commission for their consideration. Sincerelx, i Peter A. Devlin PAD Ivc O LIVING DESERT QO�yti DEBRIS BASIN J` ,-- BURIEC SLOPE /D PROJECT/ON 'rVJ. ' f LAJ � . w - MOUNTAINS i i t \-.. T/?4 Al/n/G !{E r LOCATION MAP �: na 0 g�1/s? a aRRzsse ryj�t , POST OFFICE BOX 1977.PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92261 - i ' rr Q... ATiEF FTE • KNOYiN inlSllFrlt;ENi AOORESS h—�d�f11 ND SalCH F:UhiEiER �'—�J ' �03 101A1' — 1. 1984 REF6SEp, �O-viKk-- C` ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES n `� �D CITY OF PALM DESERT RTC— C1Ci�A[S April 19, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-•83 (Amendment #0 NOTICE- IS HEREBY GIVEN that: a public hearing will be Held before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert to consider an appeal by E.C. & BARBARA J. MALONE and SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, of a Planning Commission approval amending a previously approved conditional use permit: and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) on 27.5 acres located In the PR.J (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./aere with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, rnaximum 7 d.u,./acre w.ith hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, south of: Mariposa Drive at the <ssterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly don-scribed as: APN 631-270-052 and portions. of 631-270410,016,051. lit on \�i-��`�Z.., � , 1� 1 r 1, 1�1 ��\, ��`\ \� y•"r' .___ i r.•Y 'Ia I U CITY SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 10, 1984, at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chamber at Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California, at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review in the department of environmental services at city hall. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post April 20, 1984 Am q n i - z j 8 \e' R— I + ++ j co r ,rp!L 5!ESTA TkA:I SVN C'r" ��� ✓ H• X/ j / I •Y SliVEy MOAN TRAIL TRAIL yJ< q'P�'\y � R - 3 ` E--- � BEN_D���_�� 29 28 '_ — —_ _ _ {- s.pr.� .w o.oiw c �.s. — .•m-�-m �� ` r /' E''� c�"s3:=•. re .�- K9OAcD--RAIL LJ _ H'" .�. I LF-GEN0 ° tv R— I . 't e°P� ' ZONE ACREA, D.U. ?E! - AG. TOTAL 0U %'RJR N---ARR'1W—�5 TRAIL �� � , I ff''ff 5 11rT.�� `FR.-_j._l ' R-I 19. 14• 4.4- EEATHi .�-".•22 9 N o R-I''1'r+ 791P.7 2.2 115.52 '� / '� I R•2"'} A4.E6 6.2� 2T5.Zb '45 _ ;25 . P•-2++A 132.33 8.7 1151.10 }I T ` t\c.,, R-3 63.bI 35 292,'S v —' //--- ---R; G ✓ 1 • ! . " ✓ TOTAL 5'j55.!O w - i • e45 R Ai l- f I k- -244 /c I p pG o \\\\ R — 3 %j SEE C Z 293 • n w 63/-27 T C. .a- ,eov,,sQS S. //2 of SEC. 32, T,55 R.6E. Y a (275) PM 9: 5 � r5l52) "=400' W G dTAc 1. Ar. 7/ 2, 1. W.± /12Ac yY8r_ as a, a 4� '4- .. � _. -[ ..x -� l L • .. (\J O ftra 4134,1 /3 156 t:i: 1 4�l J sir `J S � 741Aj 5U_`2 ' W p/ r 57 Aci •� STi7RM — - Y� % ' uses Ac t 974Ac. CHN:l::ti'IEL k' -4i 4e' S ``N'�'l/:%�� 5 <Da9r. ,.` CV/ O �.• ���..i�}+ 4> 6 5 •94.7 _ r6s 5 4 - c d 7 n oo 4/,or �K f. l9 29.30_ �/l•1 7"raCs.. ..� -� ad 42 PG-4 3 TI /-f�31 ✓"7,r, .Y.O 7*J 41 43.F46 a PG.7 M.B 78166 67 Tract No. 50 52/ " _, 46 Fg 55 Tlvo, 1:". 505? 1L4 Tb, '66-ST 4 l i3. 1�29 is 36, i / )9j 45 47 - 49 . .. Z. a' [ r.., RI S ;,:'v '+9 0, 47, 48 76 6/ <..c• v'd y 91" /.79 43, 4l i so- ' + 5c Pc6z ERaI.')f 'QG'PJ?'1, rl 4p /. t - APR27'U t134y2 d e ..I POST OFFICE BOX 1977,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 82261 - 1 i984 RE76'RI'0 TO SERDER ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT ATTEMPTED-NOT KNOWN j INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS ' �135 I �Io►.� 6� R ---_ . YACANi SED C-Al EXPIRED FOR!'VARD 01:;)�b o April 19, 1934 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL .NOTICE CASE... NOS. rT 19540 and CUP 21-83 (Ameridm(nt ill) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held bedore the City Council of the City of Pah-n Desert to consider an appeal by E.C. & BARBARA J. MALONE and SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, of -.1 Planning Commission ,approval amending a previously approved cond.iti.onal use pern•li.t and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) on 21.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre), PR-7, D (Planned Residential., maximum '7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR,-7 H (Planned Residen'!:iaL, rlaxim".Irl 7 <I- facre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country C:lub, south o: i'Aariposa Drive at the easterly end of: Poinciana 1-Place, more: particularly described as: APPv f3.1-•270-052 and portions of 631.-270-01.0,016,05.1 L � � ./ —fir lOXT<i4 ._' j•% i`1 r;.�'< . f 11 .__._\ G: III- i � ( -.\ �/ �TTa•,'r R���. -___._._I ! - s`� t, f ; L; r '� � i tit `/ ` __ ._ _OR�v��^..• I i.•'F 01 I � � + I Jl •'.. "vim '��—___'_ — M iJTY 1 1 \ SAID public. hearing will be Field on 'Thursday, `Aay 10. 3984, at: 7:01 -PM.. in the Civic: Center Council (::harnber at Palm Desert City 'Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, Calif;>rna ,.at which G-re and place all interested persons Eire invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review .in the department of environmental servicrry; at cily'hall. SHEILA R. GIL_LIGAN, Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post April 20, 1934 hm I POST OFFICE BOX 1977,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92261 { aS`�t ?�r�` �'`L�/ / ATTEiOTE[l NO suck Don & erwin VACANT - 73-555 is REFO&Er� -- Palm De �r�, CA 92260 EYPIREO F�;: l f 41' I f�o 31,98 n'p�fn, 4 L �F PALM S RTFS April 19, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert to consider an appeal by E.C. & BARBARA J. MALONE and SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATE5, of a Planning Commission approval amending a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre )gith hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, south of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010,016,051 FWAIL ot`, II 1�1 �, - 11- III .1 )�` '...... 10� �Kbungy_. C ldb a(Z :ITV SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 10, 1984, at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chamber at Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,.at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review in the department of environmental services at city hall. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post April 20, 1984 Am RRIIP.Nh'ED\ 09$�.wr ®ff sra r.rm SEHUR _ POST OFFICE BOX 1977.PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92291 4TIgJEpf[D HOT KNOWN _ INSUFFICIENT ABORESS ND SUCH ;rU1�i3iER 15 , ' G:•q . REBUS ,._„ �XWAD�ORr�idiU MASS ENVIRDNP:M1ENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALkI DESERT O r POST OFFICE BOX 1977,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92261 REf({R�'Ep SEt DER ATTU TTEP' r h'0 Sllcli g'.s t -- Gene A. P pasco 73-637 Bo thorn .fiiSEp'�------ bd� Palm Des r CA 92260 El � ., J�A,y * . . 31984 Or p At SeRT n April 19, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the City:Council of the City of Palm Desert to consider an appeal by E.C. & BARBARA J. MALONE and SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, of a Planning Commission approval amending a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre With hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, south of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010,016,051 .I --' �--� `_ter_ "-------::.•c -T,'.... v _ J � 11 � ,���— —1 r'PoiT�IL _ .i i\n r:�rr'.. �{• 1 .•---�.` � —•�� i— _�����1��/�� lJ 'If _ I I fat l \\C \ C o J Ill a(Z1 SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 10, 1984, at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chamber at Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,.at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review in the department of environmental services at city hall. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post April 20, 1984 Am ING'9 pp� {{ t SPPh 9 —4. _ H3:_ 2f�\t 1 riO� � D<. - R OOAPR r USES ,ZIP CODE ®$:aW" ®ff :FDaaTl T�c�ci ID =®llo'Qo /9 6� ti a f F' _ POST OFFICE BOX 1977,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92281 i �.P. ED� TO � SERJEll ATTEMPTED NDT KNUIN ENT ADDRESS kq v ` *�S Homo8 J. v' [VACANT NUMBER Fc/111%Al 31984 Palm Des rt, 92260 REFUSEf+ e --�.� pF A AMC Se�v EXPIRED FDIM ?i! oFs /cFs I °TX bR/ INfi9A FRl I _ ' i April 19, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert to consider an appeal by E.C. do BARBARA J. MALONE and SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, of a Planning Commission approval amending a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre With hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, south of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010,016,051 It Oi III— Iti � �/ ``Tx0`a��([_�___� I--Oai s � �� V•, sl 15 j I i •i ),mot \\\Ct, I l\ ,. .... L._..... 711 a(Z 1 �. CITY 1 {I SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 10, 1984, at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chamber at Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,.at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review in the department of environmental services at city hall. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post April 20, 1984 Am / UJ culvbwf' ®ff ny rin= 1MC&✓ <Wno''(b SfNa3pn(+}'� ,I . ,i I i ,-. 2 0 L POST OFFICE BOX 1977,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92261 A T R;FTEpi)T ,d�.�'t. 1F' : . _ --- INSUFFivjETtT°so (' t h No St"1GN J. ; Fs3 VACANT riu... E EXFIRfti FL';.r � e ` Mary Marg re Santoni RT# J` `"' �l Richard S ntLi ``d�3 49-27 Ma ipd'se 6 Palm Des rt, CA 92260 lvUi FNviRo 31964 Can FMP tot SE.fRTfS April 19, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment ftl) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert to consider an appeal by E.C. do BARBARA J. MALONE and SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, of a Planning Commission approval amending a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre), PR-71 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre With hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, south of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010,016,051 ( ( ,r r _ Ar ,� AID;: , s'C ._. _ . I:;i ._�• ... C.% I I / i CITY I rt SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 10, 1984, at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chamber at Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,.at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review in the department of environmental services at city hall. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post April 20, 1984 Am A POST OFFICE BOX 1977,PALM DESERT, 20 CALIFORNIAFORNIA 92281 VIE: 53 9920'5 3M. 0�3/20/S'T - f RETURN 'T'f:l SEENDE.R'- NOT DI'_"I_I�VI:-RAli::l...E AS'ADDRIH.-5iSEi:l:) j 11NAl i...E 'T'O 1 (:IfiLIARI:} J Viera, Don N. Tr Ulerd, Linda K. Tr P.O. Box 8253 Cl`sa� Newport Beach, CA 92660 �� y1 ,APR - 6 1984 ENVIRo'YMENTAL CITY 0r PALIy SERVICES W POST OFFICE BOX 1877,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92281 Antonel l i L Edward A. Antonerun 0. 2330 - e. E. #4016 �'ili' � 2Seattl8112 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT S ?(G�;3ESSED i� �JWKE "0 FGR'IARD I �RETU?'" TO WRITER i POST OFFICE BOX 1677,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 62261 ' Hazard, R. '' , , Jr, 1'r ` Hazard, Clor:)tlly ).. 145 S:ac.iri Life f;iailriirui o,Trc;vll 0 Demrr�r„ ;:0 c4�il:'CYr.' of Fig_, dQ — —_ — yT or . .�iG 3�[ •G•-i 1......... L liar .........................� p �< SF 1"' M oFS �� --- - - --.- - >—._Bs�:19�434 F'tF:Tl.1F P1 _ry. Nl7 F1C)OkL`.3:3 _ 2 POST OFFICE BOX 1977,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92261 MC)VF::[) E F L David M. TR JoAnn C.Family Trust ba s dQ Dr. I '�el Mar, CA 92625 FIC17YV�gON,t.1lry �jnt � ��� �� (1t1Mc7� 3�'a�S. �/3 �'/� L... rcfE March 9,:1984 CITY OF PALM 13CSF-RT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment # 0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing continued from March 6, 1984, and February 7, 1984, will be held before the Palm Desert: Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) to revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u.,/acre), P.F.-7, 1] (Planned Residential, maximum 7 do.l.)'ar..re with a drainage way Overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u.iar..re with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, sough of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana 'Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-01.0, 016, 051 ` ,•' //`�--_i r (0/TAIL -_ � / '�)y(•O�t9i. j . / _i z I I �. {1 .��1�r\\�`T XO N)R[L _.__•-, i l -_D N I V (L\�~!/� I1 I\A ti! `` ..) N'/`��•� eon _ �..`^ i I I i / „ it,'C___� `.: I _.r CITY .:, SAID continued public hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 3, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert., California. At such time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review in the department of environmental services at city hall. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AG T COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1055 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE(619)398.2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT LOWELL O.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER TELLIS CCDEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POWELL REDWINE AND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS PAUL W.NICHOLS May 18, 1984 STEVE D.BUXTON File: 0121.3094 i Ed Malone _011 �Y?1 The Malone Company C/ Cy�� 19p� 9555 Genesee Avenue O,o p4'T-4Z San Diego, California 92121 R1 ABM OSF FRl PS Dear Mr. Malone: In reference to your letter dated April 23, 1984, the District owns the portion of Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian and Section 5, Township 6 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian shown in yellow on your map marked Exhibit A. As the result of the construction of the dike in Deep Canyon by Ironwood Country Club to prevent flood flows from breaking out of the golf course area into the City of Palm Desert, the area west of the dike is protected from major stormwater flows. However, the area is subjected to local runoff from the adjacent mountains. We have no plans on the disposition of this area. Yours very truly, 121 Cowell 0. Weeks Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager—Chief Engineer cc: Ray Diaz City of Palm Desert Larry Spicer 49-300 Mariposa Palm Desert, California 92260 TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY COPY -II .':VEIN, AMENDED ; EN (ATIVE TRACT MAP N0. 19640 - IIIC A PMTIOIJ OF Illy cOOfR HAI°' O'' SEC f1ON lI :.5 a r, E..S 8,9 to m rvfCNER 3.19O1 51 Al E 1'11 O9' l f .�^�V ' G 44 � 1 1 A o.,j�• IRONWOOD MAY 1 0 1984 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERt May 10, 1984 The Honorable City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert,- CA 92260 Re : Tract 19640 Dear Members of the Council : I am writing this letter to supplement the appeal letter I have filed with you on behalf of Silver Spur Associates. My purpose is to make our position clear both factually and legally. While I am not a lawyer I have taken the liberty of enclosing a legal memorandum from our attorney for your consideration. I have made copies of all this available for your staff, your counsel and all interested persons. I ask that you consider this and all other factual and legal data as part of your records. Sincerely R. L. JSpyicer President RLS: sb Enc . (1) IRONWOOD 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 346-0551 MEMO RE. ACTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF CITY OF PALM DESERT On April 3 , 1984 , the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert (the "Commission") conditionally approved, by resolutions no. 939 and 940 respectively, Subdivision Tentative Map 19640 (Amendment #1) (the "Map") and Conditional Use Permit 21-83 (Amendment #1) (the "CUP" ) . The Commission, contrary to the recommendations of its staff, and without giving the developer, Silver Spur Associates (the "Owner" ) , an adequate opportunity to respond, unilaterally imposed as a condition of approval of the Map and the CUP that "Lots 35, 36 , 37, 38, and 39 are to be deleted. " By imposing such Condition, the Commission violated the Owner ' s due process rights by: (a) failing to adequately notify the Owner of the intent of the Condition, (b) failing to make findings supporting the imposition of the Condition, and (c) failing to give the Owner an adequate opportunity to respond to the Condition . The Commission imposed other conditions to the approvals, but these are ndt being challenged. It should be noted that the Owner raises the issue of authority under the Subdivision Map Act (and local ordinances thereunder) and police power. Imposition of condition which constitutes a taking is clearly in excess of such authority. I. The Commission Violated the Owner ' s Due Process Rights It has long been held that subdivision approvals and conditional use permits, both of which involve the application of general standards to specific parcels of real property, and ajudicatory decisions requiring reasonable notice and an opportunity for hearing . Horn v. County 'of Ventura, 24 Cal . 3d 605, 612, 614 (1979 ) . A. Requiring "Deletion" of Lots Fails to Adequately Notify Owner of Its Rights Though due process standards of adequate notice usually apply to the notice which must be given that a hearing will be held, such standards must equally be applied where the notice of decision fails to advise a party of its rights and duties thereunder. The Condition, calling for "deletion" of lots, does not give such notice, and the Commission, as the body which imposed and will interpret the Condition, must clarify its intent. See, City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa, 101 Cal. App. 3d 1012, 1021 (1980) (" [there is a] strong policy reason for following the governing body which passed legislation to be given a chance to interpret or clarify its intention Notwithstanding such failure, the Owner interprets the Condition as requiring -that the 5 lots be "deleted" as lots permitted to be improved while requiring that the real property still within such lots continue as part of the proposed subdivision. B. The Commission Abused Its Discretion Since the Findings Neither Support the Condition Imposed Nor Adequately Apprise the Owner of the Commission ' s Bases for Acting An administrative agency must render findings sufficient to;enable parties to determine whether and on what basis to seek review of the agency' s action, and to expose for review- the basis ofthe agency' s decision. Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, Cal. 3d. 506 , . 514 (1974) ; Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors, 58 Cal. App. 3d 817, 823 (1976) . Such findings are contemplated by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Sect. 1094 . 5 regardless of local ordinances. Topanga, supra. The rendering of an administrative decision which is not supported by findings constitutes an ;abuse of discretion. Id. at $15; Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Sect. 1094 . 5. In the instant case, the staff of the Planning Department prepared reports before each meeting of the Commission where the Map and the CUP were considered. Each such report recommended approval of the. Map and the CUP and expressly found that the proposed subdivision conformed to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances thereunder, but none of the reports included or recommended imposition of the Condition. - 2 - Each report also included a proposed set of resolutions which the staff recommended the Commission use in approving the Map and the CUP. The Commission made no written findings of its own, but rather, adopted the resolutions prepared by the staff modifying them only to add the Condition and two other conditions not challenged here. The Commission in effect adopted the findings of the staff. Carmel Valley View, supra. The findings of the staff will support approval of the Map and CUP, but not the action of the Commission in imposing the Condition. Also the findings, which merely recite the language of Cal. Gov ' t. Code. .Sect. 6644 , do not apprise the Owner of any grounds for review of the Condition . Accordingly, the Commission, by rendering a decision not supported by its findings, abused its discretion. C. Subdivision With a Previously Undiscussed Condition as Condition to Approval Fails to Provide an Adequate Opportunity for Hearing The Condition was imposed by the Commission unilaterally after the hearing on the Map and the CUP had been closed to further public comment. The Condition was not a part of the staff report to the Commission, and was at no time discussed before the hearing was closed. Accordingly, the Owner had neither notice of nor an opportunity to be heard on such<'issue prior t!o the rendering of a final decision. In the instant case, such failure of notice and an opportunity for hearing is particularly onerous since the application was for an .amendment to a previously approved Map and CUP. The subdivision tract Map and CUP sought to be amended had been approved by the Commission on October 18, 1983 . " [W] here . . . prior notice of a potentially adverse decision is constitutionally required, that notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests. " Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal. 3d at 617 . Had proper notice been given, the Owner could have withdrawn the amendment applications and retained his vested rights in the previously approved tentative map and conditional use permit. . Cal . Gov't. Code Sect. 66474 . 1; Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors, 22 Cal. 3d 644 (1978) ; Palm Desert Subdivision Regulation 26 . 20. 150 . By the Commission ' s failure to give notice, the Owner was deprived of a significant property interest without due process. 3 - II . Imposition of the Condition Constitutes an Unlawful Taking of Private Property Without Just Compensation Therefor. It is generally accepted that conditions which bear a reasonable relationship to traffic and other needs of a proposed subdivision may be imposed as part of the subdivision process. Ayres v. City Council of Los Angeles, 34 Cal. 2d 31 , 42 (1949 ) . Furthermore, such conditions will not be deemed improper when they incidentally benefit the City as a whole . Associated Home Builders, Etc. , Inc . v. City of Walunt Creek, 4 Cal. 3d 633 , 638 (1971 ) . These principles have been used to uphold conditions for street dedications, Ayres, supra, parkland dedications, Associated, supra, installation of smoke detectors, Soderling v. City of Santa Monica, 142 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1983) , and continuing shoreline maintenance and support, Frisco Land & Mining Co . v. State of California, 74 Cal. App. 3d 736 (1977) . There are, however, limits to the power to impose such conditions, which power stems from the police power. Scrutton v. County of Sacramento, 275 Cal. App. 2d 412, 421 (1969 ) . Such conditions must be reasonably related to the increased needs of the public emanating from the proposed use, Ayres, supra; Scruttons, supra, and may not be used as a disguised attempt to take private property for public use without resort to eminent domain. Liberty v. California Coastal Commission, 113 Cal'. App. 3d 491, 503 (1980) . Furthermore, such conditions may not be arbitrarily or unreasonably imposed. . Candlestick . Properties, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation, Etc . Commission, 11 Cal App. 3d 557, 571 (1970) . In short, the imposition of a condition may not deprive a landowner of constitutional protection. Agins v. City of Tiburon, 100 S. Ct. 2138 , 2141 (1980) ; Liberty, supra; Scrutton, supra . In the instant case, the Condition absolutely and arbitrarily bars the use of the lots at issue permanently without any rational need for such bar. The Commission did not find and could not have found that the land was needed to support the increased needs of the public emanating from the proposed use, since the Owner had already made more than adequate provision and the staff had already recommended other conditions to satisfy such needs, which provisions and conditions were included within the Commission' s action. - 4 - The other conditions imposed included dedications of building rights on portions of the proposed subdivision, covenants for natural areas to remain as such and conditions for installation of streets. A staff report prepared March 6, 1984 , as part of the continued hearing on this matter also noted that the Owner had already dedicated the required and appropriate parklands. The only logical explanation of the Commission' s action is that the Commission barred use of the lots at issue to meet the apparent desire of the homeowner ' s on Quercus Lane and Poinciana Place. Such action constitutes a taking . Private property may not be arbitrarily_ taken for public use by the imposition of subdivision conditions when such use is in no way related to the needs of the public, generated in some part by the proposed subdivision. Liberty, supra; Candlestick, supra. Nor can an administrative agency act solely on the grounds of the " 'apparent desire ' of certain people. " Kling v. City Council, 155 Cal. App. 2d 309 , 314 (1957) . In light of the above discussion it is apparent that the imposition of the Condition, interpreted in the manner noted above, constitutes an unlawful taking without just compensation therefor . - 5 - l SOUTH COURSE DR IRONWOOD LOCATION GUIDE �i GOLF CLUBHOUSE RESTAURANT PRO SHOP —— _ ____ —PARKING MODEL HOMES & s /�=PIyIII SALES AND NORTH COURSE AD MINISTRATION MPRIPOSADRIVE 3z O �. O a r4oh7vRC C7 q'�f `� * � ` �Do �z DESERT VILLAS �� O �E SKYVIEW HOMES O � 0�o /ji �'W j "'�C�' \ O SKYV EWHOME^S, 1 _W /� M L� n.� O I� \ 2 HOMES ES H /.>;D [rC ra',n.� rJU v J Hwy. 7 �E COURTYARDS ' �E �}� / Palm 77 Palm am On fo (� , t0 eo i� / Springs Desert O� +r�rErEAE Y3 �7 OTQRancho EE0 A� Mirage a A -��J' S ao Q N N cf`r'p GARDEN VILLAS, r°x Qi'r" ` map not to scale P l s .g ANE To Palm Springs 1h les ➢➢^� �� D^EryM1 J/ G7_ To Rancho Mirage.3 miles IRONWOOD T �� Y,,tyNE rG'j( 'W1 -N O DESERT VILLAS? O LI v` °� 1 i �O SKY VIEW\\HOMES rt 0 , U/ytiJLP� o yP E �F FAAII WAY HOMES '° °a, j�,( ��l pO OEpAVENUf ® F, O _ - �DESERT VIS �'.Zo oa`'�PNt �m • ,.pUHE • O / V� s SKYVIEW m e°t'�� ° t • / \ I I °oaroE 4 AYENfrF NORNUNF O ' `DEP AVENUE nHr ��.. . • i i t111� R<�,,yy O \ / \J! O --/� O _Jr � �� � tl •O p.aa �4o f� �co! eyr O VISTA VILLAS I ROB TUVELL INC:,r73 464 POINCIANA PL., PALM.DESERT;•CA .92260 ^ ;z. May 8, 1984 1924 ' . • ��; EP7VIRONMENTAk SERVICES CITY 4F. RALM DESERT,: , `;- Mr. Ralph Wood, Chairman. ;:;,... . Palm Desert Planning:±;:Commission 73-510 Fred Waring Drive,:': Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Mr. Wood, I!" The enclosed letter has".been sent.to .the Board of Directors,. Silver;,.Spu=:, Associates, the governing body of Ironwood Country Club: I forward a ,copy for-your..information. Thank you. 'Sincerely, Robert N. Tuvell RNT:mjh Encl. . A 619/568-1703 4.. 1 May 8, 1984 Board of Directors Silver Spur Associates Gentlemen : I would like to take this opportunity to express a few thoughts on the issues which confront you and the homeowners here at Ironwood . I feel compelled to write this letter for the following reasons: During the past six years I was responsible for sales here numbering into the hundreds . Now as a homeowner in Ironwood , an independent broker and president of my assoc- iation I continue to work with Ironwood residents daily. You might say , perhaps in a different way , I have an investment here the same as you do. This leads to the point of my letter . Hardly a day passes that my phone doesn ' t ring with a concerned homeowner on the other end . This started with the announcement that you are planning to revamp the 16th , 17th , and 18th holes of the North Course to accommodate the building of homes on the south side of the 16th fairway and has continued through the offering of the new :lifetime memberships . A recent response to a general mailout prompted over 350 negative replys to the Planning Commission regarding your plans to build on the 16th fairway . I have attended .Planning Commission meetings where numerous homeowners took their vacation time and attended in order for their objections to be heard . At breakfast a few months ago Brent Pendleton asked me to join him for a moment . We talked about the forthcoming member- ship offering and I said to him that the immediate problem. was going to be the proposed changes on the 16th fairway. I told him there had been no attempt on the 'part of Ironwood officials to do any public relations or for that matter to accurately portray what was in store for us in that area . Instead I said it had been kept very low key , almost to the point of hiding from the membership what your iAtentions were . I said this handling of the situation would exacerbate the homeowners and cause severe opposition . I was correct in this evaluation . The other day I saw Brent again and he said "yes , you did tell me so . . . many clubs ago . . . we ' re going to take care of it . " My point is not to say "I told you so" . My concern is what is unfolding now. I understand Ironwood is appealing the i Planning Commission ' s decision to eliminate certain lots on the south side of the 16th fairway and to lower lots 7 , 8, and 9. Whether or not Ironwood wins the appeal there will be no winner . Ironwood ' s credibility is already severely erroded in the homeowner 's eyes . My sales staff and I were never advised that the land south of the 16th fairway could be acquired at some future time so there was no reason to suggest any homes would ever be built in an obvious drainage area . When the lots at the end of Poinciana Place and Quercus Lane were sold I recommended and Ironwood received substantial view premiums . Now despite homeowner pleas and the decision of the Planning Commission , Ironwood chooses to ignore all and plough ahead-. This is totally uncharacteristic of the Ironwood I joined in 1978. What has happened? With respect to the membership offering the law suit seems to speak for itself . I ' ll not add to this dilemma other than to note that there appears to be not "a handful of unhappy members" as the suit initially suggests, but rather , well over a hundred people who have contributed considerable funds and their time to strongly object . Today I received a phone call from a homeowner asking: 1 . ) Is my property value being damaged? 2 . ) What are you telling prospective buyers about the club membership problems? Gentlemen , my association with you over the years both. during and after my tenure with Ironwood always left me with a good feeling . But now I wonder again . "What has happened?" Something is terribly wrong; the spirit of communication and cooperation here at Ironwood is gone . Sincerely , Robert N . T uvell Copy to : J. Edward Shinn James F . Junge Thomas McHugh Brent Pendleton Ed Malone Frank Tansey Larry Spicer RNT/mjt c L AL MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING THURSDAY, MAY 249 1984 CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER i I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Snyder called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. IL PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Councilman S. Roy Wilson IQ. INVOCATION - Councilmember Phyllis Jackson IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilmember Phyllis Jackson Mayor Pro-Tempore Richard S. Kelly Councilman Romeo S. Pulugi Councilman S. Roy Wilson Mayor Walter H. Snyder Also Present: Bruce A. Altman, City Manager ; Carlos L. Ortega, Assistant City Manager �. David J. Erwin, City Attorney (Arrived during Silver Spur hearing) Doug Phillips, Deputy City Attorney (Arrived during Silver Spur hearing) Sheila R. Gilligan, City Clerk Barry D. McClellan, Director of Public Works Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services Kirby J. Warner, Director of Finance Phil Drell, Associate Planner V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS A. APPRECIATION AWARD TO MR. JULIUS KANNER. Mayor Snyder read the wording on the plaque and presented it to Mr. Julius Kanner for his outstanding and unselfish dedication in restoring the swimming pools at College of the Desert. B. APPOINTMENTS TO PALM DESERT MUSEUM COMMITTEE. Mayor Snyder read the names of the proposed members of the Palm Desert Museum Committee. Council unanimously approved the appointments of Dean Blanchard, Audrey Blanchard, Andrew Nelson, Evelyn Young, and Mr. Bernard Leung to serve with already appointed Chairman Jane Ma Leung. VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the Regular City Council Meeting of May 10, 1984. Rea Approve as presented. B. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 84-103 and 84- 04. Rec: Approve as presented. MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 249 1984 r C. STATEMENT OF CASH TRANSACTION FOR MONTH OF APRIL, 1984. Rec: Receive and file. D. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 17794-1, Alexander Adamek, Applicant. Rea Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 84-60, approving Tract 17794-1 and the bonds and agreements relating thereto. ) E. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL of Final Tract Map 19074-1, M. B. Johnson, Applicant. Rea Waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 84-61, approving Tract No. 19074-1 and the bonds and agreements relating thereto. F. REQUEST FOR ACCEPTANCE OF WORK for Contract No. 1056 - Highway III Improvements Phases 2 and 3). Rec: By Minute Motion, accept the work as complete and authorize the City Clerk to file a Notice of Completion for Contract No. 1056. G. RESOLUTION NO. 84-62 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND AUTHORIZING THE DESTRUCTION OF FILES FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING do SAFETY THAT HAVE BEEN MICROFILMED. Rec: Waive further reading and adopt. Upon motion by Puluqi, second bg7ackson, the Consent Calendar was approved as presented by unanimous vote of the Council. VII. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - A None VIII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OF APRIL 3, 1984, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES. SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES do EDWARD C. AND BARBARA J. MALONE, APPELLANTS. (Continued from the Meeting of May 10, 1984.) Mayor Snyder noted that this was a continued public hearing and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Altman asked that this item be continued until further in the Agenda as the City Attorney was not yet present at the meeting, and his input was needed for this public hearing. Upon motion by Puluqi, second by Jackson, and unanimous vote of the Council, this matter was continued until later in the Agenda. B. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM PR-5 TO A D R-22, A PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN, A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF 512 APARTMENT UNITS ON 24.15 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE, 19800 FEET EAST OF MONTEREY AVENUE. WESTERN COMMUNITY DEVELOPERS, APPLICANT. Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staffs report. -2- '11 r r ! MINUTES MAY 249 1984 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mr. Altman reported that this would permit construction of 512 apartment units similar to the agreements and limitations of One Quail Place and recommended approval of this request. Mr. Phil Drell reviewed the Staff report in detail, noting that the project met all zoning requirements except an 8% modification of parking to allow for construction of tennis courts which could later be converted to 76 parking spaces. The applicant is required to bond for the cost of conversion of the tennis courts if in the future the City determines that such conversion is necessary. He noted that the developer would be required to offer 20% of the units at affordable rents in return for the increased density. This amounts to 103 apartment units, one and two bedroom, to rent for $400 to $500 per month. The developer would also offer the clubhouse for use by non- profit civic organizations. Mr. Drell noted that the Planning Commission had received a great deal of testimony from homeowners at Palm Desert Greens relative to increased traffic on Country Club Drive. He noted that while Staff agreed that the project would have an effect on traffic, it was not an overall effect because there are many projects on Country Club Drive. Solutions to ingress and egress in this part of Country Club Drive should start at Palm Desert Greens where access roads need to be opened up from their current closed status. The developer will be required to install a fully landscaped median. The other concern expressed was the potential for other affordable projects in this area. Mr. Drell pointed out that the City's Housing Element would allow only one such project in an area, so this was not a concern. He further noted that Staff feels this project satisifies the City's goals and objectives for residential housing and recommended approval of the project. Mayor Snyder invited input in FAVOR of the project. [ MR. WILLIAM DELEEUW, 73-811 Highway 111, Palm Desert, expressed his concurrence with the Staff report. He said that his firm had a substantial investment in a project as large as this, which would be their own incentive to maintain the property and its value. The size of the project allowed them to offer country club type amenities. Other existing developments would have to clean up their act in order to keep their tenants when this project enters the competitive market. As far as security for the project, there will be two gates which would be electronically controlled. They would also be willing to provide full- time guards if the gates were not sufficient. Mayor Snyder invited input in OPPOSITION to this project. MR. PAT THEODORE, 73-450 Desert Greens Drive North, Palm Desert, stated that he felt the impact of this project was too great for the area. It would reduce their property values and increase traffic and crime potential. Upon question by Councilman Pulugi about the number of robberies in that area, Mr. Theodore responded that 15 robberies had occurred in the last year. MR. TIM JOHNSON, 42-101 Portola, Palm Desert, stated that he was concerned about the possibility of the lakes being a breeding ground for mosquitos. Mr. Diaz responded that all the lakes and pools will be circulating water, and thus mosquitos would not be a problem. Mayor Snyder invited REBUTTAL to any of the statements. MR. WILLIAM DELEEUW addressed the concern by the Palm Desert Greens homeowners about the traffic problems. He noted that the original plans for Palm Desert Greens had been approved with four exits, and by opening up these roads they could solve the traffic problems themselves. -3- MINUTES [[ REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 249 1984 _ * . • r • • • • . w • • . • a • • s • s • : r a r w r r * • s a Upon question by 'Councilman Kelly relative to the number of people allowed to reside in each unit, Mr. DeLeeuw responded that there were no controls at this time, but they would be willing to accept this as a condition of approval. Councilman Kelly also asked if Mr. DeLeeuw would object to a condition requiring them to have a 24-hour guard on the property, and Mr. DeLeeuw noted he would agree to that condition being added to the Development Agreement. Councilmember Jackson moved to: 1) Waive further reading and pass JJJ Ordinance No. 376 to second reading; 2) waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 84-66+ approving PP 84-3, subject ec t to conditions; 3) waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 377 to second reading as amended to include in the Development Agreement 24-hour security and the limitation of one family or two unrelated individuals occupying each unit; and 4) by Minute Motion, approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by a 4-0-1 vote of the Council. Councilman Puluqi voted NO, stating his feelings that he was not co nvinced the City needed this many moderate housing units at this time. With the already approved 387 units at One Quail Place and others, he felt the City might be moving too fast. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, direct Staff to revise the Tentative Housing Map to reflect that no more consideration of high density development be allowed in this area. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. IX. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 84-63 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENT TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2 IN FISCAL YEAR 1984-85. (LEWIS HOMES TRACT) Mr. Altman reported that this resolution would set a public hearing as required by State law ancT recommended the Council adopt Resolution No. 84-63. Upon motion by Puluqi, second by Wilson, Resolution No. 84-63 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. B. RESOLUTION NO. 84-64 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL O THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO TITLE 28 (ORDINANCE NO. 221) AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 12 OF SAID TITLE (ORDINANCE NO. 230). Mr. Altman reported that this is a routine variance to the Flood Prevention Ordinance requested by the owner of a residential lot on the south side of Buckboard Trail west of Silver Spur Trail. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Puluqi, Resolution No. 84-64 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. C. RESOLUTION NO. 84-65 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY O PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, GRANTING A VARIANCE TO TITLE 28 (ORDINANCE NO. 221) AS PROVIDED FOR IN CHAPTER 12 OF SAID TITLE (ORDINANCE NO. 230). Mr. Altman reported that this is a routine variance to the Flood Prevention Ordinance requested by the owner of a residential lot on the east side of North View Drive between Mesa View Drive and Spyglass Lane. Upon motion by Wilson, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 84-65 was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. -4- J MINUTES MAY 24, 1984 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING X. ORDINANCES For Introduction: A. ORDINANCE NO. 375 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 5 AND ORDINANCE 340 OF SAID CITY RELATING TO REMEDIES AND THE COLLECTION OF BUSINESS LICENSE AND TRANSIENT OCCUPANCY TAX LIABILITIES. i Mr. Altman reported that in Study Session the City Attorney and Code Enforcement Supervisor discussed this item with the Council. This is a measure to recover some of the costs incurred by the City in its attempts to collect overdue fees owed to the City. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Puluqi, Ordinance No. 375 was passed to second reading by unanimous vote of the Council. For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 371 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 5.88 TO TITLE 5 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, TO BE KNOWN AS THE "ADULT ENTERTAINMENT" ORDINANCE. Mr. Altman reported that no further input had been received since first reading of this ordinance and recommended the Council adopt Ordinance No. 371. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Puluqi, Ordinance No. 371 was adopted by a 4-0-1 vote of the Council, with Councilman Wilson abstaining as he was not present at the Cmeeting when the ordinance was introduced.B. ORDINANCE NO. 372 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ADDING CHAPTER 5.82 To TITLE 5 OF THE CODE F THEREGULATING SPECIAL EVENT SALES INCITY RESIDENT ApL DISTRICTS AND DELETING SECTION 5.64.0409 SUBSECTION D, OF TITLE 25 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT. Mr. Altman reported that no further input had been received since first reading of this ordinance. Upon motion by Puluqi, second by Jackson, Ordinance No. 372 was adopted by a 4-0-1 vote of the Council, with Councilman Wilson abstaining as he was not present at the meeting when the ordinance was introduced. C. ORDINANCE NO. 373 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 1.09.010 OF CHAPTER 1.08, "AUTHORITY TO ISSUE MISDEMEANOR CITATIONS" AND ADDING SECTION 10.08.030 TO CHAPTER 10.08 "VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC". Mr. Altman reported that no further input had been received since first reading of this ordinance. Upon motion by Kelly, second by Jackson, Ordinance No. 373 was adopted by a 4-0-1 vote of the Council, with Councilman Wilson abstaining as he was not present at the meeting when the ordinance was introduced. D. ORDINANCE NO. 374 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 5.04.200, SUBSECTION D, AND ADDING SUBSECTION E AND F OF THE PALM DESERT MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA. Mr. Altman reported that no further input had been received since first reading of this ordinance. _5- MINUTES MAY 24, 1984 j REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING • �r s r * t r • • a • s • • a • • * • • • r r ; a w s s a t t r t 1 Upon motion by Kelly, second by Puluqi, Ordinance No. 374 was adopted by a 4-0-1 vote of the Council, with Councilman Wilson abstaining as he was not present at the meeting when the ordinance was introduced. XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None )a , NEW BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF 1984-85 FISCAL YEAR BUDGET FOR COVE COMMUNITIES FIRE COMMISSION. Mr. Altman reported that this budget is for $1,444,018 while the 1983-84 budget was $1,4359780. This is a decrease of approximately $11,000 and also provides for eight additional fire personnel as a result of negotiations with the County. He noted that the Public Safety Commission had approved the budget in principal and referred it to the Council for action. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, approve the Cove Communities Fire Commission 1984-85 fiscal year budget as submitted. Motion was seconded by Puluqi and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. B. REQUEST FOR AUTHORIZATION TO ADVERTISE AND CALL FOR BIDS FOR THE 1983-84 STREET OVERLAY AND RECONSTRUCTION PROJECT (CONTRACT NO. 1078). Mr. Altman reported that this was discussed in Study Session and noted that this is the first of two contracts for work on this year's annual street resurfacing program. This work includes asphalt overlay or reconstruction of a number of City streets. Councilman Wilson moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call for bids for the subject project. Motion was seconded by Puluqi and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. SE AND ALL FOR C. BIDS FOR THE1983-84Z STREET O SLURRY nSEAL NG CPROJECT (CONTRACT NO. 1079). Mr. Altman reported that this was discussed in Study Session and is the second of two contracts for work on this year's annual street resurfacing program. Councilman Puluqi moved to, by Minute Motion, authorize the City Clerk to advertise and call forbids for the subject project. Motion was seconded by Jackson and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. )CM. CONTINUED BUSINESS A. REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING FRONT YARD WALL HEIGHTS. CITY OF PALM DESERT, APPLICANT. Mr. Altman reported that in Study Session Mr. Diaz recommended tabling the ordinance for three months and adopting a policy relating to front yard wall heights. Mr. Diaz reported that the policy, if approved, would be as follows: 1. The maximum height of a wooden fence in the first ten feet of the front yard setback shall be three feet. 2. The maximum height of fences and walls of masonry, wrought iron, or concrete material within the first five feet of the front yard setback shall be six feet. -6- i MINUTES MAY 24, 1994 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING 3. The area between the property line and wall shall be landscaped as approved by the Environmental Services Department. 4. Where a wall or fence will block the visibility of a sidewalk or public right-of-way from a driveway, either on the lot itself or a neighboring lot, a forty-five degree diagonal corner cutoff shall be provided to allow Gear vision of the sidewalk or right-of-way for i at least 10 feet. 5. All decisions relating to wall and fencing approvals may be appealed to the Palm Desert Architecural Commission. Councilmember Jackson moved to, by Minute Motion, adopt the policy relating to front yard fencing and table the ordinance for 3 months. Motion was seconded by Puluqi and carried by a 4-0-1 vote of the Council frith Councilman Wilson abstaining as he was not present when this item first came before the Council and did not know the circumstances. B. STAFF UPDATE ON PROPOSED POLICE TAX BALLOT MEASURE. Mr. Altman reported that this item was introduced at Study Session, stating that a meeting had been held with the Palm Desert Homeowners Association regarding increasing the level of our law enforcement. He noted that he will be meeting with Lt. Mike Lewis and the Chief Deputy Sheriff on June 19 1984, to look at different aspects of law enforcement such as: 1) more identification of vehicles and uniforms; 2) full-time community relations officer who would focus on crime prevention, juvenile programs and doing some crime analysis; and 3) looking at a strike team that could come in based on crime analysis of where the crimes are occuring and stake out the areas. They would also be looking at an additional sergeant to supervise the strike team and a sergeant to supervise the day shift and the community relations program. Mr. Altman further noted that a report would be given to the Council at the next meeting. This report would show a comparison between the level of law enforcement we would have with our present budget and the level of law enforcement we could get with the additional $333,000. MAYOR SNYDER CALLED A 10-MINUTE RECESS AT 8:15 P.M. AND RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 9:25 P.M. VIIL PUBLIC HEARINGS A. CONSIDERATION OF AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION OF APRIL 39 1984, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING AN APPLICATION BY SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES. SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES & EDWARD C. AND BARBARA J. MALONE, APPELLANTS. (Continued from the Meeting of May 10, 1984.) Mr. Altman reported that on May 219 1984, a meeting was held with opponents and proponents of the Ironwood Development in an attempt to see if the issues could be clarified. They were unable to isolate the issues but did ask for the City Attorney's opinion as to how to go about resolving this matter. Mr. Erwin had advised them that the City Council would have to hear the two appeals as separate items, deciding on the Malone appeal first with the Silver Spur Associates appeal second. Mr. Altman summarized the two appeals, noting that Mr. and Mrs. Malone are appealing the entire Planning Commission decision and approval of the Tentative Tract, while Silver Spur Associates is appealing the conditions modifying the previously approved Tentative Tract 19640 and deletion of five lots on the south side of the 16th hole. Councilman Wilson noted for the record that he had listened to the taped transcript of the first meeting on this item which was held at the last Council meeting. He stated he had also visited_and looked at the sites in question. -7- MINUTES MAY 249 1984 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r r • r r r r r r r r Mayor Snyder stated that the Council would deal with the Malone appeal first and invited input in FAVOR of this appeal. MR. E.C. MALONE, 9555 Genesee Avenue, San Diego, addressed the Council and requested a continuance of this matter for two weeks for the following reasons: Monday, May 21, 1984, he received some information from the Coachella Valley Water District that he felt would be important in understanding this case. At the May 21st meeting, he indicated that he felt what was really needed was the opinion of the City Attorney as to some of the technical issues that are the core of this appeal. He asked that he be given these opinions at least a week prior to the hearing so that they and their counsel could look at them and prepare for the hearing. Mayor Snyder noted that as this was an open public hearing, the Council still would receive the rest of the testimony for and against the appeal before deciding whether or not to grant a continuance. Mr. Malone continued with his testimony. He felt the Council should first establish whether or not CUP 13-82 is still in force on this project before considering any of the testimony. It was his feeling that the CUP is still in force, whereas Mr. Spicer is of the opinion that it is not in force. He also pointed out that the Palm Desert Zoning Map for the Ironwood area that is being developed indicates "PR-7 (CUP 13-82r' and believes that this establishes the fact that the CUP is still in effect on the project. He noted the agreement between the Coachella Valley Water District and Ironwood stated that that area was for recreational use only and was advised by Mr. Levy of the Coachella Valley Water District that this lease has never been amended. MR. DOUG PHILLIPS, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, ENTERED THE MEETING AT 8:40 P.M. J Mr. Malone next addresed-the issue of the October, 1983, hearing which he believes was improperly noticed. He wondered whether this would mean that the map was not valid at all and whether the amended map legally superseded the original map. Another reason he felt this Tentative Tract should not be approved is because he and the other people who live on the ends of the cul-de-sacs paid substantial premiums, and the maps and everything they had been told would indicate that no development would ever take place across the channel. It was his feeling that the entire matter should be referred to the Planning Commission for its reconsideration before the Council takes any action. If the Council did not want to refer the whole project to the Planning Commission, then he felt a compromise would be to approve 24 to 26 lots north of the channel but not to allow the street to be stubbed out. MR. LOCKWOOD HAIGHT, 73-364 Poinciana, Palm Desert, addressed the Council and concurred with Mr. Malone's statements. He also felt that the homeowners had no other legislative body to turn to but the Council and felt the Council had an obligation to the homeowners to disallow any development in that area. MR. DAVID ERVI N9 CITY ATTORNEY, ENTERED THE MEETING AT 8:50 P.M. Mayor Snyder invited input in OPPOSITION to this appeal. MR. KENNETH KRAMER, Attorney for Silver Spur Associates, addressed the issue of the Conditional Use Permit. He stated it was his recollection that at Study Session Mr. Erwin stated that a Conditional Use Permit was not binding on the Council. It was also his belief that a CUP could be amended or modified by the Council if they so chose. Upon question by Councilman Puluqi, Mr. Erwin stated that a CUP may be subject to change at any time by the Council going through the public notice and hearing process. -8- i i MINUTES MAY 24, 1984 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING Mr. Kramer continued and addressed the subject of the Coachella Valley Water District lease. He stated that technically the lease has not been amended; however, the property has been transferred by conveyance to Silver Spur Associates, and the lease has been "merged with title". This means that Silver Spurnd therefobeing lease the owner and lessee, no longer needs the lease a no longer in existence. As far as the issue of notice of the October, 1983, hearing, it was his understanding that notice was properly given. He also referenced Government Code Section 6641.5 which states � l failure to receive notice shall not invalidate any action taken pursuant to this division". MR. LARRY SPICER, President of Ironwood Corporation representing Silver Spur Associates, 49-200 Mariposa Drive, Palm Desert, stated that one of the provisions of the CUP was that it would expire in June, 1982, with respect to undeveloped land. He also presented a 3-dimensional model that showed a before and after grading condition of Phase II of the planned development. He further noted that Mr. Levy of the Coachella Valley Water District was present to answer any questions the Council might have regarding the Water District's side of the transaction on this property. Mayor Snyder invited REBUTTAL to either side of the appeal. MR. E.C. MALONE addressed the Council and stated that he concurred with Mr. Kramer's statement that a CUP is not binding if the Council goes through the public hearing process and makes a decision to amend or change the CUP. However, he feels the CUP is there to protect the people who rely on it, and the Ironwood homeowners did rely on it. He again questioned the City Attorney as to whether or not the CUP is in force today and felt the Planning Commission believed it was not in force. Upon question by Councilman Puluqi, Mr. Erwin stated that to the extent that the Conditional Use Permit was utilized and property was developed, that CUP is still in effect. As for the property that is not developed, it is possible that the Council could amend it. Mr. Malone reitera ted his feelingthat the CUP is still in effect because a golf course was built on that land, and he felt that a golf course should be considered as developed property. MR. DOUG PHILLIPS, Deputy City Attorney, noted that a condition of the CUP defines development to mean two things: 1) recordation of a subdivision map; and 2) beginning of construction of private streets within the project. If there is an undeveloped portion of the project, then the CUP is not in effect as to that undeveloped portion. Mr. Malone stated his belief that if a piece of land is zoned zero density and zero units and a golf course is built on that land, then it should be considered developed land since it is a completed area as far as the plan goes; thus the CUP would still be in force. MR. LOCKWOOD HAIGHT readdressed the Council regarding Mr. Kramer's statement that even if notice had been improperly given to homeowners, recent State law says it would not invalidate any action I taken. If that were true, then he wondered what would be the point of L sending out notices at all. He also restated that he felt the matter should be sent back to the Planning Commission for their consideration. Mr. Altman responded that one of the things that came out at the meeting on Monday was the issue of legal notice. Mr. Phillips researched the issue, and it is the City's position that proper notice was given. Councilmember Jackson asked Mr. Haight to what extent he felt he would be harmed if this property were to be developed. He responded that they had never considered how they would be harmed economically. -9- 1 - MINUTES REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 24, 1994 However, they bought their property on the representations made to them and the harm is that they did not get what they were promised they would get. MAYOR SNYDER CALLED A RECESS TO GIVE THE COUNCIL AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THE MODEL BROUGHT IN BY MR. SPICER. HE RECONVENED THE MEETING AT 10:15 P.M. With no further input offered, Mayor Snyder declared the Public Hearing closed. On the basis that the Council is dealing with an appeal of the entire project and will be further considering the Silver Spur Appeal, Councilman Kelly moved to deny this appeal. Motion was seconded by Jackson and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. Mayor Snyder stated the Council would now consider the Silver Spur Appeal of the conditions modifying the previously approved Tentative Tract 19640 and deletion of five lots on the south side of the 16th fairway. He declared the Public Hearing open and asked for Staff's report. Mr. Diaz reported that there were two matters appealed: 1) deletion of five lots on the south side of the 16th fairway, and 2) a condition that was added by the Planning Commission nullifying approval of the Tentative Tract Map that had been approved in October of 1983. He stated that the second item was not appealable because it is within our code requirement that once a second tract map is approved on the same parcel of property, the first tract map becomes null and void. He went on to review the staff report in detail, noting that Section 65589.5 of the California State Subdivision Map Act requires that it must be shown through substantial evidence that the development as set forth would have an adverse affect on public health or safety and that the only way to mitigate that public health or safety is by reducing the density of the project. He also noted that if the Council wished to affirm the Planning Commission's decision and deny the appeal, Staff would recommend that the specific matter of reduction of the lots be referred back to the Planning Commission for comment in order to provide the Council with the substantial evidence of the adverse affect on the public health or safety. He asked the City Attorney if this matter could be referred back to the Planning Commission for discussion. Mr. Erwin responded that if the Council wanted to send it back, they would have to deny the appeal. Another alternative would be for the Council to deny the appeal, make the specific findings themselves and in effect approve the project with the reduced density. Or, they could approve the appeal and expand the tract back to its original density. Mayor Snyder invited input in FAVOR of this appeal. MR. LARRY SPICER, President of Ironwood, 49-200 Mariposa Drive, Palm Desert, stated he had nothing further to add but would answer any questions the Council might have. MR. KENNETH KRAMER, Attorney for Ironwood, stated he based the. appeal on the followingg: 1) failure of the Planning Commission to make substantial findings; 2) the density requirement; and 3) validity of the deletion of the lots. He then went on to elaborate on each of the points. He further stated that it was his feeling that this matter could not be referred back to the Planning Commission and read a portion of the Subdivision Map Act relative to appeals. This section stated "upon the filing of an appeal, the appeal board or legislative body shall set the matter for hearing. Such hearing shall be held within 30 days after date of filing the appeal; within 10 days following the conclusion of the hearing, the appeal board or legislative body shall render its decision on the appeal". Mr. Erwin responded that the Council has the right to deny the appeal. Such denial would be considered a decision, and the Council could further request that the Planning Commission look at this matter again. -10- I MINUTES MAY 249 1984 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING * a * • . � • � � s w * w � * • � • * a t a ♦ r � • : • s . * • • Mayor Snyder invited input in OPPOSITION to this appeal. MR. E.C. MALONE stated that he felt this should be referred back to the Planning Commission for its findings. MR. LOCKWOOD HAIGHT agreed with Mr. Malone and urged the r Council to refer the matter back to the Planning Commission or to approve the decision Planning Commission had already made. Councilman Wilson questioned whether the Planning Commissioners had been notified that they may have to substantiate their findings. Mr. Diaz responded that at a Study Session the Planning Commission had been advised that if the Council were to support the Planning Commission decision, then the matter of specific findings to reduce the lots would be referred back to them for compliance to Government Code Section 65589.5. With no further input offered, Mayor Snyder declared the public hearing closed. Upon motion by Jackson, second by Puluqi, the Council upheld the appeal of the Planning Commission decision only as far as the deletion of the five lots. Motion carried by a 4-0-1 vote of the Council, with Councilman Wilson voting NO because he felt he did not have enough evidence to support this appeal. As the portion of the appeal relative to the rescission of the earlier approved Tentative Tract Map, this item is not appealable and, therefore, no action is required by the Council. XIV. OLD BUSINESS None CXV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS - B: None XVI. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMISSION Mr. Altman requested that Councilman Kelly be appointed to the Public Safety Commission to replace Councilman Puluqi, who will be on a temporary leave of absence. This appointment would be effective June 30, 1984. Mayor Snyder suggested that Councilman Puluqi attend the next meeting with Councilman Kelly. These meetings are held on the third Wednesday of each month. 2. JOSHUA ROAD DRAINAGE STUDY Mr. Altman recommended that $119,000 of the Drainage Budget be authorized and transferred to this project and be reflected in the capital improvements budget. Councilman Puluqi moved to, by Minute Motion, transfer $119,000 of the Drainage Budget to the Joshua Road Drainage Project. Motion was seconded by Councilmember Jackson and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. 3. FAMILY YMCA Mr. Altman recommended the Council appropriate $10,000 for the "SAY" program for the Family YMCA, contingent upon approval of the Parks be Recreation Commission. Councilman Puluqi moved to, by Minute Motion, appropriate $10,000 for the Family YMCA "SAY' program, contingent upon approval of the Parks do Recreation Commission. Motion was seconded by Jackson and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. I MINUTES f' REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING MAY 249 1984 • • : * s s • • � r r • * • * r r t • s w +� a • • � r t t r • • t 4. CALIFORNIA PARK do RECREATION FACILITIES BOND ACT Mr. Altman recommended the Council send a letter, signed by the Mayor, endorsing the California Park & Recreation Facilities Bond Act. Councilman Puluqi moved to, by Minute Motion, send a letter signed by the Mayor endorsing the California Park do Recreation Facilities Bond Act. Motion was seconded by Kelly and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. S. DESERT PHONE UPDATE Mr. Altman reported that this was discussed in Study Session with Mr. Allen of the Code Enforcement Department presenting a report on this company. He recommended that the Council send a letter to the Public Utilities Commission asking them to look into this matter, as it would be within its jurisdiction. Councilman Puluqi moved to, by Minute Motion, direct Staff to send a letter to the Public Utilities Commission asking them to look into the matter of Desert Phone Company. Motion was seconded by Jackson and carried by unanimous vote of the Council. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL 1. Councilman Kelly proposed that the Staff be allowed to wear summer clothing to Council meetings due to the hot weather. Councilman Kelly moved to, by Minute Motion, allow Staff to attend Council meetings in summer clothing and not require them to wear ties. Motion was seconded by Jackson. Motion carried by a 4-1 vote of the Council, with Councilman Puluqi voting NO as he felt the Staff and Council look more professional when wearing suits and ties. 2. Councilmember Jackson proposed that the Council adopt a resolution opposing construction of a prison in the Coachella Valley. Upon motion by Puluqi, second by Kelly, Resolution No. 84-670 opposing construction of a prison in the Coachella Valley, was adopted by unanimous vote of the Council. 3. Mayor Snyder asked that everyone note the future meetings listed on the Agenda. XVII. ADJOURNMENT Upon motion by Puluqi, second by Jackson, Mayor Snyder adjourned the meeting at 11:25 P.M. WAL ER H. SNY R,R, MAYObh TTEST: SHEILA R. GILL AN, CIT RK CITY OF PALM DESERT, ALIFORNIA _12_ Ish'� IRONWOOD May 30, 1984 Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert P.O. Box 1977 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Dear Ray: The action taken by the City Council Thursday night of ap- proving our appeal on Tract 19640 ended (I hope! ) a long and dif- ficult process for you, for your staff and for Ironwood. I am writing to you for the purpose of expressing my appre- ciation to you and admiration for doing a very professional job. You tried to keep the issues focused on the law and you managed to keep your cool during some very frustrating sessions. Best personal regards. Sincerely R. L. picer President RLS: sb cc: Mr. Bruce Altman, City Manager I IRONWOOD 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 346-0551 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 July 23, 1 84 Silver Spur Associates Sun-Ray Engineering 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green St. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 Attn: Larry Spicer Re: Street Names for TT 19640 Dear Mr. Smith: The City of Palm Desert does hereby approve the following street names for TT 19640. Please provide said names on the final map for recordation. A. Kerria Court E), Mountain Vista G. Canyon View Drive Very y yours, 4 RAMON A. DIAZ DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES RD/Ir cc: Lt. Mike Lewis, Riverside County Sheriff's Dept. Riverside County Road Dept., Indio and Riverside Offices Postal Service, Palm Desert Branch Palm Desert Fire Marshal Barry McClellan, Director of Public Works Coachella Valley Water District Southern California Edison Co. Southern California Gas Co. General Telephone Co. Chamber of Commerce File LW sail u� aT.® 1983 By 7400x0Bw 1 ILL 4 R � t ¢ Y /3� II-- oosu iS p"� 3 u, Jg F N I r 1. v D q s 4g `� 11 4rlilt� a � cuy'V ' • :�.k r �^xuir vrr�'��y I �- l ;S x ?t ' {� . . 11 V g'S i Ms3 � � OTttyo � r 1 '„ I L .°.xs� aa„k° � ^'•o — wu py n rdVA: . i y � 4 •I ,BI� � � rnn erw I- �F_, roe— � P" \l>•'•ill0,�lf� 1 �.8 bnxi' �. 4.I�1 G Eg_ —_Iit` 71�ti'h�j�+ cLN 1. . 1... �PfiP ur� g i1��I(,31m� i •� +i;W �'q�; P�,_ -1{a^„_Y.,Q,-r �,. t 'e; p! N ! R n A r ,:�,_yv..Y yKw .♦ ��+yh 1 '1k. ax ik 1 I K y ! � 'a..� �t S.iMuaRRF'�''+`�'r1r`���y�{i�'tfii�i'"L 4p 'C..s ' {''� � f 1'�.l° r `s.'M Fr.M'x,�.5'��>�r�`���. ..-.u• a,: 4. IN 32, T . 5 S , tiw' � vim, r I v� �C9i98�� ' \ \ \ r I r IRONWOOD ZVOR July 20, 1984 1984 y Mr. Phil JoyS` t✓' rs City of Palm Desert aT P.O. Box 1977 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Reference: Tract 19640-1&2 Street Names Dear Phil : This letter is to confirm that Silver Spur Associates requests approval of the selection of street names in Tract 19640 as follows: Street A Street B Street C Kerria Court Mountain Vista Drive Canyon View Drive Thank you for your consideration in expediting this request. Sincerely, / - `�J�J�C4[LQP/t�, Susan Biebelhausen for R. L. Spicer /sb cc: Leonard Czarnowski , Sunray Engineering IRONWOOD 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 346-0551 FROM: ilmmnn A. Biaz DIRECTOR ENV. SERVICES I PLANNING EXT. 482 TO: f 0 73-610 FRED WARING DRIVE 346-0611 PALM DESERT,CA 92270 i GEOTECHNICAL STUDY = TRACT NO . 15366, IIARIPOSA 0 I40NIRFL IRON;IOOD COUNTRY CLUB PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA PREPARED FOR : SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA PREPARED BY : SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA SOIL & TESTING, INC , 6280 RIVERDALE' STREET SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA TABLE of CUifiCitls PACE JNo. . : . . . . . . . . . . . . . t Introduction and Project Descrip.tion . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . , Project Scope. . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • - • • • • l . .2 Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2 Site Topography and Surface Description'. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 General Geology and Subsurface Conditions. . . . . . . . . . . - .2 Soil Description. . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . ... . . . . Giounctcrater. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3 Tectonic Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • • • . . . . . . . . . . . . • • . . - . . 3 3 . Seismicity. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geologic Hazards . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 . .5 Recommendations and Conclusions. . . . . . . . . . . . Site Preparation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5 Existing Fill Material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 . .6 Earthwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 Foundations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lateral Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6. .7 on-Grade Slabs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Settlement Characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Expansive Characteristics. . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .7 Limitations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . Field Explorations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Laboratory Testing . ATTACHMEINTS PLAiE NO. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Plot Plan— . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2-5 Trench Logs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direct Shear Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,tiinum htoisture Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . . . . .6 Flaximum Density & OE Grain Size Analysis and Atterburg Limits. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fern: .:;ended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. . . . . . . . . . .Appendices Unified Soil Classification Chart. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . .Appendie,�s i 6EQ_EC111 l I C/IL_S] UDY TRACT NUMBER 15366 MARIPOSA AND IRONTREE DRIVES IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA INTRODUCTION •AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical study for a proposed . addition to the Ironwood Country Club which .is located at the intersection of Mariposa and Irontree Drives in the City of Palm Desert, State of California . It is our understanding that several single story wood framed residential structures are planned for this site. It is further understood that only a minimal Qinount -of additional grading will be necessary to develop the site. The site configuration and exploration locations are shown on Plate No. 1 of this report. PROJECT SCOPE i } This investigation consisted of: surface reconnaissance; subsurface explorations; obtaining representative disturbed samples; laboratory j testing ; analysis of the field and laboratory data; research of available geological literature pertaining to the site ; and preparation of this report. The analysis of our findings was intended to : a) Determine the nature and pertinent physical properties of the on-site soils , including their bearing capacities , expansive potential and settlement characteristics. b) Define the general geology of the site including possible geologic hazards that may affect site development. c) Develop guidelines for site grading. d) Provide recommendations for foundation design. I S0 U T H E R N C A L I F 0 R N I A S 0 1 L A N 0 T E S T I N G . I N C . i SCSp,1" 1? 127 December 18, 1`rig Page iwu 1 e) Determine potential construction difficulties and jprovide recommendations concerning_ these difficulties . i FINDINGS i Site To o ra and Surface Descrr�tion 1 aped parcel of land which is situate The subject site is an irregular sh in the south Palm Desert region of the Coachella Valley. Drainage is ed by sheetflow along the general land slope o presently accomplish f less I than 1D%. A drainage channel approximately 15 feet deep and 200 feet wide exists adjacent - to the southern boundary of the parcel . A portion i of the site has been previously graded with several terraced cut and fill pads located adjacent to. Mariposa Drive. Maximum depth of fill on . ! these pads appears to be less than 3 feet. In additon , a 2: 1 (horizontal to vertical ) fill slope which varied in height from 5 to 10 feet was also noted to exist adjacent to a portion of Mariposa Drive. No existing structures or utilities were observed on-site at the time of our investigation although some underground utilities may exist. The parcel is bounded by { residential property is all directions. I i General Geology_and Subsurface Conditions Soil Description: In general , the Palm Desert aea is underlain by at r Quaternary alluvial and aeolian deposits . least several hundred feet of The soils which comprise these deposits consist basically of gravels , sands and silts. crystalline bedrock underlies the above mentioned deposits at an undetermined depth below grade. Clore specifically, the soils which underlie the site vary from a poorly graded coarse sand to a silty sand. These soils were noted to be generally humid and medium dense .in consistency. In addition, some fill soils have been placed at I I various regions of the site. The majority of the fill has been used for creating the pads located in the western portion of the site and for the fill slope adjacent to Mariposa Drive. This material has been obtained S C T H E R N A L I E O R N G I A S O I L A N O T E S T I N I N O U C . 1 ' 1 Decenw2r 13 1979 t119127P 9e ilr::e CS11' either from on-site or nearby sources and subsequently has a similar grain-size distribution. It also appears that this fill material is an uncertified fill and should be tested to determine if it satisfies the grading standards set forth by the City of Palm Desert and Chapter 70 of the Uniform Building Code. Groundwater: No groundwater was encountered within 13 feet of existing grade and no groundwater related problems are anticipated either during or after construction. Tectonic Settin : The site is located between the San Andreas Fault Zone and the San Jacinto Fault Zone, two of the known major active fault zones in the Southern California area. The San Andreas Fault Zone is approximately 10 miles to the northeast and the San Jacinto Fault Zone is approximately 14 miles to the southwest. Seismicity: Both the San Andreas Fault Zone and the San Jacinto Fault Zones are classified as active fault zones . Because this project site is closer to the San Andreas Fault Zone than the San Jacinto Fault Zone , the former should be used as the "design" fault. The San Andreas Fault Zone is generally considered to have two major branches in the vicinity of the subject site. The two branches are the Idission Creel: Fault and the Banning Fault, both of which are classified as active branches. The San Andreas Fault Zone is the largest and most studied fault zone in California so much seismic information is available. The seislilicity of the Mission Creek and Banning branches of the San Andreas Fault Zone has been studied in the area near the project site. The historical seismicity of the study area from 1932 to 1972 and the projected number of events per 100 years 'is summarized in the following table adapted from the Riverside County Seismic Safety Report (1976) . I I r D R N 1 A S 0 1 L A N D T E S 7 1 N G . 5 0 U l H L R N C A L I N C . r December 18 , 1979, ^dye II,�ur SCS,�T 19127 I Earthquake Magnitude No. of Events No. Of Events (Richter) (1932-1972)- - (100-Year Interval ) 2.0-2.4 12 29.3 2. 5-2.9 81 197.6 3.0-3.4 164 400.0 3. 5-3.9 60 146.3 = 4.0-4.4 19 46.3 4 . 514.9 5 12.2 5.0-5.4 2 4.9 5. 5-5.9 0 0 6.0-6.4 0 0 6. 4-6.9 1 2.4 Geode Hazards : The most likely geologic hazard to affect the site is groundshaking due to movement along the San Andreas Fault Zone or to a lesser degree, movement along the San Jacinto Fault Zone. Relative groundshaking hazard zones have been developed in Riverside County by dividing the county into five zones based on soil types and five zones based on the distance from causitive faults. The distance zonations were chosen arbitrarily and are defined in the technical report of the Riverside County Seismic Safety Report (1976) so that Zone I includes ground accelerations for ' average site conditions up to that taken into account in the 1973 Edition of the Uniform Building Code with each .successive zone representing a multiple of that acceleration. The project site is in distance Zone III , and in soil type Zone B (alluvium of thin to intenoediate thickness : 10-2000 feet) . R.ecurr•ence intervals and magnitudes of earthquakes along the San Andreas Fault -Zone are given in the following table as taken from the Riverside County Seismic Safety Report (1976) . I • I S O V 7 !1 E R N C A L I f- V R N I A S O I L A N D 7 r 5 7 1 N G . I N C . SCS&T 19127 DecL?isber 18, 1979 hter_i'a9nitude Recurrence Interval (Years ) Ric f 8.0 maximum Credible 7.5 200-500 7.0 100-200 ' 6.5 50-100 r The project planned for the subject site is assigned to use Category D (Normal-Low Risk) as defined by the Riverside County Seismic Safety Report so that the design earthquake recommended is the 6. 5 event on the San Andreas Fault Zone. According to the table of Generalized Characteristics of Expected Earthquakes that is presented in the Riverside County Seismic Safety Report, maximum ground acceleration at the site should be considered to be as high as 0.46 g. Predominent period of groundshaking and duration of "strong" shaking should be considered to be 0.1 to 0. 3 seconds and 10 to 20 seconds respectively. Other geologic hazards. such as liquefaction, tsunamis , seiches , or flooding that could possibly affect the site can be considered to be minimal or nonexistent. RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS Site Preparation General : Due to the apparent competent nature .of prevailing foundation soils, it is our opinion that no special site preparation will be. necessary. It is recommended however, that surface soils to a depth of at least 12 inches be brought to near optinium moisture content and then densified to a minimum of 90' of maximum dry density. The extent of this recommendation should include all areas which are to receive fill and/or structural fowls. S 0 U I H L R N C A L I F 0 R N I A 5 0 1 L A N D T E S T I N G . I N C . Sta r 19127 De( r;,1!.er 13 , 1579 Paso Six Exist fill Material : It is recol;umended that the existing fill whose location has been outlined earlier in this .report be tested to determine if it has been densified to at least 90% relative compaction. Any area p which does not meet this requirement should be re-compacted until compliance has been established. Earthwork: All earthwork and grading contemplated for site preparation should be 'accomplished in accordance with the attached Recommended Grading Specifications and Special Provisions. All special site preparation recommendations presented in the sections above will supersede those in the standard Recommended Grading Specifications. All embankments', structural fill and fill should be compacted to a minimum of 90%. Utility trench backfill within 5 feet of the proposed structures and beneath asphalt pavements should be compacted to a minimum of 90% of its maximum dry density. The maximum dry density of each soil type should be determined in accordance with A.S.T.M. Test liethod 1557-70T, Method A or C. Foundations General : It is our opinion that the proposed structures may be supported by means of conventional spread footings . All footings should be founded at least 12 inches below lowest adjacent finished grade and should have a minimum width of 12 inches. An allowable soil bearing pressure of 2000 pounds per square foot may be used for foundation design. Lateral Resistance: Resistance to lateral loads may �be provided by friction at the base of the footing and by passive pressure against the adjacent soil . For concrete footings on 'compacted soil , a coefficient of friction of 0.42 may be used. For calculating passive pressure , use an equivalent fluid unit weight of 275 pounds per cubic foot. Passive pressure should not exceed 1500 pounds per square foot. When combining frictional and passive resistance, the latter should be reduced by one- third. S 0 U l H C Ft N C A L I F 0 F' N I A S O I L A N D 1 E S 7 1 N G . I N C - scssr 19127 p�r.rr;b r 18, 1979 - i On-Grade Slabs: The high temperature differential endemic to desert areas makes large concrete slabs-on-grade susceptible to tension cracks. i i Consideration should be given to reinforcing large on-grade slabs with i differential 6 ��XG��-10/10 welded wire mesh in order to reduce the potential 1 for movement of the slab along cracks which may develop. Further, weakened uce the probability of• developing unsightly and plane joints should red irregular cracks. Settlement Characteristics : The anticipated total and/or differential settlements for the proposed structure may be considered to be within' tolerable limits provided the recommendations presented in this report are followed. Lxpansive Characteristics : The prevailing foundation soils were found to be nondetrimentally expansive and will not require special consideration and/or design. LIMITATIONS The recommendations and opinions expressed in this report reflect our best estimate of the project requireents based on an evaluation of the m ace soi l cond itions encountered at the subsurface exploration subsurface locations and the assumption that the soil conditions do not deviate appreciably from those encountered. It should be recognized that the performance of the foundation and/or cut and fill slopes may be influenced by undisclosed or unforeseen variations in the soil conditions that may occur in the intermediate and unexplored areas . Any unusual conditions not covered in this report that may be encountered during site development should be brought to the attention of the soils engineer so that he may make modifications if necessary. In addition , this office should be advised of any major changes in the project scope or proposed site grading .so that it may be determined if additional investigation would It should be recognized that the work performed for this' be necessary. -the-Art at the time sty study was performed in accor dance wi th e State-of of the study. 5 ❑ U T H SCS&T 19127 Oeceinbcr 18, 1979 P ge Eijht FIELD EXPLORATIONS e at the locations indicated on the Four subsurface explorations were mad attached Plate Number 1 on November 21 , 1979. These explorations consisted of trenches dug by means of a barkhoe. The field work was conducted under the observation of our engineering personnel . The explorations were carefully logged when made. These logs are presented on the following Plate Numbers 2 through 5. The soils are described in accordance with the Unified Soils Classification System as illustrated on the attached simplified chart. In addition, a verbal textural description, the wet color, the apparent moisture and the density or consistency are given as either very loose , loose , medium dense, dense or very dense or hard. Disturbed samples of typical and representative soi ls were obtained and returned to the laboratory for testing. In addition the in-place density of the prevailing soils was detenllined during our field investigation by means of the Sand-Cone Test Method , A.S.T.M. 1556. The results of. these tests are suimnarized on the attached trench logs. LABORATORY TESTING I Laboratory tests were performed in accordance with the generally accepted Wmerican Society for Testing and Materials (A.S"T.M. ) test methods or suggested procedures. A brief description of the tests performed is presented below: a) Class ion: Field classifications were verified in the laboratory by visual examination. The final soil classifications i are in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System. Fb) Direct Shear Tests : Direct shear tests were performed to determine the failure envelope based on yield shear strength. The shear box was designed to accomodate a sample having s 0 U T F-1 E R N . C A L I P O R N I A S O I L A N D T L. 5 T I N G . I N ❑ . S;S>T 19121 diameters of 2.375 inches or 2. 50 inches and. a height of 1 .0 _ inch. Samples were tested at di ferent vertical loads and at saturated moisture content. The shear stress was applied at a constant rate of strain of approximately 0.05 inches per minute. The results of these tests are presented on attached Plate No. 6. c) Compaction Test: The maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of typical soils were determined in the laboratory in accordance with A.S.T.M. Standard Test D-,1557-70, Method A. The results of these tests are presented on the attached Plate No. 6. 3) Grain Size Distribution: The grain size distribution was determined for representative samples of the native soils in accordance with A.S.T.M. Standard Test D-422. The results of these tests are presented on Plate No. 7. i S O U T H E R N C A L I F 0 R N I A S O I L A N 0 7 E 5 1 1 N G , I N E . /,Uiv7RGG /�,Q�V T 75— t o� i'-zoo " 72fs7­ re�vlil Gc�QTiov SOUT"ERN CALIFORNIA Tract 15366 , Mariposa & Irontree Drives r SOIL & TESTING , INC. Palm Desert , C.aliforni_a ROPLE 1 BDNO 1iNF STREET lSqN OIFOO. C4LIFOR NiA A¢'fEO I_---- -._ BY DATE co No-19127 Plate No. 1 7PEi,C.II i;l!I•. ER O:IE i 0 CLASS DESCRIPTION Y tl RC SP Brown , Dry to Humid, Medium Dense 1 : : Poorly Graded Sand 110. 6 6.0 88. 5 108. 2 4.8 86.6 5 8 _ 9 , 11 - • 12 13 Fr,F@SF pi ATF No 9 SOJTHcRN CF1L1�-O.r'-,^JtA r ' Tract 15366, 7lariposa R Irontree Drives SOIL & TSSTiNG , INC. '— "POO RIVF.ROALF H1aF.VT Palm Desert, California bnn OIFRO, CALIFORNIA WPiea _ I ------ --- BY FI_ DATE • ---- a 191Z7 Plate No. 2 TRENCH NUMHR T1;0 O CLASS _DESCRIPTION SP 6 -ot�m , _Hwnid , Tedium Dense Poorly Graded Sand 11 - 12 FOR LEGEND SEE PLATE NO. 5 SOUTHEPN CALIFORNIA Tract 15366, Mariposa & Irontree `Drives SOIL. & TESTING , INC. Palm Desert , California -� Gpeo RIVEROALE STREET BAN OIEOO, CALIFORN,A ev RR DATE 11 -21-79 !o` No. 19127 Plate 11o. 3 • r ' 1RCidCH ru;: [R THREE i O CCASS DESCRIPTION Y M RC S14 Gray, hoist, Dense Silty Sand 2 .ICI I . SM/ Brown, Humid, Medium Dense Poorly Graded 114. 6 5. 1 91 .0 3 SP Slightly Silty Sand I. I. (Gravel Lens @ 3 1/2 ft. ) 109. 3 4. 5 86. 7 = SP Brown , Humid, Medium Dense Poorly Graded :F 6 Sand • -'".tee 7 - 10 12 - R LEGENQ S ' r-10, 5 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA Tract 1.5366, Mariposa & Irontree Drives i� SOIL & TESTING , INC. —_> PaL;r Desert , California � B4P0 RIVEROALE dTFEET BON OiE00, CALIFORMA 22120 _. .. .---- -- BY DATE RR 11 -21 -79 god ho. ------------- 19127 . plate No. 4 Tf:EI'CH 'M.;BER DOUR i (� CI C_ UR T 1OL M/ S Brown , Moist , Medium Dense Poorly Graded SP Slightly Silty Sand SP Brown , Humid , Medium Dense Poorly Graded Sand _•. s p ._ 10 . . y 12 _ LEGEND: j Sample Location Y Natural Dry Density (pcf) ' M Natural 19oisture Content (% of Y) RC Relative Compaction (%) soU-rHERN CALIFORNIA Tract 15366, Mariposa Irontree Drives SOIL 8 TES"FING , II\;C. Palm Desert , California 7 B2B0 FIIVEROALE 6TPF.ET HnN OICOO, ❑ALIFOANIA '2120 -- --- ------- BY RR DATE 11 -21-79 JO6 NU. 19127 Plate No. 5 -- - --__ f SAMPLE DESCRIPTION / ogle of internal Cohesion 5 friction( �) ntc5") ccpt 1 - = 2 Remolded to 90% ( sf) T-3@ (POORLY GRADED SAND) ', 3-3 . 5 37 100 -� Remolded to 90% (SILTY SAND) 32 150 '1 .z MAXIMUM DENSITY a OPTIMUM MOISTURE CONTENT � ASTMlss�-�.a METHOD- .. A.......... WPLE DESCRIPT ION Maximum optimum 1@ Density M.Oisl re { -2 POORLY GRADED ( cf) cont, 125. 0 11. 4 Y 5 SILTY SAND 126. 0 11 . 0 e K -0 j CALIPO - SOIL & RnIIA Tract #15366 YcSTIlUG LAB INC. naeo RIVLRpgLE 97HFET Mari.Posa & Irontree 9AN DICULI CAUFU4"'A UP1,0 Ironwood Countr Drives y Club Palm Descrt , Ca . DAi By RR ---- GR"x-i SILL % INALYSIS AI ID Ai IFRW3G 1.11!.ITS --- T-1@ 'T-2@ P-3@ SAMPLE 1 . 5-2 5-5 . 5 3-3 . 5 6.. 4" 3" 1 2" 100 100 J !; .. 8 . 7 98. 2 �12 100 9 :7 N ti > a 96 . 1 96 . 2 96. 8 IC ui u - _ w 95 . 3 o %g 92 . 7 94 . 3 - aw a m o #4 87 . 9 91 . 1 92 . 7cc , w 84 . 5 Z vi #8 74 . 5 80. 8 LL _ g =30 27 . 2 33 . 5 57 . 3 a =50 14 . 4 17 . 9. 40. 3 cc i100 7 . 4 10. 0 2_ 5 • 4 _ - - 200 4 . 1 5 . 7 14 . 4 cl .05 mm ui - W - 0 ,OQJDIm [L O I i .001 mm LIQUID LIMIT _ PLASTIC LIMIT PLASTICITY INDEX "" ' EO Sp SM�(p SM CLASSIFICATION SC,UDI-t- =15�' C^.LSrC:.=s^.11A DATE '1-1 (,--n 4lS �L, :.... U -T -JTS1:J Ln�� �1�}�+. L�iY pp L _ ____1 G-1-L 7J- y_[,•- ^� U200 pw EROALE STREET �08 NO 1 < t Fla to No. 7 9AN OI[00, CALIFOFI NIA 92'120 1 11 27_ - - I One (`IC l:4i7i!G 1' 18, 1979 I 1 ,�I!pzn-lix A, Paye I RECOmmENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS_ GENERAL PROVISIONS GENERAL INTENT The intent of these specifications is to establish procedures for clearing , compacting natural ground , preparing areas to be filled and placing and compacting fill soils to the lines and grades shown on the accepted plans. The recommendatio)-ls contained in the preliminary soil investigation report and/or the attached Special Provisions are a part of the Recommended Grading Specifications and shall supersede the provisions contained hereinafter in the case of conflict . INSpECTION AND TESTING A qualified soil engineer shall be employed to inspect and test the earthwork in accordance with these specifications . It will be necessary that the soil engineer or his representa-. tive provide adequate inspection so that he may certify that the work was or was not accomplished as specified . It shall be the rc-=ponsibility of the contractor to assist the soil engineer and to keep him appraised of work schedules , changes and new information and data so that he may make these certifications. If , in the opinion of the soil engineer , substandard condi Lions are encountered , questionable soil , poor Ater-ed , as moistur.c content, e uate compaction , adverse weather , inadequate m etc. , he will be empowered to either stop construction until the conditions are remedied or corrected or reconuuend rejection of the work. Soil. tests used to determine the degree of compaction will be performed in accordance wiLh the following Jvmerican I A 1 A, Pagr_ TWO December 18, 1979 SCSI 191 ?7 I Society for Testing and Materials test methods : Maximurn Density & Optimum Moisture Content - A .S .T .M. D - 1557 - 70. Density of Soil In-Place - A. S .T:M . D - 1556 - 64 . PREPARATION OF AREAS TO RECEIVE FILL ; All vegatalion, . brusli and debris shall be removed , piled and — . burned or otherwise disposed of. After .clearing , the natural ground shall be scarified to a depth of 6 inches , brought to the proper moisture content, compacted and tested for the minimum density specified in the Special Provisions or the recommcndation contained in the preliminary soil investigation report. When the slope of the natural ground receiving fill exceeds 200 ( 5 horizontal units to 1• vertical unit) , the original ground shall be stepped or benched. Benches shall be cut to a firm competent soil condition . The lower bench shall be at least 10 feet wide and all other benches at least 6 feet wide. The horizontal portion of each bench shall be compacted prior to receiving fill as specified herein before for compacted natural ground . Ground slopes flatter than 20% shall be benched when considered necessary by the soil engineer. ' FILL MATERIAL Materials placed in the fill shall be approved by the soil engineer and shall be free of vegetable matter and other deleterious substances . Granular soil shall contain sufficient Cino material to fill the vuids . The definition . and disposition of uvcrsizcd rock: , expansive and/or detrimental soils are co• c•rei in t.'e• Sp 'cial Provisions . Expansive soils , soils of poor grr+dir"ion or strong "' characteristics may bc• Lhorouglily C ` 9 e 1:?i9 ,. C I i9121 A , 1 .��. j i mixed with other soils to provide satisfactory fill material. , but only with the explicit consent of the soil engineer . PLACING AND COMPACT [ON OF FILL Approved fill material shall be placed in areas prepared to n compacted receive fill in. layers not to exceed 6 inches i [ thickness . P:ach layer shall have a uniform moisture content in the range that will allow the compaction effort to be efficiently applied to achieve the specified degree of compaction. Lach layer shall be uniformly compacted to a' minimum specified density with adequately sized equipment , either specifically designed for soil compaction or of proven reliability . The minimum degree of compaction to be achieved is specified in either the Special Provisions or the recommendations contained in the prelimimary soil investigation report . Field tests and inspections to check the degree of compaction of the fill will be taken by the soil engineer or his representative . 'Phe location and frequency of the tests shall be at the soil engineer ' s discretion. in general, the density tests will be made at an interval not exceeding .2 feet in vertical rise and/or 500 cubic yards of embankment. SEASON 1.1M11'S Fill shall not be placed during unfavorable weather conditions . when work is interrupted by heavy rain, filling operations shall not be resumed until the proper moisture content and density of the fill leas been achieved . Damage resulting from weather shall be repaired before acceptance of work. I Pour DecU.u,5(,r 18, 1979 nl,l,c,nc3 i. ,\, nge � UNFORESEEN CONDI'Tlf`'IS In the event that conditions are encountered during the site preparations and construction that were not encountered during the preliminary soil investigation, Southern California Soil & Testing, Inc. assumes no responsibility for conditions encountered which differ from those conditions found and described in the preliminary soil investigation . RECOMMENDED GRADING SPECIFICATIONS SPECIAL PROVISIONS The minimum degree of compaction to be obtained in compacting natural ground, in the compacted fill , and in the compacted backfill. shall be 90 percent. _ Detrimentally expansive soil is defined as soil which will swell more than 3 percent against a pressure of 150 pounds per square foot from a condition of 90 percent of maximum _ dry density. and optimum moisture content to saturation. _ Oversized till material is defined as rocks or lumps over 6 inches in cliameter_ At least 40 percent of the fill soils shall pass through a No. 4 U . S . Standard Sieve . Transition Lots : Where transitions between cut and fill occur within the proposed building pad , the cut portion should be undercut a minimum of One foot below the base of the . proposed footings and recompacted as structural backfill . 1 t l SOIT, CT.7SSIFIC7,T10' Ci!i,F.T GROUP SY_'VAQT. PICP.I,__:P.ar.S COARSF, GRAINED, More than half of material is larger ravr_ 1 - than No. 200 sieve 'size . GW Well graded gravels , y VELS CLEAN GRAVELS sand mixtures, little or no e than half of fines . r;,vc l rse fraction is GP Poorly graded gravels , g ger than No. 4 sand mixtures, little or no eve size but fines . aded aller than 3 " . GM Silty gravels , poorly gr GRAVELS WITH FINES gravel-sand-silt mixtures . ' (Appreciable amount GC Clayey gravels , poorly of fines) graded gravel-sand, clay mixtures . Well graded sand, gravelly CLEAN SANDS SW -' ypg sands , little or no fines . ;• ,; Lhh Poorly graded sands, gravelly re than half of SP '(arse fraction is sands , little or no fines . ,aller than No. 4 SM Silty sands,silt mixtures . poorly graded SANDS WITH FINES eve size . sand and (Appreciable amount SC Clayey sands , poorly graded of fines ) sand and clay mixtures . L. FINE GRAINED, More than half of material is smaller than No. 200 sieve size. ML Inorganic silts and very SILTS AN sandD CLAYS fine sands, rock flour , Y silt or clayey-silt-sand mixtures with slight plast- icity CL Inorganic clays of low to Liquid Limit medium plasticity, gravelly less than 50 clays , sandy clays, silty clays , lean clays . OL Organic silts and organic silty clays of low plasticity Inorganic silts, micaceous MH SILTS AND CLAYS or . diatomaceous fine sandy or silty soils , elastic silts . C11 Inorganic clays of high Liquid Limit plasticity, fat clays . greater than 50 01I Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. Peat and other highly 11IG}1LY ORGANIC S013�S PT organic soils . SOUThiEFtIV CALIFo NIA Cr SO?L & 1 ES i 1%i0 ' ,0 RIVE�DP.Lr FTF1!-ET bqR OIE00, CALIFORNIA bH'IBO I ' 6t - �- EXHIBIT EXCHANGE PROPEP SB910'21•E 2670 +3' - � ^ 9 lil CDi .. C�;afUrf scr 32 SEC 3; .. r EL'Y .:NE ci 01 S E r idC: m+ 3r v PB(EL 1. A I NSIB 129692 3S .. 4 K, PI � 8... COR ' r f � •��0 Q2 E�i D B. SEC 32 z 1{! •,t zs IPDtnf DI COMMENCEnEBii 0[Psl. on11 vU 9,nPl x6 0.5' w 2P•25 Ofl't h98 Jb F••B3 .S-. ,s 3X I H M1 3,2•st rJ-w i23 rs '•A:2c'aP 16 1(I. J11 Mt. O ;•I! Sl'u 102 A f S J 9J On'n 1 9 J r ^3 6 C C 50•E n 2 Of rC SSC 3 01.59 •13 Oe 1` " _ f2 Ill s 554 'Jn'Ih e1 B a. U C 51 - 265 01 r 1G 1'v 36B 9° Ir �•x! ` u X OB 22'L 160 :S J ' ' F0 - SfC 3r 'S5 SEC 72 00.1 95 0L •�w..1•. ti B S01'IS la'E 11B 30 COH 60>'I ye S5]•12'57" rn IB l6F 2. SEC 5 29' S3]•25'01•E f15 23 i.6S 4 6F .z 21 n55'U'06•E 162P' -- . .. .� Southern California Edison Company .45cr= P.O. BOX AIO 100 LONG BEACH BOULEVARD LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90801 R.J.JULIFF MANAGER OF REAL PROPERTIES DEPARTMENT Honorable City Council January 9, 1985 City of Palm Desert P .O. BOX 1648 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gentlemen: SUBJECT: Tract Map No. 19640 _ Please be advised that the division and development of the property shown on Tract Map No. 19640 will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of any easement (s) held by Southern California Edison Company within the boundaries of said tract map. This letter should not be construed as a subordination of the Company' s rights, title and interest in and to said easement( s) , nor should this letter be construed as a waiver of any of the provisions contained in said easement( s) or a waiver of any costs for relocation of affected facilities . In the event that the development requires relocation of facil- ities, if any, on the subject property by right of easement or otherwise, the owner/developer will be requested to bear the cost of such relocation and provide Edison with suitable replacement rights . Such costs and replacement rights are required prior to the performance of the relocation . If additional information is required in connection with the above mentioned subject, please call me at ( 213 ) 491-2648 . Very truly yours, A. KNUDSEN Supervisor , Land Administration 67671 cc: Ticor Title Insurance J. W. McFadden ,%1FIED Desert Sands Un&d School District H BERMUDA DUNES r RANCHO MIRAGE 82-879 HIGHWAY I I 1 • INDIO, CALIFORNIA 92201-5678 (619) 347,8631 INDIAN WELLS a 0 PALM DESERT a 4P LAOUINTA ? April 1 , 1985 p INDIO y ="? 2 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES City of Palm Desert CITY OF PALM DESERT 73-510 Fred Waring Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: Lot 10, Tract 19640-1 , Palm Desert Gentlemen: The developer of the above referenced lot has mitigated its impacts on our overcrowded schools by payment of the amount of $628 per unit to be applied to the cast of district educational facilities made necessary by such new development. Sincerely, J" 6 John D. Brooks Assistant Superintendent Business Services JDB/crm V �(Nympi..ey P to 't. 3 MC ATTEMPTED NOT NNDYfN 's gSa INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS NO SUCH NU BER VACANT if REFUSED EXPIRED 0� RWA�ti I RT#_ INI' FIA �// "'-JIM M ,f6 Beverly Peters 73-45,94'Foxtai 1 a-n S;3 _ /10besert, CA ��6b`'°���� VP 2 3 1985 ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 0 USPS 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT I On Thursday, May 10, •1984, at, 7:00 P.M. , the City Council of Palm Desert will meet to vote on Silver Spur Associates tentative Tract Map 19640 for the development of 40 lots in the vicinity of the 16th & 17th fairways of the North Golf Course at Ironwood Country Club. The City Hall is located at: 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California Your attendance at that meeting would be appreciated. CONCERNED CITIZENS OF IRONWOOD L. 1 : I �%ratt -c II S.P. 20,000 . lip �),� . ..,i,ryU_PNa ."•. �c=z STORYVdT[R 0, S.P. "Ei 1 ' 71 :I ''A, ,1 ,.:•%;';; : ; ,' Al O.S. Cry ............. C ';•::;:� i:S P.R. P.R.— 7, H 31 32 CITY iok::? zM`i`r>:•. i; ;: ;Y2$ Im.� ``�' 33 6 5 'vONNC s � �i� w _ - � '. •dam�7 ; � e 'gib J _ --mar.+ _ ^d<, f' Z--y�r- d�,r �� J I -_-- ., .. WESTERN UNION TELEGRAM THURSDAY, MAY 10, 1984, 2:30 p.m. TO: MAYOR WALTER H. SNYDER FROM: PETER DEVLINE, 73-483 IRONTREE, PALM DESERT, CA 92260 I had hoped to attend the Public Hearing this evening-regarding Silver Spur, TT-19640 and CUP 21-83 amendment. Due to business pressures, I will be unable to attend but wish to register my OPPOSITION to said amendment. Copies distributed to: Council Ray Diaz Bruce. A. Altman Sheila R. Gilligan wL ILK����-.--�� - - - ,• = ,`- tiC ROB TUVELL INC:, 73-464POINCIANA PL., PALM DESERT,:CA 92260 Z«: May 8, 1984 I�AY 91984 s FS1VlRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY,. OP eAW DESERT.: ;. Akn" Mr. Ralph Wood, Chairman4 - w Palm Desert Planning";Comm yssion. 73-510 Fred Waring rin Di ve .a Palm . _ Desert, CA 92260, .sx'rr. Dear Mr. Wood, The enclosed letter has been sent to the Board of Directors, Silver,:Spur Associates the governing body of Ironwood""Country Club. I forward a copy ,for°your information. Thank you. Sincerely, :� � `A'Jk6bert N. Tuvell RNT:mjh Encl. m. 619/568-1703 s May 8, 1984 Board of Directors Silver Spur Associates Gentlemen: I would like to take this opportunity to express a few thoughts on the issues which confront you and the homeowners here at Ironwood . I feel compelled to write this letter for the following reasons : During the past six years I was responsible for sales here numbering into the hundreds . Now as a homeowner in Ironwood , an independent broker and president of my assoc- iation I continue to work with Ironwood residents daily . You might say, perhaps in a different way , I have an investment here the same as you do . This leads to the point of my letter . Hardly a day passes that my phone doesn ' t ring with a concerned homeowner on the other end . This started with the announcement that you are planning to revamp the 16th , 17th , and 18th holes of the North Course to accommodate the building of homes on the south side of the 16th fairway and has continued through the offering of the new lifetime memberships . A recent response to a general mailout prompted over 350 negative replys to the Planning Commission regarding your plans to build on the 16th fairway . I have attended .Planning Commission meetings where numerous homeowners took their vacation time and attended in order for their objections to be heard . At breakfast a few months ago Brent Pendleton asked me to join him for a moment . We talked about the forthcoming member- ship offering and I said to him that the immediate problem .was going to be the proposed changes"on the 16th fairway. I told him there had been no attempt on the `part of Ironwood officials to do any public relations or for' that matter to accurately portray what was in store for us in that area. Instead I said it had been kept very low key, almost to the point of hiding from the membership what your iAtentions were . I said this handling of the situation would exacerbate the homeowners and cause severe opposition . I was correct in this evaluation. The other day I saw Brent again and he said "yes , you did tell me so. . , many clubs ago . . . we ' re going to take care of it . " My point is not to say "I told you so" . My concern is what is unfolding now . I understand Ironwood is appealing the i Planning Commission ' s decision to eliminate certain lots on the south side of the 16th fairway and to lower lots 7 , 8, and 9 . Whether or not Ironwood wins the appeal there will be no winner . Ironwood ' s credibility is already severely erroded in the homeowner 's eyes . My sales staff and I were never advised that the land south of the 16th fairway could be acquired at some future time so there was no reason to suggest any homes would ever be built in an obvious drainage area . When the lots at the end of Poinciana Place and Quercus Lane were sold I recommended and. Ironwood received substantial view premiums.. Now despite homeowner pleas and the decision of the Planning Commission , Ironwood chooses to ignore all and plough ahead . This is totally uncharacteristic of the Ironwood I joined in 1978 . What has happened? With respect to the membership offering the law suit seems to speak- for itself . I ' ll not add to this dilemma other than to note that there appears to be not "a handful of unhappy members" as the suit initially suggests, but rather , well over a hundred people who have contributed considerable funds and their time to strongly object . Today I received a phone call from a homeowner asking : 1 . ) Is my property value being damaged? 2 . ) What are you telling prospective buyers about the club membership problems? Gentlemen , my association with you over the years both during and after my tenure with Ironwood always left me with a good feeling . But now I wonder again . "What has happened?" Something is terribly wrong; the spirit of communication and cooperation here at Ironwood is gone . Sincerely , Robert N . Tuvell Copy to : J . Edward Shinn James F. Junge Thomas McHugh Brent Pendleton Ed Malone Frank Tansey Larry Spicer RNT/mjt )AGE R WEBER MOTOR CG��IPANY ® VENTURA, CALIFORNIA 93003 ON r i :+ TRIUMPH 2611 THOMPSON BLVD. (805)648-3355A 647-77807780 V W S 2549 THOMPSON BLVD. (805) 648-7991 ' 647-8087 April 30, 1984 Mayor and Members of City Council Palm Desert City Hall 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Des ,� RE: Case Nos. TT 19640 and Cup 21-8 (Amendment #1) Your Honor and Members o e ouncil : We own a condo at Ironwood at 73-472 Poinciana Place. When we purchased the unit, we were told the view of the golf course was permanent because the houses to be built below us were to be at Mariposa Street grade level. We came to Ironwood last week and noticed that lots 7 , 8, and 9 were built up considerably from street level. These lots are directly in front of our condo and when built upon, will impact our view. We understand that the Planning Commission has ordered that the lots be cut down 2, 4, and 6 feet. Neighbors say that the earth moving equipment has been moved away. Many of us who live on Poinciana and Irontree who feel much of our view will be destroyed are asking the City Council to enforce the edict of the Planning Commission and have ,the lots cut down. Many, of us feel that after the season is over and there are no voices of opposition, the developer will start to build without cutting down the lots. We urge you to not allow this to happen. R ec ully, Mr. Vnd Mrs. Jack Weber 73-472 Poinciana Palm Desert, CA 7 i THE SI ALONE COO& RANT 9555 Genesee Avenue•San Diego.California 92121 .(714)453-6a65 May 4, 1984 City of Palm Desert P. 0. Box 1977 Palm Desert, Ca. 92261 Enclosed is copy of my letter dated April 23, 1984 to Mr. Lowell Weeks, Chairman Engineering and General Manager, at Cochella Valley Water District requesting information in preparation for the City Council Hearing on May loth concerning Appeal of Tract Map 19640. I have received no reply to my letter and numerous telephone calls. If I have not received information requested by Tuesday, May 8th, I request a continuance of the May loth Hearing as this information is important to our presentation. Sincerely, E. C. Malone /gf Enclosure 1 lo.C::+lifofnio 02121 dHbb May 4, 1984 Mr. Lowell Weeks Chairman Engineering and General Manager Coachella Valley Water District P. 0. Box 1058 Coachella Valley, Ca. 92236 Dear Mr. Weeks, Enclosed is copy of E. C. Malone's letter dated April 23, 1984 requesting information in preparation for City Council Hearing on May loth concerning Appeal of Tract Map 19640. Please respond immediately. Thank you. Sincerely, Georgean Fennell Secretary to E. C. Malone cc. Keith Ainsworth, Asst. Mgr. Enclosure 3 1 .. . . . . .. . . .. ..nil m• n .ihl nn ii.i'C'II'I •l/141i1',4 LItl�, April 23, 1984 Mr. Lowell Weeks Chairman Engineering and General Manager Coachella Valley Water District P. 0. Box 1058 Coachella Valley, Ca. 92236 Dear Mr. Weeks, Several weeks ago, I met with Bob Melig and Tom Levy of the District's staff to discuss Palm Desert Tract Map 19640 in the Ironwood Development. They were most helpful in answering questions but asked that I direct my request for written information directly to you. Specifically, I am interested in: the relocation of Dead Indian Channel within the Tract Map boundries; the ownership of the vacant land between the southerly boundry of Tentative Tract Map 19640 and the Ironwood Dike dilineated on the enclosed map Exhibit A; the land exchange agreement between the District and Silver Spur Associates for construction of the Ironwood Dike; and the lease between Ironwood (etal) and the District for parcels shown on the enclosed Exhibit B. Copies of staff reports, minutes of Board meetings, or correspondence should be sent to 581 San Antonio Avenue, San Diego, California 92106. If there is a charge for copying, we' ll be happy to reimburse the District. It is my understanding fruai M.r. Melig that the Ironwood Chaapal relocation was proposed by the developer to accomodate the proposed development was designed to District' s standards, and therefore, received the District's approval. Information on storm water flow in this channel before and after the recently completed flood control work was completed will be appreciated. If the District owns the land identified in Exhibit A, is it now free of flood hazard following completion of the hardened Ironwood Dike? Has the District' s staff or Board discussed its future disposition? I am preparing for an Appeal Hearing before the City Council on May 10, 1984 , and will appreciate a response at your earliest convience. Thank you and your staff for their continuing cooperation. Very truly yours, E. C. Malone /gf • t: �7 al 13 im 1 '•., i � •'t`y •'li' ••f •� \\ •-1 �� - '4��'��4�. :�,�^r•:.♦ •, , `` �yN- fry„ ��`'y• '.,`� l.! (:• •-- \\\ - /'; (i,.c; ® -.y.:\- 5•`-`F'.✓�iv-( " 'ti. '�.. _ .Y:y.q.' - 'Y • t ,4 ^' 1 �• a - - �1'.. \ } :�i '.�.. �� ` �'.a.��l.� -srT .Ja•�C_,' _! C` •�� f•, '�`1 j •0. lSlaR: tL''• _ •�; a ''�'' - ':/�-:!:• C{c::'t ''�: r }:'o-,:.t.'` ':.y".J.n��-,:�'.? • G` ..'�'.' Y j' 1 ;�•Q( :A �' :.(1::-�5` ' . - ' ('.i. .+yam•.. .. r{-:�L'�S,�{►+'''l...n .qjY, �-.. � C! - / �,` e•s'�'`-�'_ : ►-Pip ' . ��� �.:, / -.,�_4�-�r?'f`'.•. '��..�: .:t:j,^ \•�. � �t:•- � f�'-i t_ �.q.�ta` d n�� `���'.1r"• .� r l .,.. kt � '� � 1 ' S ^�7 `<�'•1��'~ly''��6., 'l` x mall'. ..•t� �"`'•a- _` �\. 3i � �1 .fir. ''�:E,' k`�l,•'��r.._ G J% i.�' i�t '- ��`i. 1'�. - !'� '•i 4k�: ♦lT�t :1 • t•z+2:'♦n • � - � � •\ -� •�' . . ���iii.. . :.1 ' •. '-`.. N!y �.l.• �. 'N�w•b7! 'i �i�'a�� kt',. tr' � _ Y\ ,. .} S Y i - •1 II 4 u rY 9/I1 � u..• Poe 2. ...... � /z ra Jt � �. — � � � � � _ _ � pU.•• -. _ — if{E.t°' _ .r6.":;1:zJ.r•. Jth 5/ r�1R • ' � `� �, �' I 7 62 /:sty. .•-.. _ ..,; J y All, � � � � Iola;•.�4/%E ��� �` � � ' I J]/ct /./2Ar • I ..i}.,,• ;C��- •� r JJAocy r" .Q` -4! / ` . SSJ 54 0Ili •6. . a re yr 11 ♦ K, n z4/Ac ' • [•' r r, sasz �JLed' r. sus i ' '�•'�SlQ3Phn :n. rt-JS C C..WO n.srect 5L lilgilill /5 STORM .. ' 9.74 Ae r CHA.�SNNv ' I ucav Qcf " MIZJill III 4. -.r,'. OArf LLO NO nErno dire lmo Nr. NfYM11 � - Fill ,•� /-/C - - .. 7-7J _.10 -• - 1 5 r City of Palm Desert v 1 T Transmittal Letter "�Si01V TO: CITY MANAGER AND CITY COUNCIL FROM: DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES SUBJECT: (TT 19640 AMENDMENT AND CUP 21-83 APPEAL DATE: May 10, 1984 REQUEST: Appeal from the decision of the Palm Desert Planning Commission of April 3, 1984, conditionally approving an application by Silver Spur Associates. The application involved the amendment of a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map for 39 single family lots on the PR-7, D and PR-7, H zones located in the Ironwood Country Club, on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. APPLICANTS: Silver Spur Associates Edward C. Malone 49-200 Mariposa Dr. Barbara J. Malone U.D.T. 12-14-72 Palm Desert, CA 92260 581 San Antonio Ave. San Diego, CA 92116 Items Appealed Mr. Malone is appealing the entire decision and approval; while Silver Spur Associates is appealing conditions modifying the previously approved Tentative Tract 19640 and reducing the number of lots. Basis of Appeal Mr. Malone is basing his appeal on the following: 1. Legal notice of the commission hearings was not given. 2. Negative Declaration was in violation of CEQA requriements due to complete removal of significant natural rock hills, relocation of the natural major drainage channel to a graded channel, filling of a lake, detrimental revisions to three holes of the existing golf course. 3. Housing is not permitted in a portion of TT 19640 by CUP 1382. 4. The existing lease between Silver Spur Association and the Coachella Valley Water District restricting more than 50% of the land for recreational purposes only. 5. Staff was in error or omissive in their report to commissioners regarding required Dead Indian Channel improvements thereby rejudicing the commissions decision. The basis of appeal of Silver Spur Associates is that the commission action of April 3, 1984, was not supported by evidence as required by the California Subdivision Map Act. History The area in question was approved for subdivision by the planning commission on October 18, 1983. Subsequently, a new application amending the originally approved tract map was filed and the area covered by the map expanded to cover 27.5 acres from the original 22.7 acres. A conditional use permit was required because portions of the site were in the 'D' -1- TT 19640 CUP 21-83 Appeal May 10, 1984 (drainage) and W (hillside) overlays. As noted in the staff report of February 7, 1984 "The current flood ordinance the city is operating with was implemented after 'D' overlay was created and protects and regulates development. Therefore, the purpose of the'D' overlay is being achieved by the current flood ordinance." The map as submitted complied with the city's hillside development regulations. At the February 7 hearing it was decided to continue the hearing to March 6. On February 28, 1984, a letter from Mr. Joe Gibbs legal counsel representing various property owners was received. The letter stated that the original hearing approving TT 19640 was improperly advertised and requested that the city set said approval aside. On March 6, staff responded that the notices were properly sent. The city code requires that notices be mailed to all listed on the equalized assessment roles; in the case where a husband and wife were listed or more than one property owner was listed, one notice was sent to the address listed. Staff felt that the intent of the notice requirement was met. Because of the issues raised concerning notice, drainage, previous county approvals, the matter was continued to April 3 and staff instructed to re-advertise and send notices to all names listed on the equalized assessment roles. The commission also requested that the opponents notify staff of anyone they wished notified. The matter was subsequently re-advertised and the hearing set for April 3, 1984. On April 3, 1984, the planning commission adopted Resolution 939 with conditions. Among the conditions were that five lots on the south side of the 16th hole be deleted, and that the approval of the tentative map rescinded the earlier approved TT 19640 (October 18, 1983). On April 17 and 18 Silver Spur Associates, and E.C. Malone and Barbara J. Malone appealed the commission's action. Analysis of Appeals This portion of the staff report will attempt to address the basis of both appeals. The appeal of E.C. and Barbara Malone shall be reviewed first. 1. Legal notice of the commission hearings was not given. As stated above, the matter was re-advertised after the March commission hearing. All persons appearing on the equalized assessment roles of the Riverside County assessor within 300 feet of not only the tract map itself but beyond, were notified. In addition, anyone wishing to be notified or whose name was given to staff were notified. If this item relates to the approval of October, 1983, the issue is moot because that approval no longer stands (see analysis of Silver Spur Associates appeal). 2. Negative Declaration was in violation of CEQA requirements due to complete removal of significant natural rock hills, relocation of the natural major drainage channel to a graded channel, filling of a lake, detrimental revisions to three holes of the existing golf course. The certification of a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact was not in violation of CEQA. AB 1462 adopted in 1983 "Requires that a Negative Declaration be prepared on a proposed project if there is no substantial evidence which indicates that the project may have a significant effect on the environment. Also requires negative declarations for projects where potentially -2- TT 19640 CUP 21-83 Appeal May 10, 1984 signficiant effects were identified by an initial study, but were mitigated or avoided by redesign of the project." Section 21068 of the California Environmental Quality Act defines "Significant effect on the environment" as a "substantial, or potentially substantial, adverse change in the environment." In short, the change must be substantial and must be adverse or negative in its results. Staff concluded and the commission concurred that the project would not have a significant adverse impact on the environment that was not or could not be mitigated. In examining the items identified in the Malone's appeal, staff would continue to recommend the findings for a negative declaration. (a) "Removal of significant natural rock hills" The rocks being removed are a mound and staff does not believe are significant. However, even if they were significant what is the potential signficiant adverse impact on the environment of the action. (b) "Relocation of the natural major drainage channel to a graded channel" The key word here appears to be "natural". The channel in question is not a natural channel but a man-made channel. This fact was brought out during the April 3, 1984, commission hearing. Aerial photographs of the area taken in the 1940's and later show that the channel was first man-made and secondly, planted by man. The alteration in question will, in addition, improve the carrying capacity of the channel; therefore, even if it was a "natural" channel the impact on the environment would be far from adverse. (c) "Filling of a lake" The "lake" in question was actually a silting basin that has been allowed to retain water becasue of compaction. The "lake" has to be filled from time to time because it is not supplied water by natural means. However, the project relocates this "lake" and does not eliminate it. This was stated during the commission hearings. (d) "Detrimental revisions to three holes of the existing golf course" While any revision to a golf course may be significant and adverse it is not a significant adverse impact on the environment as set forth in CEQA. In addition, the redesign of the holes is being under taken by Mr. Ted Robinson, an expert in golf course design. 3. "Housing is not permitted in a portion of TT 19640 by CUP 1382" CUP 1382 was approved by Riverside County in 1972, much discussion pertaining to this permit occurred before the Palm Desert Planning Commission hearings on this tract. The permit, however, is null and void, a condition set forth in the resolution approving CUP 1382 stated "This permit shall become null and void on June 30, 1982, as to any undeveloped portion of the project." The property, therefore, would no longer come under any provisions of CUP 1382. It should be noted, however, that the applicant has never been permitted to develop to the densities and height limits set forth in the approvals by the County of Riverside. The property owner would, therefore, have the right to develop the area -3- TT 19640 CUP 21-83 Appeal May 10, 1984 under current city zoning regulations of the PR-7 (planned residential development 7 units per acre). "4. The existing lease between Silver Spur Association and the Coachella Valley Water District restricting more than 50% of the land for recreational purposes only." This is a private agreement and does not involve the city. The existing lease arrangement and its limitations cannot be used by the city as either a reason for granting or denying a tentative tract map. 115. Staff was in error or omissive in their report to commissioners regarding required Dead Indian Channel improvements, thereby prejudicing the commission's decision." Staff is unclear regarding this statement, but attached to this report is a letter from Lowell Weeks of the Coachella o ella Valle Water District setting g forth the importance of the Dead Indian Channel. It was stated in the hearings by the applicant that a land exchange occurred. Silver Spur Associates is appealing two conditions of approval related to one, deletion of five lots and rescinding the previously approved TT 19640 (October 1983). The report will deal with the second item of appeal first. The condition as adopted, rescinding the approval of October 1983 (see history portion) was unnecessary. The current Palm Desert Municipal Code provides that if a second tentative map is approved on a piece of property, the first map is null and void. Therefore, this condition cannot actually be appealed since it is part of the city code. This was not pointed out during the hearing. The first portion of the appeal is more complex. The California Subdivision Map Act, Section 65589.5 establishes the criteria for disapproving or reducing density for housing projects. "If a housing project complies with the applicable general plan, zoning ordinance, and 'development policies' in effect when the application was determined complete, but the local agency proposes to disapprove it or reduce the density the agency must find, supported by substantial evidence on the record that: (a) The housing development project would have a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety unless the project is disapproved or approved upon the condition that the project be developed at a lower density. (b) There is no feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the adverse impact identified pursuant to subdivision (a), other than the disapproval of the housing development project or the approval of the project upon the condition it be developed at a lower density." While many issues were dismissed by the commission during the hearings on this project, the findings required for reducing the density (i.e. eliminating five lots) were not perhaps identified or substantiated as clearly as intended by the California State Subdivisin Map Act, Section 65589.5. Because of this staff would recommend that it return this specific matter of the reduction of lots to the planning commission for comment. The commission adopted the findings as set forth int he staff report of April 3, 1984, to approve the subdivision under consideration. Unless council disagrees, these findings would be re-affirmed by council and stand as adopted. The issue, therefore, becomes -- Is there substantial evidence to show that the approval of this subdivision would have "a specific adverse impact upon the public health or safety" that could not be mitigated without reducing the density. -4- TT 19640 CUP 21-83 Appeal May 10, 1984 Conclusion: Staff believes that the required findings for approval of this request as set forth in the staff report of April 3, 1984, can be made. In terms of the issue of reduction of the density and its required findings, the council should make its determination and refer the matter back to the commission for its findings and conclusion. Recommendation: Council refer the matter back to the planning commission for clarification of its position related to the reduction of lots. RAMON A. DIAZ RD/lr Attachments -5- IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB �f R 9 1985 April 8, 1985 EryV!R0NMENTAL SERVICES 0,(Y OF PALM DESERT Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert P.O. Box 1977 Palm Desert, CA 92261 Dear Ray: I had a reason recently to review the Conditions of Approval for Tentative Tract No. 19640. You may recall that we successfully appealed to the Council to restore the five lots deleted by the Planning Commission. Apparently, the Conditions of Approval were not amended to reflect the reinstatement of these lots — unless I do not have the proper copy. At any rate, these lots were included on the final tract map. Perhaps this is unimportant now, but I wanted to call it to your attention in case someone raises a question about it. Since ely, R. S 'cer President RLS: sb IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB • 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 • (619) 346-0551 ,/ ly v 1984 9- v ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DICK WILLARD & ASSOCIATES CITY OF PALM DE SERT Real Estate Consultary,ts , May 3, 1984 Mr. Bruce Altman, City Manager City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive U W nl�'1r Palm Desert, CA 92260 Re: E96:40 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment No. 1) Dear Mr. Altman: I was one of the residents of I_ronwoodowho spoke in opposition to the above-referenced amendment which was proposed for approval at the Planning Commission Meeting that was held on April 3, 1984. At that meeting, I read into the record a letter which was dated April 3, 1984, stating my objections and the reasons therefore, together with enclosures which were 8" x 10" blow-ups of photographs that vividly portray the specific points of objection that were contained in my letter. I do not know what your procedures are down there, but normally, this letter and those 8" x 10" color photographs would be made available to the City Councilmen prior to their meeting which will be held on May 10, at which time they will hear the appeals of Silver Spurs Associates and E. C. Malone of the Planning Commission's approval which was granted at their last meeting on the evening of April 3. I do intend to attend this public meeting on the evening of May 10; however, under cover of this letter, I am enclosing xerox copies of my letter dated April 3 and the photographs which went into the record of the Planning Commission Meeting dated April 3, 1984 for distribution to members of the City Council . It is my hope that you will be able to locate the original color photographs which were left with the Clerk at the Planning Commission meeting so that these might also be circula- ted as they much more graphically portray the problem than will the xerox copies. Yours very t Dick Willard DW/gs enc. SUITE D-9, CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER BELLEVUE, WASH. 98008 • 746-3140 �r �,� 1�' +' ;� � �_ gs . � ♦_ x �. �. Lit t 'r • d � Tm dd jo 1 �'1 �`_l � •1 �•i1 �i . i a < + 1 y _ 5 4 Z ]r e s AF h , x 1 i 1 Y 2 _ �¢ '.,y ; III .•tom' Jy • + A F• MEMO RE: ACTION OF PLANNING COMMISSION OF CITY OF PALM DESERT On April 3, 1984 , the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert (the "Commission" ) conditionally approved, by resolutions no. 939 and 940 respectively, Subdivision Tentative Map 19640 (Amendment #1) (the "Map" ) and Conditional Use Permit 21-83 (Amendment #1) (the "CUP" ) . The Commission, contrary to the recommendations of its staff, and without giving the developer, Silver Spur Associates (the "Owner" ) , an adequate opportunity to respond, unilaterally imposed as a condition of approval of the Map and the CUP that "Lots 35, 36 , 37, 38, and 39 are to be deleted. " By imposing such -Condition, the Commission violated the Owner ' s due process rights by : (a) failing to adequately notify the Owner of the intent of the Condition, (b) failing to make findings supporting the imposition of the Condition, and (c) failing to give the Owner an adequate opportunity to respond to the Condition . The Commission imposed other conditions to the approvals, but these are ndt being challeng6d. It should be noted that the Owner raises the issue of authority under the Subdivision Map Act (and local ordinances thereunder) and .police power. Imposition of condition which constitutes a taking is clearly in excess of such authority. I. The Commission Violated the Owner` s Due Process Rights It has lcng been held that subdivision approvals and conditional use permits, both of which involve the r application of general standards to specific parcels of real property, and ajudicatory decisions requiring reasonable notice . and an opportunity for hearing. Horn v. County 'of Ventura , 24 Cal. 3d 605, 612, 614 (1979) . W y '` A. Requiring "Deletion" of Lots Fails to Adequately Notify Owner of Its Rights Though due process standards of adequate notice usually apply to the notice which must be given that a hearing will be held, such standards must equally be applied where the notice of decision fails to advise a party of its rights and duties thereunder. The Condition, calling for "deletion" of lots, does not give such notice, and the Commission, as the body which imposed and will interpret the Condition, must clarify its intent. See, City of Walnut Creek v. County of Contra Costa, 101 Cal . App. 3d 1012, 1021 (1980 ) (" [there is a] strong policy reason for following the governing body which passed legislation to be given a chance to interpret or clarify its intention Notwithstanding such failure, the Owner interprets the Condition as requiring -that the 5 lots be "deleted" as lots permitted to be improved while requiring that the real property still within such lots continue as part of the proposed subdivision. B. The Commission Abused Its Discretion Since the Findings Neither Support the Condition Imposed Nor Adequately Apprise the Owner of the Commission ' s Bases for Acting An administrative agency must render findings sufficient to -'enable parties to determine whether and on what basis to seek review of the agency' s action, and to expose . for. review. the basis of the - agency ' s decision. Topanga Association for a Scenic Community v. County of Los Angeles, Cal. 3d. 506, . 514 (1974) ; Carmel Valley View, Ltd. v. Board of Supervisors, 58 Cal. App. 3d 817, 823 (1976) . Such findings are contemplated by Cal. Civ. Proc. Code Sect. 1094 . 5 regardless of local ordinances. Topanga, supra. The rendering of an administrative decision which is not supported by findings constitutes an ;abuse of discretion. Id. at 515; Cal . Civ. Proc. Code Sect. 1094 . 5. In the instant case, the staff of the Planning Department prepared reports before each meeting of the Commission where the Map and the CUP were considered. Each such report recommended approval of the Map and the CUP and expressly found that the proposed subdivision conformed to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act and local ordinances thereunder, but none of the reports included or recommended imposition of the Condition. i 2 - Each report also included a proposed set of resolutions which the staff recommended the Commission use in approving the Map and the CUP. The Commission made no written findings of its own, but rather, adopted the resolutions prepared by the staff modifying them only to add the Condition and two other conditions not challenged here. The Commission in effect adopted the findings of the staff . Carmel Valley. View, supra. The findings of the staff will support approval of the Map and CUP, but not the action of the Commission in imposing the Condition. Also the findings, which merely recite the language of Cal. Gov ' t. Code. Sect. 6644, do not apprise the Owner of any grounds for review of the Condition. Accordingly, the Commission, by rendering a decision not . supported by its findings, abused its discretion. C. Subdivision With a Previously Undiscussed Condition as Condition to Approval Fails to Provide an Adequate Opportunity for Hearing The Condition was imposed by the Commission unilaterally after the hearing on the Map and the CUP had been closed to further public comment. The Condition was not a part of the staff report to the Commission, and was at no time discussed before the hearing was closed. Accordingly, the Owner had neither notice of nor an opportunity to be heard on such.'issue prior t!o the rendering df a final decision. In the instant case, such failure of notice and an opportunity for hearing is particularly onerous since the application was for an .amendment to a previously approved Map and CUP. The subdivision tract Map and CUP sought to be amended had been approved by the Commission on October 18 , 1983 . " [W] here . . . prior notice of a potentially adverse decision is constitutionally required, that notice must, at a minimum, be reasonably calculated to afford affected persons the realistic opportunity to protect their interests . " Horn v. County of Ventura, 24 Cal. 3d at 617 . Had proper notice been given, the Owner could have withdrawn the amendment applications and retained his vested rights in the previously approved tentative map and conditional use permit. . Cal. Gov't. Code Sect. 66474 . 1 ; Youngblood v. Board of Supervisors, 22 Cal. 3d 644 (1978) ; Palm Desert Subdivision Regulation 26 . 20 . 150 . By the Commission' s failure to give notice, the Owner was deprived of a significant property interest without due process. 3 - II . Imposition of the Condition Constitutes an Unlawful Taking of Private Property Without Just Compensation Therefor. It is generally accepted that conditions which bear a reasonable relationship to traffic and other needs of a proposed subdivision may be imposed as part of the subdivision process. Ayres v. City Council of Los Angeles, 34 Cal. 2d 31, 42 (1949) . Furthermore, such conditions will not be deemed improper when they incidentally benefit the City as a whole . Associated Home Builders, Etc . , Inc . v. City of Walunt Creek, 4 Cal. 3d 633 , 638 (1971) . These principles have been used to uphold conditions for street dedications, Ayres, supra, parkland dedications, Associated, supra, installation of smoke detectors, Soderling v. City of Santa Monica, 142 Cal. App. 3d 501 (1983) , and continuing shoreline maintenance and support, Frisco Land & Mining Co. v. State of California, 74 Cal . App. 3d 736 (1977) . There are, however, limits to the power to impose such conditions, which power stems from the police power. Scrutton v. County of Sacramento, 275 Cal. App. 2d 412 , 421 (1969 ) . Such conditions must be reasonably related to the increased needs of the public emanating from the proposed use, Ayres, supra; Scruttons, supra, and may not be used as a disguised attempt to take private property for public use without resort to eminent domain. Liberty v. California Coastal Commission, 113 Cal'. App. 3d 491, 593 (1980) . Furthermore, such conditions may not be arbitrarily or unreasonably imposed. . Candlestick Properties, Inc. v. San Francisco Bay Conservation, Etc. Commission, 11 Cal App. 3d 557, 571 (1970) . In short, the imposition of a condition may not deprive a landowner of constitutional protection. Agins v. City of Tiburon, 100 S. Ct. 2138 , 2141 (1980) ; Liberty, supra; Scrutton, supra. In the instant case, the Condition absolutely and arbitrarily bars the use of the lots at issue permanently without any rational need for such bar. The Commission did not find and could not have found that the land was needed to support the increased needs of the public emanating from the proposed use, since the Owner had already made more than adequate provision and the staff had already recommended other conditions to satisfy such needs, which provisions and conditions were included within the Commission' s action. - 4 - a The other conditions imposed included dedications of building rights on portions of the proposed subdivision, covenants for natural areas to remain as such and conditions for installation of streets. A staff report prepared March 6 , 1984 , as part of the continued hearing on this matter also noted that the Owner had already dedicated the required and appropriate parklands. The only logical explanation of the Commission ' s action is that the Commission barred use of the lots at issue to meet the apparent desire of the homeowner ' s on Quercus Lane and Poinciana Place. Such action constitutes a taking. Private property may not be arbitrarily_ taken for public use by the imposition of subdivision conditions when such use is in no way related to the needs of the public, generated in some part by the proposed subdivision. Liberty, supra; Candlestick, supra. Nor can an administrative agency act solely on the grounds of the " 'apparent desire ' of certain people. " Kling v. City Council, 155 Cal. App. 2d 309, 314 (1957) . In light of the above discussion it is apparent that the imposition of the Condition, interpreted in the manner noted above, constitutes an unlawful taking without just compensation therefor. 5 - ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY iii"""�OrsrRl�- COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 •TELEPHONE(619)398-2651 DIRECTORS OFFICERS RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS.PRESIDENT LOWELL O.WEEKS,GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGI NEER TELLIS CODEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT BERNARDINE SUTTON,SECRETARY JOHN P.POWELL January 25 1984 VICTOR B.HARDY.AUDITOR PAUL W.NICHOLS REDWINE AN D SHERRILL.ATTORN EYS STEVE D.BU%TON I Silver Spur Associates dba Ironwood Country Club 49-200 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Gentlemen: Enclosed is an executed copy of the agreement between Silver Spur Associates, dba Ironwood Country Club and the Coachella Valley Water District, for the construction of certain stormwater facilities and exchange of right of way, as authorized by the attached certified copy of Resolution No. 84-6 adopted by the Board of Directors of this District on January 10, 1984. Yours very truly, Bernardine Sutton Secretary BS:rs Enclosures/as I TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY 14N F yyy f f �' r t �'. R t st jp[• �j� Rr' off; .x t i ds t t J f • %q}' `,q. W T Ta .,.. �,_.a �c. 53+�+ .,. .. ac tnzx . w t • s .z ', a. .',.y rt� '� +S a 3t. +I r ee ,�z af.' s ..F r •G': .-' aT a, *T i h s$ lz 'is`. .l i 7�4, k " .�,+r,,F������l..M .+ k. '7wr��..t+•4, s...w...�i ';�.� . ���.�x 4 �/'� ��� s�„r�: t,`�, ... �o-a• `'!�k t!'"�` �V'.:'4: ' d 1 AGREEMENT This Agreement is made as of the loth day of January, 1984 by and between SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, a California partnership d/b/a Ironwood Country Club ("Ironwood") and the COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, a county water district ("District"). R E C I T A L S: A. Ironwood is the owner and developer of the Ironwood Country Club, a residential - recreational development located in Riverside County, California. A portion of the Ironwood Country Club land is owned in fee by Ironwood and an additional portion, used for golf course and drainage purposes, is leased from District. . B. District is the owner of certain real property, adjacent to Ironwood Country Club, commonly known as the Living Desert Reserve Retention Basin (the "Retention Basin") . C. With the approval of the District, Ironwood has constructed a flood control channel designed to control run-off storm waters from the Deep Canyon, located south of the Retention Basin, through the Ironwood golf course and to the Retention Basin. D. District deems it to be in the public interest to extend and improve the flood control channel as it flows through the Ironwood Country Club, and has proposed certain improvements referred to collectively as the Ironwood Training Dike (Training Dike) , specifically described on District Drawing Nos. 9661, 9662 and 11048 and specifications attached hereto as Exhibit A. E. Ironwood desires to acquire certain land from the District for the purpose of residential development, a portion of this land currently being used as a part of the District's Dead Indian Flood Channel Ironwood proposes to reroute storm runoff in the Dead Indian channel through a portion of its adjacent golf course in the manner described in the plan and conditions of approval for Tentative Map 19640. This plan is feasible as a result of the recent completion of the Palm Valley channel and retention basin which substantially reduce the storm runoff that would otherwise be carried in the Dead Indian channel. F. Because of the unavailability of public funds for construction of the Training Dike, District desires to convey to Ironwood certain surplus land which it owns in and adjacent to the Dead Indian Flood Channel in exchange for (i) Ironwood's agreement to construct the Training Dike and.drainage facilities within the drainage easement and adjacent property and (ii) conveyance of the drainage easement by Ironwood to District. L NOW THEREFORE, in order to accomplish the foregoing, the parties hereby agree as follows: I THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT 1.01 Agreement to Grant Easement. Ironwood hereby agrees to grant to District an irrevocable non-exclusive easement for drainage and flood control purposes over that certain real property consisting of approximately 3.5 acres, described in Exhibit B and shown on Exhibit B-1 attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein (the "Drainage Easement") . — -2 4 r 1.02 Permitted Use. The Drainage Easement hereby agreed to Jbe II granted may be used by District solely for the purpose of accepting flood and storm waters diverted by the flood control channel described herein. The Drainage Easement is a portion of the Ironwood golf course and shall continue to be used for golf course purposes. 1.03 Closing. Conveyance of the Drainage Easement by Ironwood to District shall be accomplished through the escrow described in Section 3.02 hereof. Recordation of the document granting such easement shall occur concurrently with the recordation of the grant deed to the Exchange Property described in Subsection 3.03(a) hereof. District may, at its election and expense, secure a policy of title insurance, with liability in such amount as it shall elect, insuring its title to the Drainage Easement. II IMPROVEMENT OF FLOOD CONTROL CHANNEL 2.01 Work to be Done by Ironwood. (a) Training Dike: Ironwood hereby agrees to construct the improvements described in the plans and specifications attached as Exhibit A. Such work shall include: (i) the extension of the existing westerly training dike located at the mouth of the flood control channel at the south end of the Ironwood golf course, for a distance of approximately 1,800 feet to the southwest to the rocky slope of the adjacent hills, (ii) facing the entire length of the dike with concrete slope protection, and- (iii) construction of approximately 500 feet of additional slope protection -3- located at the outlet end of the Ironwood Golf Course Drainage Channel (Dead Indian Flood Channel) . Ironwood shall also conduct all soils tests reasonably necessary for such work. The precise description of the work to be done is enumerated the plans and specifications attached hereto as Exhibit A. The construction shall be completed within 180 days of execution of this Agreement. (b) Drainage Facilities: Ironwood hereby agrees to construct, on the real property described in Exhibit B hereof and on adjacent real property, the relocated Drainage Facilities generally as shown on Exhibit C. Final plans shall be reviewed and approved by the District. Such work shall include earthwork, and grassing of the relocated Drainage Facilities. All costs associated with the construction of the Drainage Facilities shall be paid for by Ironwood. Ironwood shall maintain the grassed Drainage Facilities. Construction of the Drainage Facilities shall be coordinated by Ironwood to insure that adequate capacity for stormwater exists during the relocation of the Drainage Facilities. 2.02 Work to be done by District. In order to facilitates work to be done by Ironwood pursuant to Section 2.01 (a) above, District, at its expense, will do all necessary field engineering and obtain all necessary City and County approvals and permits. 2.03 Cost of Work. Ironwood shall pay all costs of the work described in Section 2.01. 2.04 Quality of Work. All work to be done pursuant to Section 2.01 shall be done by licensed contractors approved by District in accordance with plans and specifications. -4- 2.05 Right to Remove Dirt. Construction of the flood control improvements and the grading of a portion of Dead Indian Flood Channel will jrequire the relocation or removal of a large amount of dirt. Ironwood shall have the right, without additional compensation to District, to remove all or any of such dirt to a location or locations on Ironwood property, to be used as fill dirt for Ironwood`s land development provided that the removal does not adversely affect the stormwater facilities. III THE EXCHANGE PROPERTY 3.01 Agreement to Convey. In consideration of the agreement by [aadby d to grant the easement described in Article I hereof and complete k described in Article II hereof, District agrees to convey to d. by grant deed, that certain real property (the "Exchange y") described in Exhibit D and shown on Exhibit D-1 attached hereto this reference incorporated herein. 3.02 Escrow. Within five business days after the execution of. this Agreement by Ironwood and District, District and Ironwood shall open an escrow with GENERAL ESCROW CO. , 44720 San Pablo, Palm Desert, CA ("Escrow Holder") in order to complete the transfer of title to the Drainage Easement and the Exchange Property. The parties agree to execute such escrow instructions as may be necessary to complete such exchange in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof. The parties further agree to deposit such other instruments and funds as are necessary to close the escrow and complete the exchange of the properties in accordance with the terms hereof. -5- 3.03 Title: (a) Title to the Exchange Property shall be conveyed by grant deed, duly executed and acknowledged by authorized officers of District, sufficient to convey marketable title to the Exchange Property to Ironwood free and clear of all title exceptions except as may be approved by Ironwood. (b) As soon as feasibly possible after the opening of escrow, Escrow Holder shall obtain and deliver to Ironwood a preliminary title report issued by Escrow Holder's title insurance division describing the state of title to the Exchange Property together with copies of any exceptions contained in the preliminary title report. (c) Ironwood's fee title to the Exchange Property shall be insured by a CLTA policy of title insurance issued by Escrow Holder with liability in the amount of $325,000.00 showing title to the Exchange Property vested in Ironwood subject only to non-delinquent real property taxes and assessments and other exceptions which may be approved by Ironwood after review of the preliminary title report. (d) Ironwood shall procure a preliminary title report describing the state of title to the Drainage Easement and, if the District so elects, it may at its expense, obtain a policy of title insurance insuring its title to such easement. 3.04. Zoning. District is aware that Ironwood intends to use the Exchange Property for golf course and residential development. District agrees not to oppose, and to support if appropriate, Ironwood's proposal for the zoning and subdivision of such property for residential uses in connection with Tentative Tract 19640, as it may be revised from time to time. 3.05 Closing Costs. Ironwood shall pay all closing costs in connection with this transaction including the cost of title insurance on the Exchange Property, other than the cost of any title insurance requested by District with respect to the Drainage Easement. 3.06 Closing Date. The closing of this transaction shall occur no later than five days after the date that Ironwood (i) begins construction of the work described in Section 2.01 and (ii) either completes such work or posts a public improvement performance bond with a bonding company satisfactory to District with liability in the amount of $325,000.00 to guarantee completion of the work. For reference purposes only, the parties expect the closing to occur on or before February 1, 1984. IV MISCELLANEOUS 4.01 Attorney's Fees. In the event of any action between Ironwood and District seeking enforcement of any of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, or in connection with the property which is the subject matter hereof, the prevailing party in such action shall be awarded, in addition to damages, injunctive or other relief, its reasonable costs and expenses, not limited to taxable costs and reasonable attorney's fees. 4.02 Notices. All notices under this Agreement shall be effective upon personal delivery .to District or Ironwood, as the case may _7_ I - be, or two business days after deposit in the United States mail, registered or certified mail, postage fully prepaid and addressed to the respective parties as follows: To District: Coachella Valley Water District Post Office Box 1058 Coachella, California 92236 Attention: Lowell 0. Weeks, General Manager- Chief Engineer To Ironwood: Ironwood Country Club 49-200 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: R. L. Spicer, President or to such other address as the parties may from time to time designate in writing. 4.03 Choice of Laws. This Agreement shall be governed by the law of the State of California and any question arising hereunder shall be construed or determined according to such law. 4.04 Assignment. The terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Agreement is executed as of the date first above written. -8- i COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT By P sident By Secr tary SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES d/b/a Ironwood Country Club By IRONWOOD CORPO TION, General Partner r By Y R. L. Spicer President -9- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 1 RESOLUTION NO. 84-6 2 BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Directors of the Coachella Valley 3 Water District assembled in regular meeting this 10th day of January, 1984, 4 that the President or Vice President and Secretary are hereby authorized to 5 execute on behalf of this District, an Agreement between Silver Spur 6 Associates and the Coachella Valley Water District dated January 10, 1984, 7 for the construction of certain stormwater facilities and exchange 8 of right of way. q * * * * * * * * * r 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT ) as. 20 OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY ) 21 I, BERNARDINE SUTTON, Secretary of the Board of Directors of the 22 Coachella Valley Water District, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a 23 full, true and correct copy of Resolution No. 84-6 adopted by the Board of 24 Directors of said District at a regular meeting thereof duly held and 25 convened on the 10th day of January, 1984, at which meeting a quorum of said 26 Board was present and acting throughout. 27 Dated this loth day of January, 1984. 28 _. 29 Sec etary of the Coachella Valley Water District and of the Board 30 (SEAL) of Directors thereof. 31 32 ..w r"..3KS .. ...-+.s::auc..-.:.,,u�.. . �... ....w;•u.. ..w..-._.. T _ wn K...,: ,.� t.�:ep.,,_ EXHIBIT "D" ' EXCHANGE PROPERTY THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF SECTION 32; TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, ALONG WITH THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 2, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 6 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED . AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE NORTH 1°27 ' 24" WEST, 2662. 97 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID' SECTION 32 TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE SOUTH 89°48 ' 21" EAST, 2670. 43 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE CENTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE SOUTH 1010' 21" EAST, 1958 . 84 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 OF DEED TO COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECORDED APRIL 26 , 1956 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 29692, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 28*25 ' 08" EAST, 698 . 06 FEET ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF THAT CERTAIN LAND DESCRIBED IN DEED TO GENERAL AMERICAN DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION RECORDED DECEMBER 31, 1969 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 133174 TO A POINT. IN THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH ONE-HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE SOUTH 89056131" EAST, 103. 90 FEET ALONG SAID NORTH LINE; THENCE SOUTH 403 ' 45 WEST, 251. 38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 12053' 23" WEST, 327. 25 FEET; EET• THENCE SOUTH 25048 ' 16" WEST, 101 . 08 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 41°13' 53" WEST, 102. 52 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20059 ' 22" WEST, 92 .29 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 5-25- 42" EAST, 75. 61 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 34°35 ' 10" WEST, 11 . 31 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 10024 - 50" EAST, 442. 00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE Exhibit "D" Page Two BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE WESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 60. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 33025' 22" AN ARC LENGTH OF 35. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 23°00 ' 32" WEST, 143 . 67 FEET; THENCE NORTH 51'09 ' 51" WEST, 265 . 00 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32; THENCE NORTH 1'10 ' 21" WEST, 368 . 03 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 OF DEED TO COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT, SAID CORNER BEING A POINT ON A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHEASTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550. 00 FEET, A RADIAL BEARING OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEING SOUTH 1-10 - 21" EAST; THENCE WESTERLY AND NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE ON THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF SAID LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 OF COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT DEED THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 43001159" AN ARC LENGTH OF 413 . 09 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG THE SOUTHWESTERLY LINE OF PARCEL 2 OF SAID COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT DEED NORTH 48008 ' 22" WEST, 395. 74 FEET TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 550. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE ON SAID SOUTHWESTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 20024 ' 16" AN ARC LENGTH OF 195. 87 FEET, TO A POINT, A RADIAL BEARING OF SAID CURVE TO SAID POINT BEING NORTH 21027 ' 22" EAST; THENCE NORTH 21027122" EAST, 60. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 86004108" EAST, 95. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 72022112" EAST, 161 . 62 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 81015114" EAST, 118 . 38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 57012157" EAST, 70 . 18 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 37025' 01" EAST, 115 . 21 FEET; THENCE NORTH 55°41 ' 06" EAST, 76. 28 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 66045126" EAST, 84. 89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 52050108" EAST, 155. 60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 79'00' 29" EAST, 52. 65 Exhibit "D" Page Three FEET TO SAID EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32; THENCE NORTH 1010121" WEST, 96 . 98 FEET ALONG SAID EAST LINE TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 12. 21 ACRES. i EXHIBIT D - 1 EXCHANGE PROPERTY 589'48'21"E 2670.43' r W 1/4 COR. - - - !• - ---C1/4-COR. - SEC. 32 SEC. 32 NL'Y LINE SOUTH 1/2 OF S.E. 114 EL'Y LINE SECTION 32, L TRAC- ? N 05565-3 oI '.'vo GNP Sl 0° 3 w I � w � PARCEL 2, N 1NSTR. 029692 0 r16. N 4 d•i �19' N I `�{^ � N `�- 20 S.W. COR. K SEC.32 '(21 23 - (POINT OF �� 6 COMMENCEMENT) - y, �l COURSE DATA (� �'-4 _ NO_ BEARING DIST, 12.21 ACRES ,1) N28°25'08"E 698.06' V S89056-31-E 103,90' e3> S 4003'45"W 251,38' L) 512'53'23"W 327.25' - ^ ' S25°48'16"W 101.08' (6? S41013'53"W 102.52' I v `/ S20059'22"W 92.29' CURVE DATA V (8) S 5025'42"E 75 DE .61 ' NO, R LTA L } (9` S34°35'10"W 11.31' �� 60' 33025'22" 35.00' i Dso °' soo• e°o' UQ, S1002415011E 442.00' &550' 43°01 '59" 413.09' — /�550' 20-24-16" 195.87' l3 n• so ' L�L' S23°00'32"W 143.67' 1 Q2' N51°09'51"W 265.00' SCALE IN FEE' U 3 N 1010'21"W 368.03' (N, N48°08'22"W 395.74' S 1/4 CDR. N21'27'22"E 60.00' SEC. 32,1`5S,R6E ) (16) S86'04'08"E 95.00, '1T S72°22-12"E 161.62' \ >p.. 0.81 S81°15'14"E 118.38' N.W. COB. 601'T. — ,19± S57°12'57"E 70.18' LOT 2, SECS, 'iO> S37'25'01"E 115.21' T.6S.R.6E. i QU NSS°41'06"E 76.28' BASIS OF BEARINGS: 2i 2 S66°45'26"E 84.89' THE BEARING OF NORTH 1°27'24"NEST FOR THE 2r-1 S52°50108"E 155.60' WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER F '24. S79°00'291-E 52.65' SECTION 32,T.5S,R.6E,S.B.B&M, AS SHOWN 2S N 1°10'21"W 96.98' ON RECORD OF SURVEY 59/39-42, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS EXHIBIT SUN-RAY ENGINEERING AND ACCOMPANYING LEGAL DESCRIPTION. 1-4 °...111. lR J✓S T(IOOJ'0 I EXHIBIT "B" t DRAINAGE EASEMENTS PARCEL 1: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE NORTH 1027' 24" WEST, 2662. 97 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 32 TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE SOUTH 89°48 ' 21" EAST, 2670. 43 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE CENTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE SOUTH 1°10 ' 21" EAST, 1958 .84 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 OF DEED TO COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECORDED APRIL 26 , 1956 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 29692, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 60044 ' 22" WEST, (RECORDED AS NORTH 60054141" WEST) , 721 . 33 FEET ALONG THE NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID PARCEL 2 TO THE BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE SOUTHERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 825. 00 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING NORTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE ON SAID NORTHEASTERLY LINE THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 15039 ' 00" AN ARC LENGTH OF 225. 34 FEET TO A POINT, A RADIAL BEARING TO SAID POINT BEING NORTH 13°36 ' 38" EAST, SAID POINT ALSO BEING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF TRACT NO. 5565-3 AS SHOWN ON MAP FILED IN BOOK 98, PAGES 71 THROUGH 73, INCLUSIVE, OF ' I MAPS, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY; THENCE NORTH 13°36 ' 38" EAST , 108. 00 FEET ALONG THE EASTERLY LINE OF SAID TRACT NO. 5565-3; THENCE SOUTH 74049 ' 12" EAST, 90. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64°15' 16" EAST, 116 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 67°19 ' 15" EAST, 20. 04 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 74008 , 50" EAST, 115 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 82°58 ' 06" EAST, 253.00 FEET; THENCE Exhibit "B" Page Two 1 SOUTH 49032 ' 59" EAST, 152 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 31026126" EAST, 122 . 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 25°21 ' 54" EAST, 73. 36 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 9038140" WEST, 77. 60 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 53°49 ' 43" EAST, 53 . 66 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER; THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID EAST LINE SOUTH 1010121" EAST, 18. 41 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 3. 14 ACRES. PARCEL 2: THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 32, TOWNSHIP 5 SOUTH, RANGE 6 EAST, SAN BERNARDINO BASE AND MERIDIAN, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE NORTH 1°27 ' 24" WEST, 2662. 97 FEET ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 32 TO THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE SOUTH 89048 ' 21" EAST, 2670. 43 FEET ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE CENTER CORNER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE SOUTH 1010' 21" EAST 1958 . 84 FEET ALONG THE EAST LINE OF SAID SOUTHWEST QUARTER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN LAND DESCRIBED IN PARCEL 2 OF DEED TO COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT RECORDED APRIL 26,1956 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 29692, SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE SOUTH 58049 ' 52" EAST, 112. 91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 64026' 24" EAST, 152. 00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 20059122" WEST, 92. 29 FEET; THENCE NORTH 64026124" WEST, 152. 00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 7 ° ' W F THE 8 15 06 WEST 62. 15 FEET TO A POINT OF THE EST LINE O H , SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 32; THENCE NORTH 1010 ' 21" WEST, 131 . 98 FEET ALONG SAID WEST LINE OF SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING 0. 53 ACRES. EXHIBIT B - 1 DRAINAGE & FLOOD CONTROL EASEMENTS S89°48'21"E 2670.43' -- -° C 1/4 COR. / .- N 1/4 COR. SEC. 32 SEC. 32 �� EL'Y LINE TRACT N r m 16, on I � w Y. PARCEL 1 \ PARCEL 2. 3.14 ACRES I NSTR. 029692 \ 'L 3 2 Cu 3 n T.P.0.B. ( J4 'sJ PARCE S.N. COR. 2 SEC. 32 0:53 fPOINT OF COMMENCEMENT) I 8 ACRES 'i7 l6 COURSE DATA O NO. BEARING DIST. 1 N60°44'22"W 721.33' 2 N13°36'38"E 108.00' 3 S74049'12"E 90.00' — — 4 S64015'16"E 116.00' CURVE DATA 5 S67019'15"E 20.04' NO. R DELTA L 6 S74008'50"E 115.00' n 825' 15°39100" 225.34• s°• v 1°0• zoo• 7. S82058'06"E 253.00' t (/8�) S-49032'59"E 152.00' SCALE IN FEE' 1 es s° � S31°26'26"E 122.00' ( 9 � S25°21'54"E 73.36' f (Ill S 9°38'40"W 77.60' S53049'34"E 53.66' S 1/4 CDR 11 S 1°10-21"E 18.41' SEC. 32.TSS.R6E ' 6-4` SSB°49'S2'E 112.91' 1-- 05� S64026-24"E 152.00' BASIS OF BEARINGS: (1--6' S20059'22"W 92.29' THE BEARING OF NORTH 1°27'24"HEST FOR THE I1F�i7 N64°26'24"W 152.00' NEST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF i N78°15'06"W 62.15' SECTION 32. T.5S,R.6E.S.8.BSM AS SHOWN ON r13' N 1'10'21"W 131.98' RECORD OF SURVEY 59/39-42, WAS USED AS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS EXHIBIT AND ACCOMPANYING LEGA'_ DESCRIPTION SUN-RAY ENGINEERING If w RI•IrM[r ti Vriewnu w s�wrrlo _J ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY 4t COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX losB•COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236•TELEPHONE(619)398,2651 OFFICERS DIRECTORS LOWELL O.WEEKS,GENERALSER ARDINE SUi7ON.SECRETARY , RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS,PRESIDENT YICTyZR B.HARDY.AUDITOR TELLIS COOEKAS,VICE PRESIDENT REDWINE AN BRILL,ATTORNEYS JOHN P.POWELL 13, 1984 PAUL W.NICHOLS February STEVE D.BUKTON File: 0121.309 �p S7 rti Planning Commission City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Ironwood Country Club Stormwater facilities in most areas including Riverside County require protection of residential developments against a storm with a recurrCityenceof interval of once every loo ears (100 year Palm Desert in conjunction with the District has set the Standard Project to be provided in the design of major Storm as the level of protection flood control facilities. The Standard ProjectStorlyisibasedmilar on the In greatest storm of record occurringhydrological rea, the Standard Project Storm has the recurrence the Palm Desert a interval between 250 and 350 years As a result of the construction of the onmStolrmwaterley oChannel Improvements—\ ater Project, the Living Desert Debris Basin and Deep Ca yof Palm Desert is protected from within Vintage Country Club, the City except for an runoff from the mountains from the Standard PrCanconSflomodway. Because of area within Ironwood Country Club on the Deep Y at the this, the District has insistrovements that rin the Deeood n Canyon floodway. With Ironwood Dike and channel mP thl-s cons ruction and construct on proposed for the Dead Irotectedaagainst Ironwood Channel, the entire City of Palm Desert will be p stormwater flews from the mountains from the Standard Project Storm. TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY j February 13, 1984 Planning Commission providinged for �' the City of Palm Desert should beheoCLtydis one of the very We.believe that;:rotection for their residents. degree of thii 'degree of p provided this deg few cities in the United States which have protection for their, residents. Yours very truly, Low 11 0. Wee s General Manager-Chief Engineer TEL:ra cc: Carlos.Ortega Assistarit, City Manager City of ,Palm Desert Post Office: Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 cc: � 4Larry Spicer Club Piionwood Country 49-200 Mariposa Drive Palm' esert,,, California 92260 .D. cct. Ray, Diaz. Planning Director City of Palm Desert post. office. Box .1977 Palm Desert; California 92261 r , . 1 I • �fER ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 10S8• COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236• TELEPHONE 1619139&2651 I OFFICERS DIRECTORS LOW ELL O.WEEKS.GENERAL MANAGER—CHIEF ENGINEER pE. NG R RUMVGEPRESIDENTNT BERNAROINE SUTTON,SECRETARY POW ELL VICTORS.HARDY,AUDITOR iONN p. PAUL W.POWENICH LB REDWINE AND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS / STEVE 0.BUXTON January 11 , 1984 File: 0163.11 0421.1 0721.1 3°32�� Department of Environmental Services IT City of Palm Desert Post office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 ✓I'2U:v,qE NT IF Gentlemen: T 1 rf,�ML fs'FV'r Subject: Amended Tentative Tract 19,640 Portion of South half, Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East San Bernardino Meridian This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone AO, depth three feet on Federal Flood Insurance rate maps which are in effect at this time. However, we expect the map to be revised due to the construction of the Palm Valley Stormwater Project. A portion of this tract is within the Dead Indian Stormwater Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This area shall be annexed to the Stormwater Unit of the Coachella Valley Water District. The District will furnish domestic water and sanitation service to this area in accordance with the current regulations of this District. There may be conflicts with existing District facilities. We request the appropriate public agency to withhold the issuance of a building permit until arrangements have been made with the District for the relocation of these facll ] ti P.S • Yours very truly, Lowell 0. Weeks / General Manager-Chief Engineer CS:ra cc : Riverside County Department of Public Health, Indio RUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHO 191398-2651 )OFFICERS DIRECTORS LOW ELL O.WEEKS.GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS.PRESIDENT BERNAR VICTOR THARDY,AUDITOR SECRETARY TELLISCODEKAS.VICE PRESIDENT September 16, 1983 pEp1yINEANTOR 8, AR ATTORNEYS JOHN P.POWELL PAUL W.NICHOLS STEVE D.BUXTON File: 0163.11 0421.1 0721.1 1983 Department of Environmental Ser%aekwvt't City of Palm Desert y Y `` ?aLAl��` Post Office Box 1977 „> Palm Desert, California 92261 Gentlemen: Subject: Tract 19640, Portion of South Half, Section 32, Township 5 South, Range 6 East, San Bernardino Meridian This area is shown to be subject to shallow flooding and is designated Zone A0, depth 3 feet on Federal Flood tinsurance he map to rate be maps whichngh are inneffect at this time. However we expect revisions. A portion of this tract is within the Dead Indian Stormwater Channel. Plans for stormwater protective works shall be submitted to Coachella Valley Water District for review. This area shall be annexed to the Stormwater Unit of the Coachella Valley Water District. The itation accordancecwithltheurnish currentomestic water regulations ofnthisn service to this area in District. This area shall ement istict Nos. Coachella Valley bWater eDistrict xed to mfor vsanitationr 54 and 80 of service. Yours very truly Lowell O. Weeks eneral Manager-Chief Engineer RCM:dlb cc: Department of Public Health, Indio TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY 1 ESTABLISHED IN 1918 AS A PUBLIC AGENCY COACHELLA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT POST OFFICE BOX 1058 • COACHELLA, CALIFORNIA 92236 • TELEPHONE ) 398.2651 (Ji19) OFFICERS DIRECTORS LOW ELL O.WEEKS.GENERAL MANAGER-CHIEF ENGINEER RAYMOND R.RUMMONDS.PRESIDENT BERNARDIN E SUTTON.SECRETARY TELLWOODEKAS.VICE PRESIDENT VICTOR B.HARDY.AUDITOR JOHN P.POW ELL REDWINE AND SHERRILL.ATTORNEYS PAUL W.NICHOLS STEVE D.BUXTON September 26, 1983 NVIRGN:.7'_N FAL S&nViCES 7*7; CF PAL(:i Gc ART Ray Diaz City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, California 92261 Dear Mr. Diaz: This letter is to authorize the inclusion of property owned by the District in the South Half of Section 32. Township 5 South, Range 6 East, S.B.M. in Tentative Tract 19640. if you have any questions or desire additional information, please call Tom Levy at (619) 398-2651. Yours very truly, Lowell 0. Weeks General Manager-Chief Engineer TEL:ra cc: Larry Spicer 49200 Mariposa Palm Desert, California 92260 TRUE CONSERVATION USE WATER WISELY �' -r- t _ ,�_� ,�� z ,�: i �_ � _ - ".� , ' a �. I � _ _ —_ -� - � - 1 1 � �� m � M1- ( j ;� - v `.� - - _ �\ �� f .\ �\' � `I ,� 1 j \ I i .. .,. BANKOFAMERICA M19(CT21Y D i�Y 1 4 1984 PALM DESERT BRANCH ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT May 10, 1084 City of Palm Desert Post Office Box 1977 Palm Desert, Ca. 92261 Dear Sirs: We received in the mail, a correspondence from you to be for- warded to our mutual customer, Marjorie C. Ward. Unfortunately, we do not have a current address for Ms. Ward. Enclosed, you-,will find the letter and envelope in its present condition. Please try to contact Ms. Ward in another way. Sincerely, Toni Marie Lea Authorized Officer-Operations TML/sw Enclosure /i BANK OF AMERIGAJ NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION • 73.820 EL PASEO • PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92260 POST OFFICE BOX 1677,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92261 \ " I Ward, Marjorie C. 73-820 El Pa;en 1'a,lm 11r+!SiINl;,, (P, '922130 April 19, 1984 I:A Y OF PALM DESER'r LEGAL. NOTICE CASE NOS. 'I•T 15,640 and CUP :21-83 (Amendment 1/1) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert to carsider an appeal by E.C. & BARBARA 1 MALONE: and SILVER SPUR .ASSOCIATES, of a: Planning CUITlnlission approval amending a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential .lot subdivision map (45 total lots) on' 27.5 acres located in the PR'-7 (Planned Residential, maximum , 7 d.u./acre), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, rnaximu-n 7 d.u.%acre, wiih hillside overlay), zones 1ocate0, in Ironwood 'Countty'Club, south of Mariposa"Drive at the easterly endlof Poinciarla'Vlacie, more particularly described as: APN 631-•270-052 and portions of 631-270•-010,016,051 Ab_.....__, l.- CITY II f� pa I I } � �� • v li � I I , —_ v�.10.®. ,..,m®v.m,..mexdinsr„e`u,v,.,•j• .yn. ,ro 1 • d SAID public hearing viill'be hells on "I"hursda.y>;-:,May 10, 1984. at 7:00 P.M. my thy'. Civic: Center Courie:ile Chainb.er"at Palm' Desert Cit•i Nall;, 73-.510 Fred Waring .Drive, Pel'alm Desert, California,.at which tine and place allAnterested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submit-ced by lthe applicant are available for review in the department oCenvironmenta.l services at city hall. SHEIJ-A R. GILL,IGAN, Cleo: City of Palm Desert, California. PU13LISH: Desert t Post April 20, .1984 Am t�` of POST OFFICE BOX 1977,PALM DESERT,CALIFORNIA 92261 �, jj fD, •I /�r„jJ_. i i -�., A1Tf' �Fv� f` ,FpF No vj; r „! JL'RFS Y E• f1 , ' S Lester & a lan Palm De CA 92260 F. �'N4•r.y,�� - Ci n April 19, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #I) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will'be held before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert to consider an appeal by E.C. & BARBARA J. MALONE and SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, of a Planning Commission approval amending a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre With hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, south of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010,016,051 -- ram.. -. ICal \\, Ar " ` m iC,oun ;11(� u � � CITY .Yflimil ` 1 .. r SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 10, 1984, at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Center Council Chamber at Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,.at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review in the department of environmental services at city hall. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post April 20, 1984 /tm i r - 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: April 6, 1984 Silver Spur Associates Sun-Ray Engineering 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 Re: TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendments) The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of April 3, 1984. Approved by Adoption of Resolution Nos. 939 and 940 Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. 0 „ k - RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/Icr cc: Coachella Valley Water District File r - 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE, PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 TELEPHONE (619) 346-0611 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING NOTICE OF ACTION Date: April 6, 1984 Silver Spur Associates Sun-Ray Engineering P g g 49-200 Mariposa Drive 125 W. Green Street Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pasadena, CA 91105 - 1 l Res" TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendments) The Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert has considered your request and taken the following action at its meeting of April 3, 1984. Approved by Adoption of Resolution Nos. 939 and 940 Any appeal of the above action may be made in writing to the director of environmental services, City of Palm Desert, within fifteen (15) days of the date of the decision. 0 RAMON A. DIAZ, SECRETARY PLANNING COMMISSION RAD/lcr cc: Coachella Valley Water District File PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 939 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF 40 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS IN THE PR-7, PR-7 D AND PR-7 H ZONES LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. TT 19640 (Amendment #0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued hearing on March 6, 1984, and April 3, 1984, to consider SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved 39 residential lot tentative tract map to revise the tract layout on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre) PR-7 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with Case No. TT 19640 and therefore, no additional documentation is deemed necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons desiring to be heard, said Planning Commission did find the following facts and reasons as justified in the staff report dated February 7, 1984, on file in the department of environmental services, to exist to approve the tentative tract map: (a) That the proposed map is consistent with applicable general and specific r plans. (b) That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general and specific plans. (c) That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. (d) That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) That the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (f) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (g) That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property within the proposed subdivision. WHEREAS, in the review of this tentative tract map the Planning Commission has considered the effect of the contemplated action on the housing needs of the region for purposes of balancing these needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case; 2. That it does hereby approve the above described Tentative Map No. 19640 (Amendment #0 for the reasons set forth in this resolution and subject to the attached conditions. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 939 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of April, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, ERWOOD, RICHARDS _ NOES: WOOD ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /Ir -2- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 939 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. TT 19640 (Amendment #I) Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all the requirements, limitations, and restrictions of all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. ' 2. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of the approval of conditional approval of the tentative map for filing of the final map unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by planning commission. 3. All on site utilities, including cable TV, shall be placed underground and shall be completely concealed from view except certain appurtenances as may be approved by the director of environmental services. 4. Any dedicated land and/or easements required by this approval shall be granted to the City of Palm Desert, without cost to the city and free of all liens and encumbrances. 5. The CC&R's for this development shall be submitted to the director of environmental services for review and final approval by the city attorney prior to the issuance of any building permits. Prior to recordation of the final subdivision map, the applicant shall submit to the city engineer: a. The document to convey title. b. Covenants and restrictions to be recorded. C. Management and maintenance agreement to be entered into with the owners of the units of the project. 6. Prior to submittal of the final map, the applicant shall provide the department of environmental services with a list of proposed street names with at least three alternatives. The approval of the final street name shall be made by the director of environmental services. 7. Applicant shall not pay a fee in lieu thereof as a condition of the final map for park and recreation purposes per city ordinance unless required by terms of city council Resolution No. 78-92. S. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services setbacks can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 9. Cul-de-sac at south end of "C" street to be on assessors parcel Nos. 631-270-010 and 051 only, unless Riverside County approval is obtained to have cul-de-sac in unincorporated area. 10. A covenant approved by the city attorney shall be recorded dedicating all building rights on lot 43 to the city and insuring that the natural areas shall remain as shown on plans approved by the city. Department of Public Works: 11. Drainage and signalization fund fees, as required by city ordinance, shall be paid prior to recordation of the final map. .� 12. Drainage facilities shall be provided per Ordinance No. 218 and the Master Drainage Plan to the specifications of the director of public works. 13. Full improvements, including traffic safety lighting as required by ordinance and the director of public works, shall be installed in accordance with city standards. 14. Improvement plans for water and sewer systems shall be approved by the respective service districts. -3- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 939 15. Complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the city engineer for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. The subdivider shall submit "as-built" plans prior to acceptance of the subdivision improvements by the city. 16. All private streets shall be inspected by the engineering department and a standard inspection fee shall be paid. 17. Additional storm drain construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study by the private engineer. 18. Landscaping maintenance on all streets shall be provided by the homeowners association. 19. A portion of this property is in the AO Depth 3' zone as shown on the flood insurance rate map. A flood hazard report, as required by Ordinance No. 221 (flood Damage Prevention Ordinance) shall be submitted to the public works department. The report must be approved by the flood review committee prior to approval of a grading plan. 20. All property within the CVWD right-of-way must be transferred to the developer by certification of final map by CVWD prior to recordation of final map . 21. No residential lots shall be placed within a drainage area that is subject to inundation. The private engineer shall submit a hydrology study, hydraulics and grading plans to indicate drainage mitigation necessary. 22. Off site improvement plans to be approved by the public works department and a surety posted to guarantee the required improvements prior to this map recording. City Fire Marshal: 23. Install a water system capable of delivering 1500 GPM fire flow from any fire hydrant for a two-three hour duration in addition to domestic supply. The computation shall be based upon a minimum of 20 psi residual operating pressure in the supply main from which the flow is measured at the time of measurement. 24. Install Riverside County Super fire hydrants located at each street intersection a. but not greater than 500 feet apart in any direction. b. All structures shall be within 250' of a fire hydrant. C. Exterior surface of hydrant barrels and heads shall be painted chrome yellow, and the tops and nozzle caps shall be painted green. d. Curbs shall be painted red 15 feet in either direction from each hydrant. 25. Prior to recordation of the final map, the developer shall furnish the original and three copies of the water system plan to the fire marshal for review. 26. The water system plan shall be signed by a registered civil engineer and approved by the water company, with the following certification: "I certify that the design of the water system in Tract No. 19640 is in accordance with the requirements prescribed by the fire marshal." Upon approval, the original plan will be returned to the developer. 27. Prior to delivery of combustible materials to the buiding site, the required water system shall be installed, operating and delivering the required flow. 28. Parking restricted on one side of street on "A" & "B" streets. 29. Maximum length of dead-aid streets is 600 feet. Provide approved alternate access road. Conditions added by Planning Commission: 30. Lots 79 8, and 9 to be lowered 2, 4, and 6 feet respectively. -4- PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 939 31. Lots 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 are to be deleted. 32. This approval rescinds the earlier approval granted on October 18, 1983, pertaining to this tract map. r /Ir -5- { PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 940 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN A DRAINAGE AND HILLSIDE OVERLAY ZONE LOCATED IN IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NO. CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 7th day of February, 1984, hold a duly noticed public hearing and continued hearing on March 6, 1984, and April 3, 1984, to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit for a residential development on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre) PR-7 D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 051 WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedures to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 80-89", in that the director of environmental services has determined that the project has been previously assessed in connection with Case No. CUP 21-83 and therefore, no additional documentation is deemed necessary. WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said commission did find the 4 following facts and reasons to exist to justify the granting of said conditional use permit: 1. The proposed location of the conditional use is in accord with the objectives of the zoning ordinance and the purpose of the district in which the site is located. 2. The proposed location of the conditional use and the conditions under which it will be operated and maintained will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or general welfare, or be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 3. The proposed conditional use will comply with each of the applicable provisions of this title, except for approved variances or adjustments. 4. The proposed conditional use complies with the goals, objectives, and policies of the city's adopted general plan. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the commission in this case. 2. That approval of Conditional Use Permit 21-83 (Amendment #1) is hereby granted for reasons subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert Planning Commission, held on this 3rd day of April, 1984, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: CRITES, DOWNS, ERWOOD, RICHARDS NOES: WOOD ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE RALPH B. WOOD, Chairman ATTEST: RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary /lr `. PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 940 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Case No. CUP 21-83 (Amendment #1) Department of Environmental Services: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the department of environmental services, and modified by the following 1 conditions and subsequent revisions. 2. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any uses contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first complete all the procedural requirements of the city which include, but are not limited to architectural review, subdivision process and building permits procedures. 3. The development of the property described herein shall be subject to the P restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to all municipal ordinances and state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. When residences are built on this tract, setbacks to comply with site plan on file in department of environmental services; setback s can be slightly varied if approved through architectural review process. 5. All conditions of TT 19640 (Amendment #I) shall be met. 6. The applicant shall have twenty-four (24) months from the date of approval to implement said CUP, unless an extension of time as permitted by code is granted by the planning commission. Conditions added by Planning Commission: 7. Lots 7, 8, and 9 are to be lowered 2, 4, and 6 feet respectively. 8. Lots 35, 36, 37, 38, and 39 are to be deleted. 9. This approval rescinds the earlier approval granted on October 18, 1983, pertaining to this tract map. April 19, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment #0 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing will be held before the City Council of the City of Palm Desert to consider an appeal by E.C. & BARBARA J. MALONE and SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, of a Planning Commission approval amending a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) on 27.5 acres located in the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre), PR-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with a drainage way overlay) and PR-7 H (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./acre with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, south of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010,016,051 fIk TL f I a(Z CITY y i SAID public hearing will be held on Thursday, May 10, 1984, at 7:00 P.M. in the Civic Carter Council Chamber at Palm Desert City Hall, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California,.at which time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review in the department of environmental services at city hall. SHEILA R. GILLIGAN, Clerk City of Palm Desert, California PUBLISH: Desert Post April 20, 1984 AM II March 9, 1984 CITY OF PALM DESERT LEGAL NOTICE CASE NOS. TT 19640 and CUP 21-83 (Amendment Ol) NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a public hearing continued from March 6, 1984, and February 7, 1984, will be held before the Palm Desert Planning Commission to consider a request by SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES for approval of an ;amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and 39 residential lot subdivision map (45 total lots) to revise the i:ra-;:t layout: on 27.5 acres located in. the PR-7 (Planned Residential, maximum 7 PE'-7, D (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u.iar_re with a drainage way averlay) and :PR-7 FI (Planned Residential, maximum 7 d.u./ar_re with hillside overlay) zones located in Ironwood Country Club, south of Mariposa Drive at the easterly end of Poinciana Place, more particularly described as: APN 631-270-052 and portions of 631-270-010, 016, 0.51 4' Y f I • '��V �IL�NA � I I �� V , hl"� ��`� poi �.\�., I i� i�i l.'�__ 17 ds I ; / CITY SAID continued public: hearing will be held on Tuesday, April 3, 1984, at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Center Council Chamber, 73-510 Fred Waring Drive, Palm Desert, California. At such time and place all interested persons are invited to attend and be heard. Plans and exhibits submitted by the applicant are available for review .in the department of environmental services at city hall. RAMON A. DIAZ, Secretary Palm Desert Planning Commission l Warren, Cameron J. Barkman, John D. Cole, William S. c/o Three Oaks Development Barkman, Linda J. Cole, Barbara J. Suite 250 49-165 Quercus Ln. 73-660 Jasmine Place 5520 Southwest Macadam Ave. Hayes, William Thomas TR Swartz, Bret A. F. M. Stevenson Hayes, Ruth Ann TR Swartz, Jacquelyn M. 73-315 Boxthorn Ln. 49-175 Quercus Ln. 32646 Coastsite Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rancho Palos Verdes, CA 90274 Greiner, Larry E. , et al Cudahy, Daniel B. Haskell , J D. , et al Wayte, Alan Cudahy, Patricia L. Johnson, David J. , et al Wayte, Nancy K. Strader, Charles, J. Johnson, Jordan W. , et al 1484 Cambridge Rd. Strader, Carol D. 2720 Ardmore Rd. San Marino, CA 91108 3540 S. W. 44th San Marino. CA 91108 Pnrtland AR qZ221 Wehrle, F. F. Tr McNally, Richard Albert Ahmanson Trust Co. Wehrle, Fred F. Horst, Judy, Elizabeth 3701 Wilshire Blvd. Ste. , 1000 Daum, Richard M. Tr Hopf, Christine M. Los Angeles, CA 90010 c/o Fred F. Wehrle Everrett, Donald F. 700 S. Flower St. , Ste. 1710 10431 Lockwood Los An eles CA 90017 Cupertino, CA 95014 Levy, Sherwin E. Speranza, Samuel G. Foster, Charles K. , Jr. 1260 - 15th St. #1014 12 Johns Canyon Rd. Foster, Joy W Santa Monica, CA 90404 Rolling Hills, CA 90274 Box 666 Ellsworth, ME 04605 Harrison Ross Funeral Home inc. Talt, Alan McCarten, William 1839 Firestone Blvd. Talt, Marjorie McCarten, Margery Los Angeles, CA 90001 1375 St. Albans Rd. 822 N. 23rd St. San Marino, CA 91108 Fort Dodge, IA 50501 Capka, Rrank R. Gooding, F. David Mape, Vance C: Wisep, Wilbourn A. 121 Main St. Mape, Helen B. Fairway Interprises Vancouver, BC Canada V6A 2S5 935 Siskiyou Dr. 1352 Pavia Pl . Menlo Park, CA 94025 Howard, William A. Atterbury, Arthur- M. Howard, Patsy R. Bird, Dan C. Atterbury, Olga HaightJockwood Bird, Marjorie Kuo 28 McKinley P1 . Haight, Joyce 4221 Beck Avenue Grosse Pointe Farms, MI 48236 9 Beacon Bay Studio City, CA 91604 Baird, William T. et al Hazard, R. E. , Jr. Tr Baird, Margaret F. et al Dodd, Harvey R. Hazard, Dorothy Tr Trutanich, Anthony A. et al Dodd, Velma P. 145 Security Life Building Saenz, Sporrer 3007 Laurelhurst Dr. N.E. Denver, CO 80202 1813 Wilshire Blvd. Suite 314 Seattle, WA 98105 Los Carney, Thomas Larson, Clark G. Bowen, John George Tr Carney, Beverly Larson, Lucy M. Bowen, Dorothy May Tr 234 E. 17th St. , Ste. 205 73-356 Poinciana P1 . 73-440 Mariposa Drive Costa Mesa, CA 92627 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Sande, Jack E. Steele, Roger Williams, Eugen D. Sande, Pierrette M. Steele, June 30752 Paseo del Niguel 19 Shoal Dr. 5642 E. La Palma Ave. Laguna Niguel , CA 92677 Corona del Mar, CA 92625 Anaheim Hills, CA 92807 Swartzendruber, H. L. Cronin, Kevin B. 1=QF�P 1NN3�L Swartzendruber, Melba Jean Cronin, Eloise A. 60me_ o Lp ' P. 0. Box 16206 320 Glenwood Rd. �o�� [6i�isr C,d j0Q:-7L[ W' ita KS. 67216 Ridgewood, NY 07450 Baker, Harold J. MacDonald, Dale W. Baker, Jacqueline T4eCFjW0DD C)Omns Ass. VII MacDonald, Leontine S. Plotkin, Sheldon N. 4 socl yv'EF'5 ,f04. (o, SNG 2816 Via Anadapa Plotkin, Helen G. �Z_&100 'ao89CF5 D4 , 401 j Palos Verdes Est. , CA 90274 24310 Barn Owl Ct. Salinas, CA 93908 4w Yii Qo Salisian, Neal S. Haslett, John A. , Jr. Salisian, Sharrone M. Haslett, Diann L. 701. Burleigh Dr. P.O. Box 234 Pasadena, CA 91105 Sunset Beach, CA 90742 Ludders, Richard M. Proctor, Henry G. Ludders, Heidi Ann Protctor, Barbara R. f Rive Magnolia Lake Ocana ood, Riverside, CA 92504 Lakewood, CA 90713 Toolson, Val A. - Ben %kcRf488ZGtF_ Tool son, Elizabeth D. Ben Anc.GALLyrh WQy Meyer, Carmel K. TrPdr nr�5f+urJ4s , 73464 Mariposa Drive �Al�F�b'LZ63 Palm Desert CA 92260 Cady, John A , p.'» + S Cady, Margaret L. 1}E '=A^IL-Y 72U!5-r P.O. Drawer L -73400 por QCJ A.{3/L p 1 Palm Desert, CA 92261 FtLrk C>v 6V tr, CA qj-2 o0 Tompkins, Eugene A. AOTOO L,LI� 15, ¢Cn . Deloach, Wells D. 735O ( T4Zq& T2j�tg p(-. Deloac La Dorothy E. PA 4& Dt`e 7 , 25831 La Serra ZA R'22lvo Lacuna Hills, CA 92653 Kaplan, Milton Tr Y1180A,� 4 LIMJ>A TK Kaplan, Merri Tr 734ci5 lxbf� Do- 305 S. Bedford Dr. PJm Deedocr , cA 9.Labo Beverly Hills, CA 90212 Daji Holdings Ltd. Ac,�, 6LUAtE>Je4_> 71 Fairway Dr. :Po goat a40a Edmonton, AL Canada T6J 2C2 Smith, Robert 0. � Smith, Maureen M. 73 8051 Louise Ln. ����"" � La Palma, CA 90623 eAll,, �C�!/ti�i .A 4 'D Lang, John W. AL;V,p( 0 - G,t6 J'� Lang, Eugena M. 13(ol7 W. LArzAmotiT 6L ; K 5711 Owensmouth Ave. #127 Woodland Hills, CA 91367 LDs 4)r4 , 6-)00O& I Stewart, Hampton, Jr., et al Stewart, Vicki R. et al Ward, Marjorie C. Willard, Dick John, H. et al Pa-820 El Paseo 92260 Willard, Ruby John, Natalie A. et al 8404 Midland Rd. USl Box 153 Bellevue, WA 98004 Kunelis, Constantine T. TR Mamakos, James L. Hutton, Jerry D. Kunelis, Rosemary TR Mamakos, Jeanette Hutton, Kathy S. 2740 Terraza P1 . 5143 Sunset Blvd. Tutag, Robert Fullerton, CA 92635 Los Angeles, CA 90027 Tutag, Rosemary J. 6470 Bixby Hills Long Beach, CA 90815 Fenner, Patsy Lou Howard, Robert W. Bradeson, Brian McGregor Investments, Ltd. Howard, Cleva 9915 108th St. , 14th Floor rownsberger, Robert H. Bradeson, Barbara Edmonton, Alberta Br nsberger Constance Fenner, Don G. Canada T5A2G8 28pZWl Harbor thew Dr. 16445 Wimbledon Ln. Corona Del Mar, CA 92625 Huntington each CA 92649 Collins Harry Anthony TR Fern,Fred Andrew Vtira, Don N. Trbw�Or y Knowles, Raymond V. Fern Sherry Bernice 1� `• v Doren, Walter W. Viera Linda K. Tr bey C/O Churchill Management Company Malone, Edward C. .O. B e2ch ggoo 33gg 5900 Wi 1 Wilshireshi re Blvd. #600 LaOJolIa,2CA8 92038 Los Angeles, CA 90036 Newport Bch, CA 926 p Stewart, Edgar W. Stone avid M. TR ��� Antonelli , Ed and A![(,, > Stewart, Karin Stone' J' C. x �< N�-� Antonelli , Guth n 0. 1115°rGrestview Drive Stone Family Trust��� ~�� 2330 - 43rd Ave. #401B- Fullerton, CA 92633 Coronaa�e�d�i Dr.CA 92625 � Seattle, WA 9811Ze��v / Odell , Robert C. Covert, Sandra York McArthur, John K. Odell , Patsy L. 73-396 Poinciana PI . 424 - 19th N.E. 2012 Palomar Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 East Wenatchee, WA 98801 Glendora, CA 91740 Armstrong, Jerry D. Shader, Alton E. Hambrecht, Howard L. Armstrong, Bonnie Shadery M. Joanne Hambrecht, Suzanne P. 1513 Cottonwood Lane 655 N. Central 4268 Navajo Littleton, Colorado 80121 Glendale, CA 91203 Toluca Lake, CA 91602 Edmark, David A. TR Williams, James Edward Serena, Frank A Edmark, Barbara M. TR Williams Mar Jean Serena Lorrain D. y Lorraine 320 Holland Dr. 18761 Pasadero Dr. 11408 Eugenia P1 . Nampa, ID 83651 Tarzana, CA 91356 Carpinteria, CA 93013 LaVene, Norval et al Cueto, Jose M. Tr Abert, Melvyn, et al Lynch, Gerald J. TR Cueto, Nora Tr Newhoff, Melvyn F. et al 920 Avondale Rd. 1121 St. Regis P1 . Burr, Thomas V. et al San Marino, CA 91108 Snata Ana, CA 92705 1900 Avenue of Stars #2600 Los Angeles. CA gnO, Baker, James J. Diani A: J. Tr Weber, John M. Baker, Edith R. P.O. Box 636 Weber, Nancy A. 44-188 Quercus Ln. Santa Maria, CA 93454 2611 Thompson Blvd. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Ventura, CA 93003 Zinngrabe, Robert J. Mackie, Fr d J Jr. 18811 Florida St. �1� Mackie, He�en S. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Z / 73468 Poinciana P1 . `ts� Palm Desert, CA 92260 J THE MALONE CADMORANT 75-5c- 6865 Ei4,,11ROW.40r4L SERVICES April 13. 1984 CITY OF PALM Or;:rINT City of Palm Desert P. 0. Box 1977 Palm Desert, Ca, 92261 Enclosed is Application to Appeal Decision of the Planning Commission to the TT 19640 & CUP 21-83 and a check in the amount of $50 for filing fees ' from Edward C. and Barbara J. Malone. Sincerely, Georgean Yennell Secretary to E. C. Mal6he Enclosure 3 CITY OF PALM DESERT Z P. O. BOX 1977 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92261 -ir T 4 APPLICATION TO APPEAL DECISION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION TO THE.TT 19640 & CUP 21-83ON CASE NO. E. C. Malone & Barbara J. Malone U.D.T. Dec. 14, 1972 Name 01 Appellant — -- 581 San Antonio Ave. , San Diego, Ca. 92106 619-222-0170 Address 619-453-6865 Phone 4 Appealing decision of (date of meeting) A ril 3. 1984 1982 regarding application of (if same as Appellant, write "Same" for (description of application) TT 19640 and 1` 21-83 Reasons for Appeal:.. See Attachment I FOR OFFICE USE ONLY Date Appeal filed: - (<?-q4 Fee Received: 15�2 p - - Public Hearing set for: yy)ad5 1 a42c 4 V Signature of Appellant I Director of Environmental-Services Date: �,4//�/0z7t cc: Appellant I Department of Environmental Services File (Complete and distribute after Public Hearing) COUNCIL ACTION cc: Appellant Dept./Environmental Services City Clerk Date: ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES ATTACHMENT I CITY OF PALM DESERT Reasons for Appeal: (1) Legal notice of the Commission Hearings was not given. (2) Negative Declaration was in violation of CEQA requirements due to complete removal of significant natural rock hills, relocation of the natural major drainage channel to a graded channel, filling of a lake, detrimental revisions to three holes of the existing golf course.. (3) Housing is not permitted in a portion of TT 19640 by CUP 1382. (4) The existing lease between Silver Spur Association and the Coachella Valley Water District restricting more than 50% of the land for recreational purposes only. (.5) Staff was in error or omissive in their report to Commissioners regarding required Dead Indian Channel improvements thereby prejudicing the Commissions decesion. 04/i i/Aa CITY OF PALM DF_SE.R.T P. O.. BOX: 1977 PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 'i1:1:2G1 + n * n it •e n m o * * * * * * -r• * n M. * * a * * * * * eo APPL..IC.AT'ION TO APPEAL. DECISION OF THE TO THE City Council -- ON CASE NO. -T 19640 and CUP 21-83 S.i.lve:' Spur Associates - -Flame of Appellant 49•-200 K.atl.posy Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 346-0551 �- 6 -ess — Phone Appealing decision of (date of meeting) _ �,_., 19 4 regarding application of (if same as Appellant, write "Same" Same_ _ _ ::or (description of application) Amendment No_1 to CT 19640 and, CUP 21• E.;� This apLeai i!; 1 .mit,d to the Planning Commission's actions of: 1_1�L�, ('_elete Lots 35., 39, 37, 38 and 39 from the application for Amendment No. L ,„_, Dd_ (2) _ recision of the earlier approval of TT 19640 on Goober Reasons for Appeal: The Planning �q�miss;on=as.Lj rta G �n ARr17 '3• lgfi arP not _gykpct table,by the ,tvi.dence oresentgd as i<5 Lgn,, d ,hv rha,C,1ifc.zuia CZj,Uivj sion Date Appeal filed: Foa, Received: Pu:&c Hearing .sex for: 6 /C �� f .. Signature of Appellant Director of I_nvironm 1 Servic s Date: 4/17/g•__`•.•_•�__ rr-a Appellant Department of Environmental Services File (Complete and distribute after Public Hearing) COUNCIL ACTION Cc: Appellant Dept../Environmental Services ity Clerk Date: �, !1 Mr./Mrs. J.J. Mumper R.A. Poliquin Janet O. Sussel 73-359 Oriole Ct. 49-220 Sunrose Lane Sam F. Sessel Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 48-813 Mescal Palm Desert, CA 92260 W. Nelsen E.A. Polumbus Olive Shattuck 49-115 Quercus 73-488 Boxthorn 73-330 Rosewood Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mr./Mrs . O.F. Nesmith Mr./Mrs. Edward Pree Mr./Mrs. John Simcic 48-922 Greasewood La. 73-485 Encelia 48-825 Mescal Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mr./Mrs. Richard Nunis Gene A. Probasco Mr/Mrs. Dale Simmons 49-048 Foxtail 73-637 Boxthorn 73-406 Dalea Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gary W. Paoli Mr./Mrs. John Rawlins Elizabeth Slee 48-908 Foxtail Lane 48-828 Cassia Place Kenneth J. Slee Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-157 Ajo Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Liana Passanisi Thomas and Sue Roley Charles G. Slemmons Jokin Passanis-i 73-274 Rosewood Myra Slemmons 48-854 Mariposa Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-356 Irontree Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 James Pecora. John Roselli Howard Smith 48-908 Foxtail Lane 49-964 Foxtail 73-440 Poinciana Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Robert Vern Phillips J.E. Sande Dean Spalding 73-479 Foxtail Lane 73-650 Jasmine Place 73-427 Nettle Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Edward Pickus Mary Margaret Santoni Patricia Ann Stoddard 48-955 Mariposa Richard Santoni 73-585 Encelia p 49-27 Maripose Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, ' CA 92260 Albert Pinamonti John D. Sauter Mr./Mrs . Bret A. Swartz 73-133 Ajo Lane 73-501 Foxtail Lane 73-670 Jasmine Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Sheldon Plotkin f Ernest J. Schag, Jr. H.L. Swartze.ndruber 48-923 Greasewood Lane 73-324 Rosewood 73-448 Mariposa Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Willard R. Lord Bob Longman Mr.. & Mrs. T. Swift Lockard 73-425 Dalea J. Longman 73-428 Poinciana Place Balm Desert, CA 92260 73-401 Dalea Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 v Calvin Manning i Leslie Malone R. D. MacDonald Elizabeth C. Manning 73-692 Greasewood Lane 48-860 Phlox 48-642 Palo Verde Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 William L. Martin Adele I. Martin Jack Marler Steve Markonich 73-225 Foxtail Lane 73-167 Silverleaf Court 73-195 Boxthorn Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 William C. McCarten J. K. McArthur Mr. & Mrs. Paul F. Marx 73-424 Mariposa Drive A. Shirley McArthur 73-269 Boxthorn Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-488 Poinciana Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Barbara & Dave Meyers James M. McKinzie, M.D. James E. McGowen 48-819 Cassia Place 73-143 Boxthorn 48-833 Mescal Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92210 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mr. & Mrs. A. Hoadley Mitchell, Ruth White Miller Philip J: Meyer 48-837 Cassia Place 73-562 Encelia Place 73-550 Dalea Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 - David N.' Mulvihill Donald L. Scruggs Peter Devlin Mary E. Mulvihill 48-875 Mariposa Drive 73-483 Irontree 48-858 Cassia Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Jules Aldige Donald H. Ford George H. MacPherson 73-401 Irontree Drive 73-259 Boxthorn 48-830 Cassia Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Denise F. Hopkins 73-203 Ribbonwood Palm Desert, CA 92260 i I Mr. Joseph M. Harb Mr. & Mrs. Phil Hart Mr. Robert Harvey 47-850 Quercus Lane 48-798 Mescal Lane 48-862 Owl Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mr. & Mrs. Ted P. Hoelck Dail L. Hiner Mr. & Mrs. Jerry W. Heyne 48-895 Mariposa Drive 1 73-505 Dalea 73-415 Irontree Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 John & Stephanie Hopkins William W. Holdren Judy M. Hoetmer 73-354 Rosewood Court Jerilee F. Holdren 73-585 Encelia Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-133 Carrizo Circle Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 J. C. Hyde Ben E. Hurlock Roy L. Hurlbut 49-062 Mariposa 73-500 Encelia 73-135 Ajo Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 David J. Johnson Mr. & Mrs. Kenneth Jensen George Jacobs 49-185 Quercus 73-223 Ribbonwood Court 73-336 Rosewood Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 i Milton Kaplan Ernest Johnson Don J. Johnson 73-467 Poinciana Drive 73-259 Boxthorn Patricia Johnson Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-777 Agave Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Carla Kirkeb-y Milo M. Kensrue Rollie R. Kelley 73-485 Dalea Lane 49-320 Sunrose Lane 48-640 Palo Verde Ct. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mr. & Mrs. Morgan B. Knechtel Dan Llein James F. Kleckner 48-638 Palo Verde Court 73-398 Mariposa 48-841 Cassia Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Howard Koff Robert Knudson Raymond V. Knowles 73-455 Dalea 73-412 Foxtail 49-236 Quercus Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, �A 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Thomas E. Lee John W. Lang Ronald & Irma Kump 73-571 Dalea Eugena M. Lang 73-463 Boxthorn Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-453 Poinciana Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 f i Michael M. Lloyd Edward T. Robert Lienau, Jr. Virginia Lloyd Lis. M.D. 47-810 73-647 Boxthorn 48-800 Mescal Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gary S,ymes Daniel D. Whitcraft, Mr. 73-409 Foxtail Lane 2argaret C. Whitcraft Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-481 Foxtail Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Marjorie O. Tschanz Eugen David Williams Otto H. Tschanz, Jr. 73-444 Mariposa 48-829 Cassia Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 James A. Verhovek R.D. Wineland'. Mary C. Verhovek 73-271 Foxtail Lane 48-646 Palo Verde Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gretchen Voskamp Claire Wisdom 48-426 Mescal Lane 73-383 Oriole Ct. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Jacqueline Wagner Sandra York Michael H. Wagner 73-396 Poinciana Place 73-298 Rosewood Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Maria J. Wall Charlene Zettel Richard K. Wall David Zettel 73-423 Nettle Court 73-208 Foxtail Ln. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Lavonne Walters Don Walters 73-477 Dalea Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Marjorie C. Ward 73-465 Irontree Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Alan Wayte 73-690 Jasmine Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Merle R. Weaver 73-363 Oriole Ct. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Fred F.-Wehrle 73-376 Poinciana Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dr/Mrs. Anthony V. Abati John A. Haslett, Jr. Donald E. Mast 73-367 Oriole Ct. 73-427 Poinciana P1. 73-540 Dalea Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Alvin M. Baileys Fern & Harold Hassin Mr./Mrs. Robert C. Odell Geraldine P. Baileys 48-880 Noline Place 49-220 Quercus Dr. 48-826 Cassia Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Phillip Bretz Betty Jane Hellesmark James F. Parker 73-167 Ajo 48-910 Noline ' 48-817 Cassia Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Frederick J. Cox T.P. Higgins Mark Penn 73-505 Foxtail Lane 73-348 Rosewood 48-885 Maripose Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Richard J. Deeble Dan Holtshouse Walter F. Pruter 73-420 Poinciana P1. 73-280 Rosewood 73-506 Foxtail Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Rita Della Valle Ken A. Hughes Mr./Mrs. Alan Rosen 48-873 Owl Ln. 72-151 Ajo Lane 73-485 Foxtail Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 R.D. MacDonald John A. James Donald L. Schaffer 48-860 Phlox 73-404 Irontree Drive 73-516 Dalea Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Fred & Sherry Fern Lester & Rhoda Kaplan Fritz Stradling 49-164 Quercus Lane 73-245 Boxthorn 47-801 Quercus Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 J.C. Giuffre David T. Kimball Jill Sulser 48-878 Mariposa Patricia L. Kimball 73-495 Dalea Palm Desert, CA 92260 49-021 Maripose Drive Palm Desert, ,CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Leon & Gail Greenberg William J. McCord Richard Van Hensbergen 48-850 Phlox Pl. 73-303 Phoebe Ct. 73-705 Agave Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Gottdender R. Magner Michael C. Weigand 73-207 Ribbonwood 73-515 Agave Lane 48-862 Owl Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Peggy Cantwell Vance C. Mape Mr. & Mrs. E. L. Kuhner 73-469 Foxtail Lane Barbara Mape 73-455 Boxthorn Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-163 Silverleaf Court Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 William J. Donovan , Mildred Marcus Mr. & Mrs. Fred J. Mackie, Jr. Elana Donovan 48-958 Greasewood Lane 73-468 Poinciana Place 49-132 Quercus Palm Desert CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Beverly Coughlin L. R. Van Kleeck Warren J. Coughlin J. M. Tackett 49-050 Mariposa Drive 48-869 Cassia Place 73-688 Greasewood Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 w Mr. & Mrs. I . H. Stewart Littleton Strong C. J. Harrington 73-404 Irontree Drive 73-753 Agave Lane Barbara Harrington Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 48-827 Cassia Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mr. & Mrs. Houston R. Pitts M. I . Gordon Val A. Toolson 73-456 Poinciana Place 48-822 Mescal Lane 73-464 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 H. Gordon Charles J. Welch, Jr. Ralph C. Day 73-424 Poinciana Place Mrs. Charles J. Welch, Jr. 48-254 Silver Spur Trail Palm Desert, CA 92260 49-070 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 11. S. Cole Richard Weagley Mr. & Mrs. Paul W. Leake 73-660 Jasmine Place 48-883 Owl Lane 73-698 Irontree Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mr. Robert F. Lichty Anthony F. Cosentino, Jr. F. J. Crockett 73-407 Irontree Drive 73-159 Silverleaf Court 73-403 Boxthorn Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 R. L. Casserly Nasib Gannam John & Sylvia Bartlett 73-625 Agave Lane 73-453 Foxtaill 73-396 Dalea Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dr. & Mrs. James V. Dooley Edward Rittenhouse Philip Namburg 73-458 Boxthorn 73-221 Mariposa Drive 73-426 Irontree Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 T Janice Boswell _. Jack R. Boswell Gene Von Wening Paul Jones 73-430 Dalea 73-693 Agave Road Mrs. Paul Jones Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-640 Agave Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Maureeq Blum Cameron J. Warren Nancy Weber Peter ,Blum 73-348 Poinciana Place Jack Weber 49,300 Sunrose Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-472 Poinciana Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dr. Edward Shore C. T. Kunelis Mr. & Mrs. Reynold M. Mettler 49-023 Mariposa Drive 49-245 Quercus Lane 48-956 Greasewood Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Barbara Cox D. R. Jeffries Danavon Horn 73-505 Foxtail Lane 48-830 Cassia Place 73-199 Boxthorn Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 R. W. Nichols G. Dale Belford John Cropper 73-331 Foxtail Lane Audrey A. Belford 49-069 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 47-770 Quercus Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Mrs. Rosemary Kunelis Henry Hofmann R. D. ',Wineland 73-685 Greasewood Lane 48-180 Alder Lane 73-271 Foxtail Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Valda S. Garrison Shelby Yastrow Virginia Pryne Robert L. Garrison Sybil Yastrow Phillip D. Pryne 73-456 Dalea Lane 73-565 Encelia Place 73-394 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 John Noonah Hampton S. Stewart, Jr. Sandra & Bob Abrahams 73-226 Foxtail Lane 73-457 Irontree Drive 48-850 Cassia Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Robert N. Christensen Charles K. Foster, Jr. D. W. MacDonald 49-030 Mariposa Drive Joy W. Foster 73-452 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-420 Mariposa Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Carlos Saenz William & Marcia Whelan R. Hammond 73-360 Poinciana Place 48-884 Mariposa Drive 49-116 Quercus Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 James A. Boyd Dewitt G. & Janet L. Mitchell Louis M. & Michael L. Fucci 49-215 Quercus Lane 73-570 Dalea Lane 73-490 Foxtail Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 James W. Mortell Francis W. Smith J. P. Mullen 73-395 Oriole Court 73-490 Encelia Place 48-927 Phlox Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Donald B. Aldrich Dan Bird, M.D. Bonnie Byrne 48-844•Cassia Place 73-432 Mariposa 49-043 Mariposa Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 James R. Allen Abe R. Blumenfeld Robert Cameron Lois Christine Allen 73-465 Irontree Dr. 73-299 Phoebe Ct. 48-890 Noline Place Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Kenneth F. Ames Mr./Mrs. Dorance D. Bolton Bruce Cardinal 73-500 Foxtail Lane 73-710 Greasewood Lane 48-920 Noline Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 B.J. Anderson Martin H. Bpuman Jack & Barbara Carr Ina Anderson Pat Bouman 73-318 Rosewood Court 73-552 Encelia 48-836 Mescal Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Randal B. Anderson Christ Bouneff 73-561 Dalea 73-451 Foxtail In. Mr./Mrs. W.P. Carver Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm D sert, CA Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 I William T. Baird Alexander Bowie Lee R. Ceccotti 73-360 Poinciana P1. 73-238 Foxtail 73-327 Boxthorn In. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Jane Barnes Lynn Maurine Brannen Don & Karen Cerwin Thomas Barnes 73-139 Ago Lane 73-555 Encelia 73-402 Irontree Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Alan L. Bayley Bruce M. Breault Pam and Stu Clifton 48-817 Cassia P1. 48-930 Phlox Place 73-410 Dalea Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Pain Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Hyman Beckman James D. Brown Mrs. D.E. Cooper 73-670 Greasewood 49-400 Della Rcpbia Mr. Don E. Cooper Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-371 Oriole Ct. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Robert B. Bender Marsha M. Brumfield Jane Covington 73-555 Agave Lane Robert H. Brumfield, Jr. Mary Louise Covington James M. Covington Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-727 Irontree Dr. Palm Desert, CA Palm D sert,Querc C Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Barbara Bradison Linda Burnham Lawrence Cowan Brian Bradison J.L. Burnham 73-771 Dalea 73-497 Foxtail Lane 73-489 Irontree Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 922Fn James H. Crockwell Mr./Mrs. Dean L. Edwards Jack Garner 48-935 Phlox P1. 73-168 Ajo Ln. Marianne S. Garner Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-476 Foxtail Lane Palm Desert, CA 92260 Virginia Giles William C. Davidson Frank G. Ellerbroek Jack Giles 73-340 Irontree Drive 49-020 Mariposa 73-460 Poinciana P1. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Norton J. Davis Mr./Mrs. L.A. Erickson Ronald L. Gleason 73-468 Boxthorn 49-071 Mariposa Dr. 48-830 Noline P1. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Robert C. Davis Don g. Fenner Richard Godber 73-416 Poinciana Patsy Lou Fenner 47-820 Quercus Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-489 Irontree Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Richard H. Dawn John Fitzgerald John S. Godfrey 73-376 Poinciana P1. 73-480 Encelia P1. 49-045 Mariposa Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 David Deter Michael J. Flannery F. David Gooding 73 208 Foxtail'Ln. 73-438 Foxtail Lane 73-368 Poinciana Place Pajm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 " r A.J. Diani' John A. Fox Brenton F. Goodrich 73-380 Poinciana 73-269 Boxthorn Sharon L. Goodrich Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-359 Boxthorn Palm Desert, CA 92260 David Doud Virginia Doud Mr/Mrs. Charles L. Frandson Mr./Mrs. John Grandy 73-211 Foxtail Lane 73-364 Poinciana P1. 73-650 Irontree Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Roger Duerr Marjorie Frank E.F. Grether 73-435 Foxtail Robert S. Frank 48-796 Mescal Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-137 Ajo Lane' Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA'92260 Christina E. Duthie Mr./Mrs. W.G. Fuson 49-043 Mariposa 73-160 Irontree Dr. Howard and Suzanne Hambrecht Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 73-484 Poinciana Palm Desert, CA 92260 r Warren P. Edris R.L. Gales Chris Hanson 48-835 Mescal Lane 48-922 Foxtail Lane 48-921 Phlox Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert, CA 92260 IRONWOOD March 15, 1984 � r Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Dear Ray: I am in the process of preparing for the April 3 continued hearing for Amended Tentative Tract 19640. I have itemized what I perceive are the new objections raised by the opponents at the public hearing on March 6, and I wish to offer my responses to you in advance so that Staff will have time to evaluate them for the Planning Commission. They are as follows: 1. Legal Notice. All owners appearing on the tax rolls who own property not only within the 300 foot distance requirement but also many more with property beyond this boundary who might also be affected by the development, have been identified. Address labels have been prepared and provided to Staff. 2. Area Q and C.U.P. 1382. The legal opinion I have received is that the adoption of the Palm Desert General Plan in 1975 makes the General Plan the controlling document. The relevance of C.U.P. 1382, approved by the County Planning Commission on March 8, 1972, to Tentative Map No. 19640 is subject to further question because of Condition No. 10 which states that "This permit shall become null and void on June 30, 1982 as to any undeveloped portion of the project. " 3. Disclosure of Potential Development in Area Q. Some opponents have asserted that they were told by an Ironwood salesman that there would never be any development south of the sixteenth fairway in Area Q. (A portion of Lots 32 to 39 lie in Area Q) . I can only say that if such statements were made, they were speculations made in good faith because the homes were offered for sale well before anyone knew the Palm Valley Channel would be built and the Water District would trade this land for needed flood control work in Deep Canyon. IRONWOOD 49-200 MARIPOSA DRIVE PALM DESERT CALIFORNIA 92260 (619) 346-0551 Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert March 14, 1984 Page -2- If a prudent buyer of a home in Tract 5565-3 on the end of Poinciana Place or Quercus Lane wanted to investigate whether development in Area Q was legally possible, he could have referred to the Palm Desert General Plan which clearly shows "medium density residential , 5 to 7 units per acre. " More easily, he could read the Department of Real Estate Final Subdivision Public Report, File No. 42401, page 3, fifth paragraph, which reads as follows: "You will also become a member of the Ironwood Master Maintenance Association, an incorporated association. This Association is proposed to eventually include 1801 residential lots in a location described as areas D, E, H, J, K, L, P and Q, of the map: included as Exhibit "A" to the Conditional Use Permit No. 1382. This association has the right to levy assessments against you for maintenance of Mariposa Drive and Portola Avenue meridian, for operation of security gates, and for operation of other security services in this area. There is no assurance that all 1801 residential lots will be completed as planned." 4. Elevation Lots 7, 8, 9, 17 and 18 of Tentative Tract 19640. The Planning Commission received a letter from Mr. and Mrs. McArthur and heard testimony from Mr. Willard, alleging that the elevations of these lots was being substantially increased to the detriment of their views. The approved grading plan and tentative map clearly indicate only nominal changes, as follows: Pad Elevations Prior Elevation Grading Plan Lot No. Low Point High Point 11-3-83 Change Ft. 8 515 518 516 +1 to -2 9 510 515 515 +5 to 0 17 504 506 506 +2 to 0 18 504 507 506 +2 to -1 Mr. and Mrs. McArthur's concerns may be somewhat mitigated when they realize that there will be at least 20 feet of separation between the new homes on these lots and that their home is still 9 to 10 feet higher than Lots 8 and 9. In the case of Mr. Willard, his home is more than 500 feet distant from Lot 8. At elevation 522.6, it is doubtful that he would be able to see over the roof of a home on Lot 8 even if it could be lowered. Both Mr. Willard and Mr. and Mrs. McArthur acknowledge they knew that homes would be built on Mariposa Drive before they purchased. Mr. Ray Diaz, Director of Environmental Services City of Palm Desert March 15, 1984 Page -3- 6. Drainage. Our engineer, Leonard Czarnowski , made a presentation to the Planning Commission and his analysis was supported by the City Engineer, Barry McClellan. I believe the foregoing facts and analysis create for the Planning Commission a reasonable basis for approving this amendment. In addition, this proposed amendment is clearly a superior land plan to the previously approved tentative tract map. While both plans contain 39 residential lots, the amended plan provides lower density, more open space and a wider sixteenth fairway. Sincerely, cer Preside RLS: sb Enclosure: Public Report No. 42401 t \ DL'1'AR7'MENT 0I: REAL L•'S'I"A'f E OF •I III: \ STATE OF CALIFORNIA \ TELEPHONE N0, 213-620-2700 In the matter of the application of FINAL SUBDIVISION PUBLIC REPORT SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES, a general partnership FILE NO. 42401 ISSUED: OCTOBER 26, 1978 r a Final Subdivision Public Report on 0 0 ER 2 8 [o � P EXPIRES: CT B 5, 19 3 TRACT NO. 5565-3 IRC9N4UOD RIVERSIDE ODUM, CALIFOR41A This Report Is Not a Recommnendalion or Endorsement of (lie Subdivision But Is Informative Only. Buyer or Lessee Must Sign 1—lull lie Has Reccivrd and Read l his Rcporl. 'fliis Report Expires on Date Shown Above. If ' here Has Been a Malcrial Change in (he Offering, an Amended Public Report Must Be Obtained and Used in Lieu of'fhis Report v � Section 35700 of the California Health and Safety Code provides that the practice of discrimination because of race, color, religion, sex, marital status, national origin or ancestry in housing accommodations is against public policy. Under Section 125.G of the California Business and Professions Code., California real estate licensees arc subject to disciplinary action by the Real Estate Commissioner if they make. any discrimination, distinction or restriction in negotiating a salr, or lease of real property because of the rare, color• sex, religion, ancrstry or national origin of the prosper.tivr, buyer. II any prosperti.ve buyrr or lessee believes that a licensee is guilty of such conduct, he or she should contact the Department of Real Estate. Information Regarding Schools eve be found o11 Page; 7 and 8 of this report. READ THE ENTIRE REPORT on the following pages before contracting to purchase a lot in this SUBDIVISION. - 1- I n/E Form 610 10176 COMMON INTERE!) t SUBDIVISION GENERA%. INFORMATION The project described in the attached Subdivision Public Report is known as a common-interest subdivision. Read the Public Report carefully for more information about the type of subdivision. The subdivision includes common areas and facilities which will be owned and/or operated by an owners'association. Purchase of a lot or unit automatically entitles and obligates you as a member of the association and, in most cases, includes a beneficial interest in the areas and facilities. Since membership in the association is mandatory, you should be aware of the following information before you purchase: Your ownership in this development and your rights board. In short,"they'in a common-interest subdivision and remedies as a member of its association will be is"you". Unless you serve as a member of the governing controlled by governing instruments which generally board or on a committee appointed by the board, your include a Declaration of Restrictions (also known as control of the operation of the common areas and CC&R's), Articles of Incorporation(or association)and facilities is limited to your vote as a member of the Bylaws. The provisions of these documents are intended association. There are actions that can be taken by the to be,and in most cases are,enforceable in a court of law. governing bddy without a vote of the members of the Study these documents carefully before entering into a association which can have a significant impact upon the contract to purchase a subdivision interest. quality of life for association members. In order to provide funds for operation and Until there is a sufficient number of purchasers of lots maintenance of the common facilities, the association or units in a common-interest subdivision to elect a will levy assessments against your lot/unit. If you are majority of the governing body, it is likely that the delinquent in the payment of assessments,the association subdivider will effectively control the affairs of the may enforce payment through court proceedings or your association. It is frequently necessary and equitable that lot/unit may be liened and sold through the exercise of a the subdivider do so during the early stages of power of sale. l he anticipated income and expenses of development. It is vitally important to the owners of the association, including the amount that you may individual subdivision interests that the transition from expect to pay through assessments, are outlined in the subdivider to resident-owner control be accomplished in proposed budget. Ask to see a copy of the budget if the an orderly manner and in a spirit of cooperation. subdivider has not already made it available for your examination. When contemplating the purchase of a dwelling in a ' common-interest subdivision, you should consider A homeowner association provides a vehicle for the factors beyond the attractiveness of the dwelling units ownership and use of recreational and other common themselves. Study the governing instruments and give facilitieswhich were designed to attractyou tobuy in this careful thought to whether you will be able to exist subdivision. The association also provides a means to happily in an atmosphere of cooperative living where the accomplish architectural control and to provide a base interests of the group must be taken into account as well for homeowner interaction on a variety of issues. The as the interests of the individual. Remember that purchaser of an interest in a common-interest subdivision managing a common-interest subdivision is very much should contemplate active participation in the affairs of like governing a small community . . . the management the association. He or she should be willing to serve on can serve you well, but you will have to work for its the board of directors or on committees created by the success. R rot] ' � N m �t P —2— of 8 pages FILE NO. 42401 ;i SPECIAL NOTES THIS REPORT COVERS ONLY RESIDENTIAL LOTS 88 THROUGH 139 AND CObArhN AREA LOTS EE, J, K, L, Q, AND S. TAXES: UNDER THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION THE M4OU ll M AMOUNT OF PROP- ERTY TAX ON REAL PROPERTY THAT CAN BE COLS,ECPID ANNUALLY IS ONE PER- CENT (1%) OF THE FULL CASH VALUE OF THE PROPERTY. FOR THE PURCHASER OF A LOT OR UNIT IN THIS SUBDIVISION, THE "FULL CASH VALUE" OF THE LOT OR UNIT WILL BE THE VALUATION, AS REFLECTED ON TIE TAX ROLL, DETERMINED BY THE COUNTY ASSESSOR AS OF THE DATE OF PURCHASE OF T`HE, UJT OR UNIT OR AS OF THE DATE OF CO:TLETICN OF AN IMPROVEMENT ON THE LOT IF THAT OCCURS AFTER THE DATE OF PURCHASE. THIS PROJECT IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. IT INCLUDES COI%R•ION AREAS AND COMMON FACILITIES WHICH WILL BE OPERATED BY AN INCORPORATED OWNERS' ASSOCIATION, THE IRONWOOD Oiv,-,,jERS' ASSOCIATION.VII. THE ASSOCIATION HAS THE RIGHT TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS AGAINST YOU FOR MAINTENANCE OF .THE COFII•7ON AREAS AND OTHER PURPOSES. YOUR CONTROL OF OPERATIONS AND EXPENSES IS LIMITED TO YOUR RIGHT TO VOTE AT MEETINGS. YOU WILL ALSO BECOME A MEMBER OF THE IRONWOOD MASTER M INTENANCE ASSOC- IATION, AN INCORPORATED ASSOCIATION. THIS ASSOCIATION IS PROPOSED TO EVENTUALLY INCLUDE 1801 RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN A LOCATION DESCRIBED AS AREAS D, E, H, J, K, L, P, AND Q, OF THE MAP: INCLUDED AS EXHIBIT "A" TO THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 1382. THIS ASSOCIATION HAS THE RIGHT TO LEVY ASSESSMENTS AGAINST YOU FOR MAINTENANCE OF MARIPOSA DRIVE AND PORTOLA AVE- NUE MERIDIAN, FOR OPERATION OF SECURITY GATES, AND FOR OPERATION OF OTHER SECURITY SERVICES IN THIS AREA. THERE IS NO ASSURANCE THAT ALL 1801 RES- IDENTIAL LOTS WILL BE COMPLETED AS PLANNED. IF PURCHASERS DESIRE TO USE THE FACILITIES IN IRONWOOD GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB, AD7ACENT To THIS PROTECT, THEY CAN APPLY FOR MEMBERSHIP. PURCHASERS INTENDING TO JOIN SAID CLUB SHOULD THOROUGHLY READ THE MEMBERSHIP APPLI- CATION AND MEMBERSHIP REGULATIONS, ESPECIALLY THOSE SECTIONS RELATING TO INITIATION FEES, DUES, MANAGEMENT OF CLUB, AND TRANSFERENCE A'' TER NATION OF MEMBERSHIP. MEMBERSHIP IS NOT AUTOMATIC WITH THE PURCHASE OF A OJT. THE CLUB HAS THE RIGHT TO ACCEPT OR REJECT MAMBERSHIP APPLICATIONS ON ANY BASIS. THE GOLF FACILITIES OF IRONWOOD GOLF AND TENNIS CLUB ARE LOCATED ON LAND LEASED FROM THE COACHELLA VALLEY COUNTY WATER DISTRICT FOR A PERIOD OF 25 YEARS, BEGINNING NOVEMBER 30, 1972. THE DEVELOPER HAS THE OPTION TO EXTEND SAID LEASE FOR AN ADDITIONAL 25 YEARS. SUBDIVIDER HAS POSTED A BOND TO THE COACHELLA VAUM COUNTY WATER DISTRICT TO ASSURE THAT DEVELOPER WILL PAY LEASE PAYMENTS AFTER THIS 3-YEAR PERIOD. -3- of 8 pages FILE N0. 42401 SPECIAL NOTES - continued: THE DEVELOPER HAS STATED THAT HE PTILL PROVIDE YOU WITH A COPY OF THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION, RFSTRICTIONS, AND BYLAWS, BY POSTING THEM IN A PROMINENT LOCATION IN THE SALES OFFICE AND BY FURNISHING YOU COPIES PRIOR To CLOSE OF ESCROW. THHESE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN NUMEROUS MATERIAL PRO- ` VISIONS THAT SUBSTANTIALLY AFFECT' AND CONTROL YOUR RIGTrS, PRIVILEGES, USE, OBLIGATIONS, AND COSTS OF MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION. YOU SHOULD READ AND UNDERSTAND THESE Doa,&ENTS BEFORE YOU OBLIGATE YOURSELF To PUR- CHASE A LOP. THE SUBDIVIDER STATED HE WILL FURNISH THE CURRENT BOARD OF OFFICERS Ov TIME HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION THE BUILDING PLANS, TO INCLUDE DIAGRAMS OF LO- CATION OF MAJOR COMPONEZ7S, UTILITIES AND RELATED DATA. THESE ITEMS WILL BE IMPORTANT TO THE BOARD OF OFFICERS OR THOSE WHO WILL 14MAG: OR REPAIR COMMON FACILITIES IN THIS SUBDIVISION. WARNING: W'HW YOU SELL YOUR LOT TO SOMEONE ELSE, YOU MUST GIVE THAT PERSON A COPY OF THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIONS, THE ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND THE BYLAWS. IF YOU FORGET To LO THIS, IT MAY COST YOU A PENALTY OF $500.00, PLUS ATRORNEY'S FEES, PLUS DAMAGES. (SEE CIVIL CODE SECTION 1360.) INTERESTS TO BE CONVEYED: You will receive fee title to a specified lot, to- gether with a membership in Ironwood Owner's Association, VII, and Ironwood raster Maintenance Association and rights to use the common area. LOCATION AND SIZE: In the City of Palm Desert. This Project consists of approximately 15.9 acres divided into 52 residential lots and comron area which consists of Lots EE, J, K, L, Q and S, on which community facilities consisting of walkways, 3 swimming pools and 2 Hot Pools, 2 cabanas with barbecue and ice maker, and landscaped areas will be constructed. The subdivider has posted a bond, in the amount of $215,300.00, to assure completion of iiprovarrnlnts described in the "Planned Construction Statetmnt", attached 79 the bared. The estimated completion date for these improvements is February, Lot B is a private street. This lot will continue to be owned by the subdivider. However, a non-exlusive easement, in perpetuity, lien free, will be granted to the Ironwood Master Maintenance Association for the benefit of all owners. MANAGEMENT AND OPERATION: The Ironwood Owners' Association, VII, and Ironwood Master Maintenance Association, which you must join, manages and operates the common areas in accordance with the Restrictions, Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws. -4- of 8 pages FILE NO. 42401 MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAL EXPENSES: According to the subdivider's estimate of expenses for maintenance and operation of the project, your monthly assess- ments for the Ironwood Owners' Association, VII, Tracts 5565-1 and 5565-3 will be $188.00. The subdivider should furnish you a copy of the budget. A portion of the total cost to o_oerate the Ironwood Master Maintenance Assoc- iation will be paid for by lessors of golf and tennis facilities constructed ' in a portion of the area covered by the Master Association. A bond has been posted for a 3-year period to guarantee such payment. In addition to your assessments for Ironwood Owners' Association, VII, there is presently a monthly assessment of $6.00 per lot for the Ironwood Master Maint- enance Association. Thereafter, each owner, including Declarant and the owners of the golf and tennis facilities, will be assessed prorata based upon the number of votes allocated to owners in accordance with the provisions of the recorded restrictions. The sub- divider estimates that by the end of said 3-year period the road system and gates to be controlled by the Master Association will have been doubled and the costs will, at least, be correspondingly doubled. The total monthly assessments for each lot owner in this Phase is $164.00. IF TIE BUDGET FURNISHED TO YOU BY THE DEVELOPER SHOWS A MONTHLY ASSESSMENT FIGURE WHICH VARIES 10% OR MORE FROM THE ASSESSEIkZNT AMOUNT SHOIAN IN THIS PUBLIC REPORT, YOU SHOULD CONTACT THE DE- PARTjv= OF REAL ESTATE BEFORE ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE. The association may increase or decrease assessments at any time in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the CC&R's or Bylaws. In considering the ad- visability of a decrease in assessments, care should be taken not to eliminate amounts attributable to reserves for replacement or major maintenance. THE INFORMATION INCLUDED IN THIS PUBLIC REPORT IS APPLICABLE AS OF THE DATE OF ISSUANCE. EXPENSES OF OPERATION ARE DIFFICULT TO PREDICT ACCURATELY AND EVEN IF ACCURATELY ESTIMATED INITIALLY, MOST EXPENSES INCREASE WITH THE AGE OF FACILITIES AND WITH IN- CREASES IN THE COST OF LIVING. Monthly assessments will commence on all lots (numbers 88 through 139) during the month following the closing of the first sale of a lot. From that time, the sub- divider is required to pay the association a monthly assessment for each lot which he owns. The remedies available to the association against owners who are delinquent in the payment of assessments are set forth in the CC&R's. These remedies are available against the subdivider as well as against other owners. The subdivider has posted a bond in the amount of $60,528.00, as partial security for his obligation to pay these assessments. The governing body of the association should assure itself that the subdivider has satisfied his obligations to the association with respect to . the payment of assessments before agreeing to a release or exoneration of the security. -5- of 8 pages FILE NO. 42401 USES AND ZONING: Lots 126 thru 139 covered in this report will be improved with duplexes. RESTRICTIONS: This subdivision is subject to restrictions recorded in the Office of the Riverside County Recorder, January 10, 1974, as Instrument No. 3849, and Declaration of Restrictions recorded on October 5, 1978 as Instru- ment No. 211207 which includes, among other. provisions the following:Each Lot shall be used for Single Family Residential purposes only. Non-payment of assessments to owners' association may result in a foreclosure against the owner. The hammer association may levy a fine against you for violation of CC&R's or By-Laws. The association or its authorized agents shall have the right to enter upon any unit for specific purposes set forth in the restrictions. No animals, livestock or poultry shall be raised except dogs, cats or other household pets may be kept in the owner's unit. CONDITIONS OF SALE: If your purchase involves financing, a form of deed of trust and note will be used. These documents contain the following provisions: An acceleration clause. This means that if you sell the property, the lender may declare the entire unpaid loan balance immediately due and payable. A prepayment penalty. This means that if you wish to pay off your loan in whole or in part before it is due, you may be required to pay an additional amount as a penalty in accordance with the terms of the loan. A late charge. This imeans that if you are late in making your monthly loan pay- ment, you may have to pay an additional .amount as a penalty. PURCHASE MDNEY HANDLING: The subdivider must impound all funds received from you in an excrow, depository until legal title is delivered to you, except for such amount as the subdivider has covered by furnishing a bond to the State of California. The subdivider has posted a blanket bond covering this and otter subdivisions in the amount of $225,000.00. This is the limit of amounts not required to be mounded as of the date of issuance of this Report. The sub- divider may increase or decrease the bond amount in the future. (Ref. Sections 11013, 11013.2(a) , 11013.2(c) , Business and Professions Code.) -6- of 8 gages FILE NO. 42401 GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS: THE UNIFORM BUILDING CODE, CHAPTER 70, PROVIDES FOR LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIALS 710 EXERCISE PREVENTIVE MEASURES DURING GRADING TO ELIMINATE OR MINIMIZE DAMAGE FROM GEOLOGIC HAZARDS SUCH AS LANDSLIDES, FAULT MOVEMENTS, EARTHQUAKE SHAKING, RAPID EROSICN OR SUBSIDENCE. THIS SUBDIVISICN IS LOCATED IN AN AREA WHERE SOME OF THESE HAZARDS MAY EXIST. SOME CALIFORNIA COU,yrIES AND CITIES HAVE ADOPTED ORDINANCES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE AS EFFECTIVE, IN THE CONTROL OF GRADING AND SITE PREPARATION. PURCHASERS SHOULD DISCUSS WITH THE DEVELOPER, THE DEVELIJPER'S ENGINEER, THE ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST, AND THE LOCAL BUILDING OFFICIALS TO DETERMINE IF THE ABOVE-MENTIONED HAZARDS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND IF THERE HAS BEEN ADEQUATE COMPLIANCE WITH CHAPTER 70 OR AN EQUIVALENT OR MORE STRINGENT GRADING ORDIN- ANCE DURING THE CCFNSTRUCTICTN OF THIS SUBDIVISION. FILLED GROUND: Some lots will contain filled ground varying to a maximum depth of twenty-four feet. These soils are to be properly eoirpacted for the intended use under the supervision of a state licensed engineer. ' FIRE PROTECTION: Fire protection will be furnished by Riverside County Depart- meet of Fire Protection,--in cooperation with the California Division of Forestry, who reports that: Fire protection is provided by the Riverside County, Palm Desert Fire Station, responding with two (2) engines and one (1) squad .from approximately 3.5 miles and by the Riverside County, Rancho Mirage Fire Station, responding with one (1) engine from approx- imately six miles. SEWAGE DISPOSAL: The subdivider advises that there is presently a sewer service charge of $5.00 per lot per nonth. STREETS AND ROADS: All repair and maintenance of the streets within this sub- division.will be the responsibility and expense of the Ironwood Master Maint- enance Association. PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION: Regularly scheduled public transportation service is not available. SCH OOLS: Students will be served by the Desert Sands Unified School District. The schools of attendance, locations and distances from the project are as follows: Washington Elementary School (K-2) , 45-768 Portola, Palm Desert, 2.3 miles; Lincoln Elementary School (3-5) , 74-100 Rutledge, Palm Desert, 3.6 miles; Palm Desert Middle School (6-8) , 74-100 Rutledge, Palm Desert, 3.8 miles; Indio High School (9-12) , 81-750 Avenue 46, indio, 11.3 miles Free bus transportation is available to all the aforesaid schools. -7- of 8 pages FILE NO. 42401 a j SCHOOLS - continued: NUPE: This school information was provided by the school district prior to issuance of the public report. Purchasers may contact the local school district office for any changes in school assignments, facilities, and bus service. SHOPPING FACILITIES: Complete shopping facilities are located approximately two miles north of the project at the corners of Portola Avenue and El Paseo and Highway 111. For further information in regard to this subdivision, you may call (213) 620-2700, or examine the documents at 107 South Broadway, Room 7001, Los Angeles, CA 90012. g7/ -8- and last FILE No. 42401 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - APRIL 3, 1984 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-510 FRED WARING DRIVE A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM AT 5:30 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. U. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE III. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Downs Commissioner Erwood Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Others Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Steve Smith Phil Drell Phil Joy Barry McClellan IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. March 6, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the minutes subject to revision on lawsuit not on map but on golf club membership. Carried unanimously 5-0. B. March 20, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the minutes as submitted. Carried 4-0-1 (Erwood abstained). V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION Vl. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos TT 196�d CUP 21-83 (Amendment Ol) - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES AID-SUN-RAY ENGINEERING, Applicants Request for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7 D, PR-7 and PR-7 H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. Mr. Diaz delivered the staff report outlining the results of staff investigation concerning the issue of previous Riverside County development plan approval of Ironwood Country Club and agreements reached between the concerned citizens of Palm Desert and Silver Spur Associates. Mr. Diaz stated that CUP 1382 as approved by the County of Riverside was to be null and void to undeveloped -1- I' - MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 1984 properties in June 1982; however, the city had in reviewing developments in the area implemented the agreement between the group called Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert and Silver Spur Associates of September 8, 1972. Mr. Diaz also reviewed the findings required for approval concluding that all required findings could be made affirmatively and staff recommended approval of the application. Discussion ensued pertaining to the agreement of September 8, 1972. Clarification was requested of the identification of "adjacent property owners" as it pertained to development in hillside area. After discussion, Mr. Diaz stated that the "subject property" pertained to the Ironwood property and the adjacent property was the property next to the Ironwood property or the Silver Spur Ranch area. Some members of the commission felt that the identity of adjacent property was still unclear. Commission asked if a golf hole was an easement as identified in the government code. Mr. Diaz responded that it was not. Chairman Wood asked for those wishing to speak in FAVOR of the proposal. MR. LARRY SPICER, representing Silver Spur Associates, stated he was available to answer any questions and would limit his remarks to the rebuttal period. Chairman Wood then asked for those wishing to speak in OPPOSITION to the proposal. MR. EDWARD MALONE, 9555 Genesse Street, San Diego, summarized the issues raised in his letter dated March 9, 1984. Mr. Malone stated that the grading currently taking place did not conform to the approved grading plan and went well beyond the approved plan and area. Mr. McClellan responded that the grading permit was for rough grading and consistent with the tentative tract map approved in October 1983, and grading was in substantial accordance with approved plans and tentative tract map. Mr. Malone resuming his testimony, questioned the lease agreement between the Coachella Valley Water District and the applicant which stated that the leased area could be used for recreational purposes and that this approval altered the lease. Mr. Malone also asked why the open space lot shown on the map did not include all of area Q (as identified in CUP 1382). He also questioned how residents were to know that the lawsuit was the governing factor over development. Mr. Malone then questioned why Portola Avenue did not connect to Highway 74 as originally conditioned. In response, Mr. Diaz stated that the stipulations set forth in the agreement of September 8, 1972, were used to lower densities and increase development standards and that staff would continue to use the higher standards as a basis of development review. In responding to the Portola Avenue question, this connection was deleted as a result of an amendment to the city's general plan and replaced by connecting Mesa View to Hwy 74. Mr. Diaz concluded that staff would not recommend that Portola Avenue be connected to Hwy 74 bringing the traffic through Ironwood unless requested by area residents. MR. LOCKWOOD HAIGHT, 73-464 Poinciana, stated that the applicant was selling lots within the subdivision and presented a brochure outlining the sale offering. Mr. Haight felt that staff had concluded that the September 8, 1972, agreement changed zoning. Mr. Haight felt that because their was a public controversy that an environmental impact report was required by CEQA. Mr. Haight concluded by presenting a survey and response of 268 members of -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 3, 1984 Ironwood Country Club who opposed the development. MR. DICK WILLARD, 73-477 Irontree Drive, submitted a copy of a letter expressing concern over the grading of lots on the north side of the 16th hole, that as graded impacted his view. Mr. Willard was also concerned that a flood hazard report as required by Resolution 895, Condition 17, was not available. Mr. McClellan responded that the grading that is occurring is in flood zone B, not. the AO-3 zone and therefore does not require a flood hazard report. Mr. McClellan also stated that in the AO-3, if strict compliance is imposed without a variance the pad heights would be greater and views more obstructed. Mr. McClellan concluded that the grading was not in violation of city requirements. There being no one else wishing to speak in opposition, Chairman Wood requested if the applicant wished to testify in rebuttal. MR. SPICER of Silver Spur Associates, in responding to those speaking in opposition stated that the grading that is occuring is proper. That sufficient information was available to disclose to buyers that area Q would and could be developed. That areas defined as natural the drainage course and ridge on the south side of the 16th fairway were man-made. Mr. Spicer questioned the accuracy of the survey presented because statements made on the questionnaire were incorrect, the lake area was not being deleted. Mr. Malone then requested the opportunity to rebuttal stating that staff had not approached the application without bias and that the Coachella Valley Water District was not an unbiased party to evaluate the issue of drainage in this matter. Chairman Wood then asked if the applicant wished final rebuttal and Mr. Spicer declined. Chairman Wood then closed the public testimony portion of the hearing and asked for commissioner's questions or comments. Commissioner Richards favored development of one section but not area Q. Commissioner Erwood stated that' he was still not clear as to who the term "adjacent" referred to in the September 8, 1972, agreement. He felt that Mr. Willard's view being impacted meant he could not make a positive finding relating to the physical suitability of the site. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to approve the findings as presented by staff if lots 7, 8, and 9 were lowered 2, 4, and 6 feet respectively and lots 35, 36, 37, 38, 39 deleted. Passed 4-1 with Chairman Wood opposing. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 939, approving TT 19640 (Amendment #1), subject to conditions, as amended, and rescinding the earlier approval of the planning commission of October 1983 pertaining to this tract map. Passed 4-1 Chairman Wood opposing. Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Crites, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 940, approving CUP 21-83 (Amendment #1), subject to conditions, as amended. Passed 4-1 Chairman Wood opposed. B. Case No. GPA 84-1, PALM DESERT HOUSING ELEMENT - CITY OF PALM DESERT, Applicant Consideration of an amendment to the Palm Desert General Plan Housing Element. -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TUESDAY - MARCH 6, 1984 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC CENTER COUNCIL CHAMBER 73-310 FRED WARING DRIVE A STUDY SESSION WAS HELD PRIOR TO THE MEETING IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBER CONFERENCE ROOM, AT 6:00 P.M. I. CALL TO ORDER Chairman Wood called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. II. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Erwood in. ROLL CALL Members Present: Commissioner Crites Commissioner Downs Commissioner Erwood Commissioner Richards Chairman Wood Others Present: Ramon Diaz Stan Sawa Barry McClellan Phil Joy Linda Russell IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: February 21, 1984 Moved by Commissioner Downs, seconded by Commissioner Richards, to approve the minutes as submitted. Carried unanimously 5-0. V. SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTION - NONE VI. CONSENT CALENDAR - NONE VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS A. Continued Case Nos�TT 19640 d CUP 21-83 (Amendment #1) - SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES AIVD-31JN RAY ENGINEERING, Applicant Request for approval of an amendment to a previously approved conditional use permit and tentative tract map to allow the creation of 39 single family lots in the PR-7, D and PR-7, H zones located in Ironwood Country Club on the south side of Mariposa Drive, at the easterly end of Poinciana Place. Mr. Sawa reviewed the staff report and pointed out the revisions made to the plan since the last public hearing on the map which included deletion of one residential lot on "B" Street and the existing tees would not be relocated. A letter received by Mr. Joseph Gibbs, attorney, expressed concern that the legal noticing procedures were improper. Other letters received in OPPOSITION: Ironwood Owners Association Vill, J. Weber, William McGregor, Alan Talt, Dr. and Mrs. Kunelis, Mr. and Mrs. McArthur. In FAVOR: Mr. and Mrs. John Bowen, F.M. Stevenson. Staff recommended approval of the revised amendment. Mr. Diaz also noted that a letter called Ill Ith Hour Report" had been distributed at the meeting from the Board of Directors of the Association expressing satisfaction with the revised proposal. (Note: Association was not identified at this time). Chairman Wood asked if the commission had any questions of staff. Commissioner Crites asked staff if the people purchasing property were aware of the settlement made in 1972. Mr. Sawa replied that the White Sheet showed what was to be developed at the time, which included the number of maximum units and also indicated area Q as developable. (Note: The White Sheet is a real estate report given to each purchaser of a unit). MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 Chairman Wood in referring to Mr. Gibbs bs objection to the legal a g notifications noted that the city attorney indicated the procedures used were proper. Commissioner Richards, In referring to a letter received by Mr. and Mrs: McArthur, asked if the topography map shown was the same as the original"shown at the time people were purchasing property, and if the elevations were the same. Mr. Sawa replied that the lots were rough graded then as they are shown today and there would be no substantial difference in the grade. Mr. and Mrs. McArthur stated in their letter that they were told at the time they purchased their lot they would have a view, but now as it appears to be graded they will not. Commissioner Richards also felt that there would not be a substantial difference in the grade as presented by staff. Chairman Wood instructed staff to contact Mr. and Mrs. Arthur of these findings. Commissioner Downs asked if the topography map shown and the elevations were the actual grading to be done. Mr. Sawa replied that at this point it is conceptual but staff would make sure that there would not be a substantial change in elevations. Mr. McClellan stated that the pad grades (grading pl an) are reviewed and g g P ) being could be shown to commission a g after approval. Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked the applicant if make a presentation. PP he wished to MR. LARRY SPICER, 49-200 Mariposa Dr., identified the llth hour report as being sent by Association No. 7 which includes the homes on Quercus Poinciana,Lane and explained how the property south of the 16th Fairway as acquired through the Coachella Valley Water District. He concurred not to relocate the 16th tee and to delete lot 40, the nearest lot to the development; these were previous concerns expressed by homeowners. Mr. Spicer had prepared graphics showing how far the nearest proposed home is from existing development. MR. LEONARD CZARNOWSKI, President of Sun-Ray Engineering, 131 West Green St., Pasadena, explained that this land had always had a severe drainage problem. They were requested to study the problem and provide a remedy. He explained how they arrived at the calculations for a 350-year storm and how they would be providing li4 ft. to 3 ft. freeboards. He believed they have eliminated any potential flooding problems. He showed on the map how the grading would take place noting also that it should not present a problem. Mr. Diaz noted that there was some concern expressed regarding the velocity of water. Mr. Czarnowski explained that the velocity would be reduced and the waters would be more confined in terms of depth (maximum depth being 414 feet). Mr. McClellan stated that he had reviewed the data Mr. Czarnowski provided and concurred that the velocity and depth would be reduced by widening the drainage path. Commissioner Richards asked Mr. Czarnowski to point out the path of drainage and its potential flood hazard effects to the green and specifically what is the elevation from the drainage channel to the green. Mr. Czarnowski responded that from the top of the projected water it would be approximately 714 feet. He also noted that the flood hazard map indicates that they are bypassing the green which eliminates any adverse effects. Commissioner Richards noted that since the "llth Hour Report" stated no opposition to this plan it was very important to know exactly who it came from. Commissioner Downs asked Mr. Spicer if salespeople, to his knowledge, informed the purchasers that no development would occur in Section Q. Mr. Spicer replied that he had no knowledge of what the salespeople informed the purchasers but -2- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 Ironwood does inform the salespeople of their projections in the future. Commissioner Crites, in referring to that issue, pointed out that what the purchasers say they were told by salespeople may or may not be true, but without some type of evidence is unclear. Mr. Spicer explained that salesmen are instructed not to speculate. Commissioner Crites then asked if the salespeople knew that the property on the south side of the channel was not at that time owned by Ironwood. Mr. Spicer replied that he did not know what the salespeople did or did not know. Chairman Wood pointed out that presently there had not been any evidence presented to commission that they (purchasers) were told there would not be any development on the south side of the channel. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR. There being none, he asked if anyone present wished to speak in OPPOSITION. MR. JOE GIBBS, 43-621 Vanda Circle, represented some residents of Ironwood Country Club, and requested a continuance for an opportunity to present evidence of concerns regarding severe drainage problems and potential flood hazard. He also noted legal notices were not properly sent. He sited that in May of 1972 a CUP was approved by the county and that CUP provided that no development was to occur south of the wash (Section Q). Each owner of Ironwood was handed a Subdivision Report which referred to that CUP 1382.� In September of 1972 a lawsuit resulted in allowing Ironwood Country Club to develop in Section Q. The White Sheet stated that Section Q would be developed in accordance with the master plan. The master plan in turn designated that area to have zero density. He stressed the importance of a continuance. It was noted that Mr. Gibbs, who is an attorney at 801 East Tahquitz-McCallum Way, Palm Springs, was retained by Mr. Lockwood Haight, who lives at Ironwood Country Club. Commissioner Erwood asked why the homeowners couldn't raise and address the issues at the present time rather than continuing the public hearing. Mr. Gibbs replied that they need the opportunity to contact consultants and engineers for the flood hazard concerns. Commissioner Richards felt that t the drainage and flood concerns could be addressed by Mr. McClellan, director of public works. He added that the engineer that Ironwood would employ, the statements made by . Mr. McClellan three meetings ago, and the direction of both Bechtal and the water district should not be questioned in regards to drainage and public safety and finds it to be the weakest of all arguments for a continuance. Chairman Wood felt that since there had been two public hearings already another continuance was not needed. Commission requested Mr. Diaz to respond to the concerns and issues at this time. Mr. Diaz responded to Mr. Gibbs statements: 1) Notification - The ordinance does require that all names listed on the assessor's rolls be notified. He explained that when there was a Mr. and Mrs. - the Mr. was notified. 2) Continuation - This matter had been continued for 30 days already. 3) Environmental Impact Report was prepared by County of Riverside on the original CUP; the original lawsuit brought about by the Concerned Citizens of Palm Desert was brought against Riverside County Board of Supervisors and the Silver Spur Homeowners Association through John C. McCarthy 4) Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact - the original EIR covers all potential environmental impacts and in terms of drainage and flood requirements, they are handled under the review process. 5) On the issue of the particular map that was shown - the lawsuit naming the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, filed after the original approval, was the original map as Exhibit "A". The lawsuit was dismissed after an agreement was reached calling for lower densities and less height. 6) The White Sheet did indicate development -3- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 would occur in Section Q. Commissioner Richards asked for a clarification in regards to the White Sheet, that all references go back to 1972 show; no change from the fact that area Q, from the original document, was to be undeveloped. Mr. Diaz stated that the agreement referred to a revised Exhibit A of CUP 1382 which the city does not have a copy of the final map. Commissioner Erwood felt that since the ordinance does state that all names listed on the assessor's rolls should be notified then all should be Included. He believed this was a matter of misinterpretation and could be easily corrected in the future but also felt proper notice should be remailed for this case. Commission agreed that review of the notification procedures was necessary and to discuss this matter with staff at a later time of the meeting. MR. PHILIP CRACKO, representing Chuck Franz who Is property owner in Ironwood, felt that the real argument was that the residents are angry and hurt because they felt mislead. Their property values would drop if they lose the view they were promised. He feels they have a foundation for a lawsuit but that is not what they want. They just want more time to look into the concerns expressed and requested a continuance for 60 days. MR. E.C. MALONE, of San Diego, also Ironwood property owner, showed on the map where he lives at Ironwood and stated that It was right outside the 300 foot radius but lived within the 300 foot area of the proposed grading. He as no developent an they (purchasers)that hhaser) were gtold his.inal map sThey dalso cpaid tion Qhigh priced premniums for those homes with a view. In terms of the "filth Hour Report", being an absentee owner he asked if the board of directors had a meeting, did they take a vote, is it in the minutes, etc. He felt there were many questions that needed to be answered and not aware of this matter until tonightso requested did not receive notifications He concluded that the golf course was leased through the Coachella Valley Water District and would like to see.a copy of the leas- e agreement. Commissioner Downs asked Mr. Diaz if Mr. Malone should have been notified. Mr. Diaz explained that if grading was part of the project, yes. Commissioner Crites asked Mr: Diaz to respond to the issue raised by Mr. Malone that the tentative tract of the original CUP can only be amended by a legislative act vs. lawsuit. Mr. Diaz explained that a direct legislative act is not necessary and in this case the lawsuit was dismissed (through settlement) and the action stopped there. The file received from the county was incomplete. A settlement reached reflected changes in terms of height, density and developable area. Commissioner Crites asked if anyone did anything to change what was being shown to them on the map. Mr. Diaz replied yes because all the development that has taken place and approved by the city and tracts approved by county, were approved in accordance with the agreement. But in the case of the CUP he did not know. Commissioner Erwood asked if this agreement was recorded. Mr. Diaz stated that it was signed but did not know if it was recorded. MR. LOCKWOOD HAIGHT, 73-634 Poinciana, also stated that he was told by a salesperson that no development was to occur south of the wash at the time he purchased his home and the settlement agreement stated this also. He indicated that assuming that he had not believed the salespersons about development in Section % he would have looked at the the White Sheet (Report) which would have referred him to the CUP, and the CUP had no evidence that building was to occur. The settlement agreement states: "A portion of subject property in which a maximum allowable 2500 dwelling units may be constructed, shall be increased from 362 acres to 468 acres. The additional acreage shall consist of the following: 58.8 hillside acres in Block Q on said map-- dwelling units shall not be -4- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 constructed on each portion thereof where grading of the building pad or access would be visible from real property adjacent to the subject property." He felt the lawsuit results needed to be addressed further and therefore asked for a continuance. MR. DICK WILLARD, 73-477 Irontree, read a letter he wrote to the commission which stated that nothing was said to him at the time he purchased his home regarding filling the lots on the east side of Mariposa 10 feet above street grade, which will now block his entire view of the golf course. He also paid a premium price for the view. He confirmed Mr. McArthur's concerns and Mr. Antinelle, who is presently in Washington but owns a home and is a neighbor of Mr. Willard is also very concerned. He is not against development as. long as they do not fill those lots. (lot 9 specifically). He estimated an 8 foot difference between the original grade and new pad grades. Mr. Czarnowski was called to explain what lots are being filled and how high. Mr. Czarnowski explained that lots 9, and 17 were partially being filled but the difference would be minimal (1 foot). He further explained that in lot 9's case, the finished pad in the center of the lot was about the same as existing. Because the lot near the easterly property line drops away to where proposed "C" Street meets Mariposa, there will be fill required on the easterly side to keep the lot pad level. MR. LARRY SPICER, in answer to the concerns of drainage stated that grading would be downstream. In regards to the request for more time because of subdivision standard requirements, he cannot see what else can be done. Sales office presentation maps only show historical and current development and development can change as long as it meets all zoning requirements. CUP approved by county was properly amended. Definition of adjacent property refers to adjacent property in the Silver Spur Ranch area and lots cannot be seen from that property. It would be a severe hardship if continued. CHAIRMAN WOOD CALLED A 5 •MINUTE RECESS — THE MEETING RECONVENED AT 9:44 P.M. Chairman Wood closed the publirt hearing and asked for comments from the commission. Commissioner Erwood felt that legal notices needed to be sent properly, a clarification on the settlement agreement was necessary, and the 10 foot fill which will obstruct some views needed to be justified. He favored a continuance. Commissioner Richards also felt there were too many legal and moral issues that needed to be cleared up, specifically the grade elevations for lots 8 9 and 17. H felt that Mr. Spicer had done a good job on his proposal but some of the concerns expressed tonight had to be resolved before going further on this. He also did not feel the issue of notification should be brought up again since the matter would be clarified with staff. He was in favor of continuance. Chairman Wood felt that property owners had a right to build on their property and a thorough job had been done by staff. He believed that the drainage problem had been resolved. He did not believe a continuance was necessary. Commissioner Crites explained that there were very serious issues that needed to be resolved and therefore was also in favor of a continuance. Commissioner Downs felt that residents along the drainage path needed to be properly notified of the proposed project and therefore also was in favor of a continuance. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to continue this matter to April 3, 1984, to give the residents an opportunity to study the -5- MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION MARCH 6, 1984 proposal further and staff will send out legal notices again. Carried 4-0-1 (Wood abstained). Mr. Diaz noted that staff will attempt to resolve the issues resulting from tonight. Proper notification would be sent out again. Commissioner Downs assured that the drainage requirements would be met by Bechtal Corporation and should not be an issue at the next meeting. B• Case No. PP 84-2 - BOB SANDIFER, Applicant Request for approval iof a precise plan of design and Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact to allow construction of an •8648 sq.ft. industrial building in a service industrial zone located at the southwest'corner of Mediterranean and Beacon Hill. Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and noted an addition to conditions of approval. Add a condition of approval to`read: "Reciprocal driveway easement (twelve feet wide) to be deeded on the west property line prior to grading permit Issuance." Chairman Wood opened the public hearing and asked 'if the applicant wished to make a presentation. The applicant was not present. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Richards, approving findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Crites, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 937, approving PP 84-2, subject to conditions as amended. Carried unanimously 5-0. C. Case No. PP 84-1 and PMW 84-1 - WILLIAM WILSON, Applicant Request for approval of a precise plan of design, parcel map waiver and Negativd Declaration of Environmental allow Impact to a P construction of a 10,000 sq.ft. building in a service industrial zone located at the northwest corner of Mediterranean and St. Charles Place. Mr. Joy reviewed the staff report and noted a change in conditions of approval: Delete Condition No. 15. Chairman Wood _opened the public hearing and asked if the applicant wished to make a presentation. MR. GARY KNUTSON, 67-950 Grand View Avenue, Cathedral City, concurred with findings of staff and was present to answer any questions the commission might have. Chairman Wood asked if anyone present wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION to this case. There being none, the public hearing was closed. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to approve the findings as recommended by staff. Carried unanimously 5-0. Moved by Commissioner Richards, seconded by Commissioner Downs, to adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 938, approving PP 74-1 and PMW 84-1, subject to conditions. Carried unanimously 5-0. -6- May 8, 1984 Board of Directors Silver Spur Associates Gentlemen : I would like to take this opportunity to express a few thoughts on the issues which confront you and the homeowners here at Ironwood. I feel compelled to write this letter for the following reasons : During the past six years I was responsible for sales here numbering into the. hundreds . Now as a homeowner in Ironwood , an independent broker and president of my assoc- iation I continue to work with Ironwood residents daily. You might say , perhaps in a different way , I have an investment here the same as you do . This leads to the point of my letter . Hardly a day passes that my phone doesn ' t ring with a concerned homeowner on the other end . This started with the announcement that you are planning to revamp the 16th , 17th , and 18th holes of the North Course to accommodate the building of homes on the south side of the 16th fairway and has continued through the offering of the new lifetime memberships . A recent response to a general mailout prompted over 350 negative replys to the Planning Commission regarding your plans to build on the 16th fairway . I have attended Planning Commission meetings where numerous homeowners took their vacation time and attended in order for their objections to be heard . At breakfast a few months ago Brent Pendleton asked me to join him for a moment . We talked about the forthcoming member- ship offering and I said to him that the immediate problem was going to be the proposed changes on the 16th fairway . I told him there had been no attempt on the part of Ironwood officials to do any public relations or for that matter to accurately portray what was in store for us in that area . Instead I said it had been kept very low key , almost to the point of hiding from the membership what your intentions were . I said this handling of the situation would exacerbate the homeowners and cause severe opposition. I was correct in this evaluation. The other day I saw Brent again and he said "yes , you did tell me so . . . many clubs ago . . . we ' re going to take care of it . " My point is not to say "I told you so" . My concern is what is unfolding now . I understand Ironwood is appealing the r T ' Planning Commission ' s decision to eliminate certain lots on the south side of the 16th fairway and to lower lots 7 , 8 , and 9 . Whether or not Ironwood wins the appeal there will be no winner . Ironwood ' s credibility is already severely erroded in the homeowner ' s eyes . My sales staff and I were never advised that the land south of the 16th fairway could be acquired at some future time so there was no reason to suggest any homes would ever be built in an obvious drainage area . When the lots at the end of Poinciana Place and Quercus Lane were sold I recommended and Ironwood received substantial view premiums . Now despite homeowner pleas and the decision of the Planning Commission , Ironwood chooses to ignore all and plough ahead . This is totally uncharacteristic of the Ironwood I joined in 1978 . What has happened? With respect to the membership offering the law suit seems to speak for itself . I ' ll not add to this dilemma other than to note that there appears to be not "a handful of unhappy members" as the suit initially suggests , but rather , well over a hundred people who have contributed considerable funds and their time to strongly object . Today I received a phone call from a homeowner asking : 1 . ) Is my property value being damaged? 2 . ) What are you telling prospective buyers about the club membership problems? Gentlemen , my association with you over the years both during and after my tenure with Ironwood always left me with a good feeling . But now I wonder again . "What has happened?" Something is terribly wrong; the spirit of communication and cooperation here at Ironwood is gone . Sincerely, Robert N . Tuvell Copy to : J . Edward Shinn James F . Junge Thomas McHugh Brent Pendleton Ed Malone Frank Tansey Larry Spicer RNT/mjt �M • n r'� 1999 I IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE j�� `' ��� ��� . �f �4917 4d92 4397 .�B 5a rtP�l at r - �,. 5 P�3 I op 1 7����1 `03 yC._ a9/_Bh �/ 510, AMENDED 5065 l �47� lll...JJI l �— S°e5 s s Nzoee�e52 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO 9 19640 i1 -ra (•n- , � rf922-j� \v BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 32 , T iS S R . 6E S6B &M 524 j/� \\ i \ / / B 30.55 ''99^q5\\ NOVEMBER 3 , 1983 - 4896 4914 4�. t _ V \ tl FJ SLK \ ' 5Z \y S23 l� , SCALE . 1 11 IN wic 4e6.4 1 , "n v� ,< j F� I 4'R i P y ,SSA' j 522.5 � � Q5165 i ij r � _ 53�! • I 3 ^5167 L" -56S6 5G53 S« ; O 5263 1 - ,56i - 54/3 O 532d 285 \' - j I � W , I 1 cl I IE 22J6907 0 � x �, - L• /5,551— / - l / JJ � 5,89 '� �I J - � �- - - �V�Z � '- � �� Ate- A �\ ��•�j A�`� � A� . �. �� _ 5� i 1a9a J J ` 517, / a9T�2 ' e52 i _ \ 5 rJ V ('y - n• z ao 4953 .957 _J 1 1 1, i ( i � OWNER/SUBDIVIDER - \ "�� \49B 7 SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES L' 49-200 MARIPOSA DR . PALM DESERT, CA . , 92260 s � ��� �, y. 4674 6 l 9 ) 3 46-OS S l �� (NOTES : UTILITIES p - - 0 , - - SEWER : C . V . C.W. D . - - _ WATER: C . V. C. W. D. 5 ._ ELEC. S0 . CAL.EDISON GAS SO CAL GAS 544 TELE. : GENERAL TELE. T . V . : • �- L COACHELLA ALLEY T . V. 5:2 3 ASSESSORS PARCEL NO . S l - OK : 631 PAGE 27 PARCEL ; 52 AND PORTIONS OF 10,16.51j�— t j \� 'y ij�;l\IY/ SIOZ AREA 31 . 01 ACRES j 11 l i y�?'6T 5C5 5 ZONING PR-7, AND PARTIALLY NOT ZONED UMBER OF LOTS: ��• / 1-39 STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION \ 40-41 COMMON LOT - -- :j j 5729 'l ;>�� 42 OPEN SPACE ,: � - `_�.� 43-45 PRIVATE STREETS Tj �y TOTAL - 45 LOTS �-,�TT�+� C' •, C�UT•TR $J _ j % 9 j ( ' H.v�r. 11, -- ENGINEER _ am. , �a 'v A SUN-RAY ENGINEERING 25 W. GREEN ST --F 1-4 522 2 C� 1 Y P IC/�L... cJ EGT D P M DE - PASADENA, CALIF . 91105 �� g-rF�BLTsME NTOF (213) 449-1226 NTAL SERE' .� PPRO E BY• El C.C.RE' so iQo P.C..RE,- Znc� ® , 3 �, - -- , �,� ,� � - _ ❑ STAFF Zn` Z 5�' 52q 9 ElD.R-8. 4 FOR JOHN P. MUELLER C ��, F7 � � R. C.E. 17072 C j� BY 3 I j _ �UTT�� G UlZfb ��' L �" ; /CONSTRUCTION SHALL COMMENCE K;:ritAl Qt� P _ s 5„g ON! Ir !am/ G-1 C..�TT'E� �� �Jj r � ; cL- Ziff - t- t B30z - - w , L W � TY P 1 C L_. 2) E-=CT I C)1J Ss c*�, C - Ee a C-1rzCD ED j 1�Co4n to a MAR 2 8 1984 tl�� s�� Soo- ---- - --- - - - -- - - . _. , y. //I ENVIRONMENTAL 6TFPALM SERVICES -RA I V l� P E L 1 T LL r ` CD N `�^ -, /�/I �'ITY OF PALM DESERT JLAM _ ' 2 Hc'>paZ•: ��� = tn� � ' 4 .. 22, Ip . : . I , . v `g r SUN-RAY ENGINEERING - LAND AcnMINiNS : StAVEWN6 7n I2S 1A OItEEN fT1tEET•►ASAOENA ,CALIFORNIA lIIOS (213)4494T20 N�rw �ohl� � 4dy E "644 OW la �Y�4iC/ TiE? /96�'O-I 505 � y 416y� 4by ; 4.94 Iq-li f \ 0917 li�O�t/<,/000 COJC/A/T.e f-I C 5 � ' �,�,. � �� • � � L�1 a s4cer CA. ���i � 3 _ _ _"A _ DATE BY DESCRIPTION OF REVISION r� � 724 -003 7 0 7 DESIGN J. E.C. D /- 3/- 84 / ATE� fop FILE wjmKR \\ `: - / J -- , SHEET Z OF SHEETS _ pp IN 2C 4yi 5 \ DRAWN SGIE / s 40 l t \\ \\ \ 4 9 -Z r �. t4, SCE too G� ' l—\;, \, �� � l J �,l�1/�� � / � � `' �1 � � � / � _ 189.8 \ A� .' 469 490 cp MN �_ 1 �/� G r , 145 rr t - s. a •, g 3 - Ap -- • 541 B 49Q Ado- - Q • _ '�' �- �k,KI, 000, N20006-87 E 22)69 03 I 04 fig •' ST2��T !DPP - 2 1984 CD FZ) ^ G CD _ ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES `J `'� � ' OF PALM z� � CITY DESERT I IC7 - - � � 5 �X ti ST 1 t�l C-1 C--1 FZc> U t`!LD - t _.-.-..__...- .._.-...-_«.-,...._._.. .......:............._„r...«-_ -. _.._ __.... ._.--.w.r...__.r_—__..-�r..__rww�.rs•+•. ,.ter....` :..;..s• .�1�K[f 3.-ik`..z'":,�..... •_t. -�.. ,!W ..a.'1` ... • 3.._ - } ---._-___.___«,._.�,.r w..,.«-.._.w.-r.i._....w.+__.w._+•-w.-r+..�.._r...n.a.r....._........«..r.r.a.._...-.n r.r..-_......�.-_..._.•r_. ....ahr�._.�..�...r�xu rrv�i..�r 1r J-T / y•\ tFe ryr •C S o o O \ 6 •c �,c , ? � - Co( � � jet, o O ol 124 o #, o jb, �)MMO//ARE A � ' o (D � /�2 _ �� �.../ o 1 � ti ep C ar o Q -40 o /09., r,,. �, 1 a9s, A e v i -1 ti - ".� ,ul 4-1 I _ 4*4 1 _ J9 l .7�1 'O 1 � • I 5(163/ �49!' 4B9B O _ • f �� } 1 . 1 -. �•• \� v� � .� ��� � A���A �, /� � e � �e\�� w2c aea o (49\28 - I s kk \_ 14 1 0(7:) X, _ G ol 5007 - - - -_�- •- —_ _ Yam. / - v - , , ► _ -- ,,�' � v�V •V''' v /� / sasz � � �, �'SLl'S sas - _ f Nor- tt - i 01 s - . \ � o z a = _ 3 J ' s9ffT ..9. �� ssE O- �\-so' ' '/• - \ o ` r//, / �/ � -/ 953 s. 22649� f A.� v� _\ �\ / 9 5 0 � 495.4 zC yy�� ---- -b �� - ` /ems_ :_ � �•�. _ ---�' � "\ 11 �/',�• ., \�' -VVVV a9sz - v _ � Q / �i 4 i � M asp •_ • i— �� 1 -sndw t �- 1 i axes r . �.. Sago 1 ��, i f % ��1 A• 5834� \\ a9q.3 k / 496.7 \ o i I I OWNER SU6 VIDER OI SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES 49-200 MARIPOSA DR . � ; • .�, �PALM DESERT, CA . , 92260 � `� a •4 0� i, ;, ( 619 ) 346-0551 NOTES 00 we.1 UTILITIES O � �I\ �� SEWER : C. V. C. W.D. � - - WATER: C. V. C. W. D. .WATER: S0. CAL. EDISON � GAS SO CAL GAS TELE. • GENERAL TELE, - °v , T. V . COACHELLA VALLEY T. V. e j Sia . 44 �v ASSESSORS PARCEL NO S 11 BOOK 631 PAGE 27 P OF PARCEL AND PORTIONS a ol AREA • 27 . 5 ACRES ZONING : PR-7, AND PARTIALLY NOT ZONEDcl- 1 , 2slza i NUMBER OF LOTS• 1-39 STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 40-41 COMMON LOT - - 42 OPEN SPACE _ - 43-45 PRIVATE STREETS TOTAL _ 45 �OTS C��e, !� � �i UTTEt� � Cc�Re, ', �52 ENGINEER c R ,J —+ I trt C�UT T� S v� 4szz 9 SUN-RAY ENGINEERING _ ; T ,= tt,_111 HwY 11ti 125 W. GREEN STV� PASADENA, CALIF . 91105 'T�YP IC/�.1_.. EcT icDhl 1a 3211 sc ,�.>]c��.iN ( 213 ) 449-1226 Q jr {FS yyypp' hd'; JOHN P. MUELLER rr// R . C. E . 17072 C r�e> 4zc�' cam' " - �.9 c UT T C-t 531 !' � \ 53�9 J332 9 ` TY FP I C/.�L_ S E CT I C)►J �-�— 3x 3 - I �„se P�5 �e C" STTZEET FC�TU2E ST. � —� ss� .- Pn2-rcL c . _ r~ 1 i MAR2 '.984 I=XIs-� - d� R. C-1�-�v+�n J ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES CITY OF PALM DESERT [Q ' • . -- \ TJCo4o �. o Snn ttl � l Ir z L MAP i � + c> 5c n ti✓ S Fac-T Q N MAR - 2 1984 SUN-RA Y ENGINE 11, ,moo , EERING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES LAND PLANNING : SURVEYING CIT1Y F M 125 W. GREEN STREET Ph SINA ,CALIFORNIA 81103 (213) E22,8WD 3{CO IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT , COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 1 \ 503 � g0 l AMENDED 49.8 \/ \ 5055 - JOIP J02P � a�•' - -— �\\ 1 TENTATIV � 5 6 \ 22 2 � a9G5692 � a9 `, �� BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 32 , T . S S , , - �� 0893' ' P �� ' - "i45 �� I 492 \ \ --- 4935 R . 6 E . , S . B . B . &M . yv�1 ' 50,55 �y Ir V \ \ \ r 5' 2 T� N O M B E R 3 19 8 3 402 y 526 523, \ � yj/Z , AD SCALE 1 -IGV , \ v \ - o - 92.8 I _ t •- �� C'6. ' `MH Q P t� If I v /\ 12 5263 4(11 • o , i-r i - •� - r! h, J 515 C 2 i SJiS .50/6 _ 1 \ d5,09 _ AA o . F r CJ 1 4953 /ice �1 I v \ _\_ — -_ \ offV �-� V --�� - 495,4 �- �C_ / S 533 � \ _ M \ V � ara.3 ' s r , 2 \ 1v l 4 p \V 40 e4916 , j. 31 „ / �J^O _ OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES _ v n 49-200 MARIPOSA DR \ � J - 3 PALM DESERT, CA . , 92260 v\sas - - - - F 619 6-0SS 3 4 1 � d z / 5 NOTES • _ UTILITIES ' z SEWER : C . V . C. W D , WATER : C. V . C. W . D . \ v - �ELEC . SO . CAL. EDISON — / GAS : SO . CAL GAS \- -- , TELE . : GENERAL TELE . A 4T . V . COACHELLA VALLEY T.V.c y 514- ASSESSORS PARCEL NO . S ? \BOOK : 631 PAGE 27 PARCEL ; 52 AND PORTIONS OF 10,16.51 AREA : 27 . 5 t ACRES 56 J r 52u j _ 1 ZONING PR-7, AND PARTIALLY NOT ZONED \� ��' �!' °e�N �_ a 5,3 52 5 v5j4i \ NUMBER OF LOTS: - // 5 01 11 / 1 / T 1-40 STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION , 41-42 COMMON LOT 43 & 47 GOLF COURSE , STORM CHANNEL. & REC , AREAS a OPEN SPACE 44-46 PRIVATE STREETS i Et) t Cc�Q,a ! TOTAL _ 47 �0 S ` c�-t- TE_� i G — 1 - - :Ile 9 H w Y 1 I t ENGINEEk - \. SUN-RAY ENGINEERING \ 125 W . GREEN ST . IC/�L_ S ECT I CD 1J PASADENA, CALIF . 31105 T I , J ( ( 213 ) 449-1226 ! .� 8 "B_rfeEeTS ; C:) so t czlo __ a CD JOHN P . MUELLER ; C L, ECD c-D \\ \ 1 R . C . E . 17072 C \�� GK W_f F::'C -� -TY FP 1 G/-,s,L_ E GT i n N (ll P c�ca C-3 p -x � _jU 1ST C-7 c ram!CD I \\� \ y Tom►AT. T�.sr `------ SIO - - N \ MAP r� SUN-RA Y ENGINEER ING c�O ' LAND PL ANN/NG : SURVEYING /C� l-, I , - 7 Lam' 25 W GREEN STREET PASAOENA ,CALIFORN;A 91i05 i2!3r 49-)+ - - E22,800 DR83100 IRONWOOD COUNTRY CLUB CROSSamSECTIONS TRACT 19640 NO . �Xt5T cNwF�- u 0' $ j 5?5 - TN..,._ 5 � !675 550 CAM GOO SECTION i moo , 5?5 _ F 550 5ZJ L 52.5 I E"yC�3�" C�W61. L.INC-� B — B- 5-?5 �� �7 550 C SSO 525 w y i1 - - TMEtTi r C — C- 10 . 550 t-M- 1107 W" 5 SECTION D — D SCALE . HORIZ . , 1 " = 40 ' VERT , = 1 " -40 ' ORIGINAL AMENDMENT REQUEST DEC. 1983 IN THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4691 41198 / I �- r ' .5032 - 4903 - 5101 / / LJ 4A'.6AMENDED 5065 \� I 1 , A // 5022 a0[2�.� y�`� i/ 490 J� �`7p45 �/�.a \ h2086. N () - 122 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 19640 5o* BEING A PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF SECTION 32, T.5 S, R.6 E.,S.B.B.&M. NOVEMBER 3,1983 / z SCALE:1"=1 '/ =F. �4: — 6_ � 0 922 J f \ \ \ 411. 261 \ 52e; . r l.l, �✓ /' 492E 4 _ O I I f� " I _ .r i r � t / r t 5004 w -- 14 503 J, r K 516.6 77:- 49,3 52 „ 0 / F F J N a95.4 .r 4-le 2 4953 ------------ \J 495 > - ----------------- \ OWNER/SUBDIVIDER SILVER SPUR ASSOCIATES 49-200 MARIPOSA DR. PALM DESERT, CA., 92260 (619) 346-0551 NOTES: UTILITIES SEWER: C.V4C.W.D WATER: C.V.C.W.D. 'ELEC.: SO. CAL.EDISON GAS : SO. CAL GAS TELE.: GENERAL TELE. T.V. : COACHELLA VALLEY T.V. ASSESSORS PARCEL NO.S BOOK : 631 PAGE 27 PARCEL ;52 AND PORTIONS OF 10,16.51 AREA.: 27.5 1 ACRES ZONING : PR-7,AND PARTIALLY NOT ZONED C NUMBER OF LOTS: 1-40 STANDARD RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION 41-42 COMMON LOT 43 OPEN SPACE 44-46 PRIVATE STREETS TOTAL = 46 SOTS ENGINEER SUN -RAY ENGINEERING 125 W. GREEN ST.! PASADENA, CALIF. 91105 (213) 449-1226 i I • l C] =.Ki 1 ��O JOHN P. MUELLER tl R . C. E . 17072 n r '7, / I t9 � J 5,1 ;r 5 , E2244 55'o I is I J I - - - - / v \ CUtz� -- 1 TYP IG/�t-. SEGTI�JN I <; I YfIC/,.L_ ;ZD F--- GTInN ''(:--" ST2.ae-r * f`UTU2E e-T. SSA 54-n I X I ST C-1 2 C-_-� C-3 ED sC-) (7-> a A L C-1 L-3-rd229 52 III , ( ` C e.-3, �FZ HAY T/�GK �� 5 c 3 � 11 ? 0 91 1.983 N <1t SERViCUS �A i t + ( r:L3 L'iESERT v 1 �\ R 1 Ls I T `r, MAP c SUN -RAY ENGINEERING _ r LAND PLANNING : SURVEYING 125 W. GREEN STREET PASADENA ,CALIFORNIA 91105 (213)449- }ur. ` E22,e00 --` aoo �1.a DEC 2 81983 V X-1fl- / �q4 1, lvhbhh- I V" I TABULATIONS UNIT NO SQ. FT. A 8 3090 sq. ft. B 9 3385_ sq. ft. C 12 3650_sq. ft. D 10 1 3625 sq. ft. 39 total units 40 0 40 80 1"=40 scale 000mmed feet IhL, /a QL a condominium development for IRONMOD COUNTRY CLUB FAIRWAY ESTATES 04PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA PC 83 110ES 'Ira Y, - t - , " :,I , URRUTIA ARCHITECTS TT l q (0 'D 69-730 HIGHWAY 111, SUITE 107 RANCHO MIRAGE, CA 92270 (619) 3 2 1-25 5 5 40.3o.88 `:�' n C.0y - Sa