Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1977-03-24 (2)MINUTES PALM DESERT CITY COUNCIL THURSDAY, MARCH 24, 1977 CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS I. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Mullins called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. on Thurs- day, March 24, 1977, in the City Hall Council Chambers. II. PLEDGE - Mayor Pro-Tempore Jim McPherson III. INVOCATION - Councilman Brush IV. ROLL CALL Present: Councilman Brush Councilman McPherson Councilman Newbrander Councilman Seidler Mayor Mullins Also Present: Martin J. Bouman, City Manager David J. Erwin, City Attorney Paul A. Williams, Director of Environmental Services Hunter T. Cook, City Engineer Paul E. Byers, Director of Management Services V. AWARDS, PRESENTATIONS, AND APPOINTMENTS None VI. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MINUTES of the March 10, 1977, Special Meeting of the City Council. Rec: Approve as presented. B. MINUTES of the March 10, 1977, Meeting of the City Council. Rec: Approve as presented C. STATEMENT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS FOR THE MONTH OF FEBRUARY, 1977. Rec: Receive and file. D. CLAIMS AND DEMANDS AGAINST THE CITY TREASURY - Demand Nos. 77-084, 77-091, and 77-092. Rec: Approve as presented. E. LETTER from Flora Spiegel, Mayor of the City of Corona, California, to the State Transportation Board Expressing Continued Opposition to the Policy Element of California Transportation Plan. Rec: Receive and file. March 24, 1977 Page 1 F. REQUEST from City of Lomita, California, that the City Council of the City of Palm Desert Adopt a Resolution Supporting Assembly Constitutional Amendment No. 13 Adding Language to The State Constitution Which Would Prevent the Courts of this State from Ordering Busing Between Schools to Achieve Integration of Those Schools on the Basis of Race, Color, Religion, Sex, or National Origin. Rec: Receive and file. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Seidler seconded to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried unanimously. VII. PUBLIC HEARINGS Mayor Mullins stated that a Study Session had been held prior to the Council meeting. This Study Session was open to the public, and many matters for consideration on the Agenda had been discussed. However, he pointed out that no decisions had been made during this meeting. A. CONTINUED CASE NO. TT 9129 - MARRAKESH BUILDING & COUNTRY CLUB: Consideration of a Tentative Tract Map for a 26-Unit Residen- tial Condominium Subdivision Located South of Grapevine Street and East of Burroweed Lane, Extended. Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing open. Mr. Williams presented the Staff report for Council indi- cating the requested subdivision was a final phase of a project in excess of 155 acres totalling more than 360 dwelling units. The concern of both the Staff and the Planning Commission in reviewing the final 26-unit phase did not deal totally with the design of the subdivision or the appropriateness of the subdivision, but rather with the fact that a number of improvements should have been considered as a part of the original development but were not required. These improvements included adequate drainage and pedestrian circulation systems adjacent to arterial streets. While everyone acknowledges that Marrakesh is a low -density high -quality development, the fact remains that it is in the path of the major north/south drainage path of the community and is on one of the only two major north/south arterials in the community. Therefore, Staff and the Planning Commis- sion looked beyond the fact that this is a small segment of a larger, previously -developed project and analyzed the major community -wide effects of drainage and pedestrian circulation. This approach will not only benefit the com- munity, but will also benefit the occupants of Marrakesh, particularly in terms of the concerns in the area of drainage. Mr. Williams outlined the conditions set forth by the Planning Commission and the pros and cons for each condition. In summary, Mr. Williams explained that in analyzing the pros and cons of the objections that the applicant had made to the conditions as recommended by the Planning Commission and in analyzing the needs of the community for improvements to be made as a part of this final phase of Marrakesh, the proposed Council Resolution suggested several changes to the conditions of approval as recommended by the Planning Commission. These changes were being recommended on the basis of the fact that the Marrakesh complex is virtually complete, and this subdivision represents the final phase of less than 10% of the total project and what improvements are reasonable to apply to this final phase to guarantee that within reasonable parameters, the development will not adversely affect the rest of the neighborhood and will be sufficiently protected from innundation. Further, these requirements were based upon the realization that Marrakesh is a part of the community and that the community facilities developed will be utilized by the residents of Marrakesh. March 24, 1977 Page 2 Staff was recommending to Council that the Planning Commission conditions be revised as follows: Condition No. Change 2 Delete (relative to sidewalks) 5 Change to read: "Provide a second entrance for use by emergency vehicles and residents in emergency situations. Details shall be satisfactory to the Police Chief, Fire Marshal, and Disas- ter Preparedness Officer." 7 8 Change to read: "The applicant shall contribute $20,979 to the City of Palm Desert as his proporational share of the public improvements on Haystack Road South of the Marrakesh project." Change to read: "Owner -shall grant to the City of Palm Desert all access rights to Grapevine Street except at approved entrances or shall provide other access control methods as approved by the City Engineer. Mr. Williams pointed out that a letter protesting some of the conditions had been received from Marrakesh and that a petition signed by about 316 homeowners had also been received in protest to the conditions. Mayor Mullins asked for input from anyone in favor of the project. MR. BRIAN JONES, 68-500 Sharpless, Cathedral City, California, addressed Council as Vice President of Marrakesh. He indicated that he was in favor of the project, but that he had some strong opposition to some of the conditions. Mr. Jones pointed out that Marrakesh's last 100 units had been spread over 4 phases. Final tract maps were filedon 3 of these phases and 2 out of the 4 were completed. The last phase was inadvertently allowed to lapse, thus the requirement for further approval. Mr. Jones pointed out that a complete set of conditions were set forth with the first approval which included curbs and gutters along Haystack, property which they did not own and thus would be an off -site improvement, for the complete boundary of Marrakesh. That con- dition was agreed to and Marrakesh will still do that. However, he pointed out that since the last tract map lapsed and had to go before the Planning Commission again for approval, an entirely new set of conditions had been imposed. He did not feel that this was fair in that the conditions imposed would involve the entire project when only 26 units were involved. Mr. Jones expressed opposition to the following conditions: Condition #3: Mr. Jones pointed out that they had an adequate drainage ditch around the boundary of Marrakesh that would take care of the water flow in their development. He opposed having to redevelop the ditch to accommodate drainage for some- one else's property. He requested that Condition #3 be deleted. Condition #5: Mr. Jones proposed that rather than a second entrance or "card" gate, they be allowed to provide a breakaway crash gate on Grapevine that would also be used for water release. He stated that they definitely did not want a secondary entrance or card system. March 24, 1977 Page 3 Condition #6: Mr. Jones stated that they did not want a standard tall, aluminum type street light at their entrance. Marrakesh proposed street lighting similar to the standards used within the project which they felt would adequately illuminate the street area. Condition #7: Mr. Jones stated strong opposition to the require- ment of paying almost $21,000 into a fund to provide storm drainage facilities at a future date when the Master Drainage Plan had not even been finalized. He felt that there should be some other alternative and requested that this condition be deleted. Condition #8: Mr. Jones stated that access rights to Portola had been granted and requested that the words "adjacent to Tract No. 9729" be added immediately following Grapevine Street. Condition #9: Mr. Jones requested that this condition be amended to read 75% of the dwellings rather than 50%. Condition #18: Mr. Jones opposed the park fee of $8,900 and proposed that they be permitted to pay a fee of $100 per unit involved in Phase 4 or $2,600. He said that he did not feel it justified to use the full project value in determining their proportionate share. He pointed out that Marrakesh residents spend about 90% of their time in their own recreational facili- ties within the boundary of the project. He also expressed opposition to their donation of the property on the corner of Haystack and Portola as an alternative on the basis of the vandalism now being experienced in the Community Park. MR. SHIRLEY WARD, 47-422 Rabat Road, Palm Desert, addressed Council expressing concern that the project be completed as originally planned. He referred to the petition that had been submitted to the City Council, signed by over 300 residents of Marrakesh, and said that he would answer any questions relative to the petition. Mr. Ward pointed out that the golf course and club house were owned and operated totally separately by the homeowners. The maintenance shed for upkeep of these facilities was at the corner of Grapevine and Portola, and Mr. Ward stated that the proposed drainage would leave the maintenance facilities in a very precarious position as far as water drainage was con- cerned. Mr. Ward presented a letter to the Council, signed by Richard Dixon, President of Marrakesh Golf Club, holding the City responsible for any damage to their maintenance facilities should this type of drainage be made mandatory. (Letter marked Exhibit "A" of these minutes.) MR. FRANK HAMERSCHLAG, 1007 S. Palm Canyon Drive, Palm Springs, addressed Council as the Civil Engineer for Marrakesh. He pointed out that if Marrakesh was forced to change the natural flow of water through their project, they would be very liable. Mayor Mullins requested input in opposition to the project and none was offered. Councilman Brush asked Mr. Jones or the City Engineer how much it would cost to continue the existing drainage channel now emptying at the north end of the channel on Grapevine as opposed to the City's contention that the water should be turned so as to flow easterly on Amir Street within the Marrakesh development and towards Portola. Mr. Art Gardner, General Contractor of Marrakesh, responded that it was now costing $27.50 per lineal foot. Councilman Seidler asked if he was correct in remembering that Marrakesh had agreed to spend money on Haystack Road for drainage control. Mr. Jones responded that they had agreed to this and that it had, in fact, been bonded. However, what would have cost $20,000 to $30,000 then would now cost between $35,000 and $40,000. He further pointed out that the money that had been agreed to for improvement of Grapevine had already been spent on said improvement. March 24, 1977 Page 4 Councilman Newbrander asked Mr. Cook whether or not the type of light standard Marrakesh was proposing would be adequate. Mr. Cook advised that very possibly it could be adequate but with a different type of globe. Councilman McPherson asked, with regard to Condition #9, what conditions of the previous tracts had not yet been met. Mr. Williams advised that was the curb and gutter along Haystack. Councilman McPherson indicated concern that so many problems still existed with the project and suggested continuing the matter for another few weeks so that Staff and the Marrakesh people could work them out. Mr. Williams asked Council for their direction on the conditions if this continuance was to be made. Councilman Seidler stated that the one open issue was that of the drainage control and making sure the property owners on Grapevine would be protected from the water from Marrakesh. He stated he felt that Marrakesh had disrupted the "natural" water flow, but that this was something that could be mutually worked out between the applicant and the City Engineer. He felt that the staff and applicant had come a long way in resolving many of the differences and that a continuance would not help, unless the applicant felt otherwise. MR. JOHN DAWSON of Marrakesh addressed the problem of the master drainage project indicating that it would not be fair to expect Marrakesh to carry such a large portion of it. Discussion fol- lowed relative to the City's Master Drainage Plan, where it will be put into effect, etc. With no further input, Mayor Mullins declared the Public Hearing closed. Council reviewed the conditions individually and made the fol- lowing recommendations: 1. Satisfactory as written. 2. Delete in its entirety (requirement for sidewalks). 3. Satisfactory as written. 4. Satisfactory as written. 5. Delete the last sentence "Card system will be considered satisfactory". 6. Replace the word "street" with "traffic safety" 7. Delete in its entirety. 8. Delete the words "Portola Avenue and" and add the words "and adjacent to Tract 9129" immediately following Grapevine Street. 9. Delete "50%" and replace with "75%". 10. Satisfactory as written. 11. Satisfactory as written. 12. Satisfactory as written. 13. Satisfactory as written. 14. Satisfactory as written. 15. Satisfactory as written. March 24, 1977 Page 5 16. Satisfactory as written. 17. Satisfactory as written. 18. Satisfactory as written. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman Seidler seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-32, subject to the conditions as amended. Motion carried unanimously. VIII. RESOLUTIONS A. RESOLUTION NO. 77-34 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 75-73, TO ALLOW OVERTIME TO BE PAID TO THE ASSISTANT PLANNER FOR THE MONTHS OF FEBRUARY AND MARCH, 1977, DUE TO EXTRA- ORDINARY CONDITIONS WHICH RESULTED FROM THE EXISTENCE OF VACANT POSITIONS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES. Mr. Bouman explained that Mr. Sam Freed, as well as the secretary in the Department of Environmental Services, had been putting in very excessive overtime in order to keep up with the workload created by two vacancies within the department. While the secretary was eligible for overtime compensation, Mr. Freed was exempt. Staff's recommendation was for the adoption of Resolution No. 77-34 to provide for compensation to Mr. Freed. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Brush seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-34. Motion carried unanimously. B. RESOLUTION NO. 77-35 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING FINAL SUB- DIVISION MAPS FOR TRACTS 5696-3 and 4796-4 (IRONWOOD) AND APPROVING THE STANDARD SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT RELATING THERETO. Mr. Cook reported that these were the final tract maps for the last two phases of Tract 5796. Ironwood was very anxious to get started. Mr. Cook stated that all agreements and maps were approved and recommended adoption of the resolution. Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-35. Motion carried unanimously. C. RESOLUTION NO. 77-36 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 75-26 AND ESTABLISHING A NEW POLICY ON CURB, GUTTER & TIE-IN PAVEMENT INSTALLATION ON EXISTING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. Mr. Bouman requested that this item be continued to the meeting of April 14 to allow staff time to rewrite the resolution. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to continue Resolution No. 77-36 to the meeting of April 14, 1977. Motion carried unanimously. IX. ORDINANCES - For Introduction: None March 24, 1977 Page 6 ORDINANCES - For Adoption: A. ORDINANCE NO. 157 - AN ORDINANCE. OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 80, KNOWN AS THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR PROJECT AREA NO. 1. CASE NO. RAP 01-77. Mr. Bouman explained that this was a second reading of the ordinance and that Staff had no further input unless Council had questions. He pointed out that the City had received no communications regarding this meeting since the first reading of the ordinance and the public hearing. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Seidler seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 157; carried unanimously. B. ORDINANCE NO. 158 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, ANNEXING CERTAIN CONTIGUOUS TERRITORY TO SAID CITY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ANNEXATION OF UNINHABITED TERRITORY ACT OF 1939, WHICH PROCEEDINGS ARE DESIGNATED AS ANNEXATION NO. 3. Mr. Bouman reported that since the first reading of the ordinance, the City had received a letter from Colonel James Healy, Attorney at Law, representing the City of Indian Wells. This letter had expressed certain points of opposition posed by Indian Wells relative to the annexa- tion. COLONEL JAMES HEALY, 76-855 Robin Drive, Indian Wells, addressed the Council requesting a continuance of the matter until Council had had adequate time to review his letter and objections. He stated that he and the members of the City Council of Indian Wells would be happy to meet with the Palm Desert City Council. Mr. Williams pointed out that although the letter had been dated March 3 indicating that Mr. Healy would attend the Public Hearing on March 10, 1977, it wasn't received by Palm Desert until March 14, 1977. Councilman Brush asked whether or not the objections raised in Mr. Healy's letter were different from those raised by Mr. Harry Schmitz of the City of Indian Wells. These objec- tions had resulted in the Council's continuing the prezoning of the proposed annexation for a period of two weeks to allow the Council to thoroughly review them. Mr. Healy responded that his letter was only an elaboration of the same points. Councilman Seidler pointed out that Mr. Schmitz had appeared at the initial Public Hearing for the prezoning of the pro- posed annexation and requested continuance to allow their staff time for review. The continuance was granted. Mr. Schmitz subsequently wrote a letter to the City Council of Palm Desert which was included in the Public Hearing when it was conducted. However, no one from Indian Wells spoke at the Public Hearing for prezoning although they were in the audience. Councilman Seidler further stated that no one had spoken from Indian Wells during the Public Hearing regarding the approval of the annexation. He pointed out that all of the objections raised by Indian Wells had been strongly considered during the prezoning and the subsequent Public Hearing for annexation approval. Councilman Brush moved and Councilman McPherson seconded to waive further reading and adopt Ordinance No. 158; carried unanimously. March 24, 1976 Page 7 XI. CONSENT ITEMS HELD OVER None XI. CONTINUING BUSINESS None XII. NEW BUSINESS A. CONSIDERATION of Parks and Recreation Commission By -Laws and Recommended Terms of Office as Forwarded By The Chairman of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Mr. Williams reported that there had been two meetings held of the Parks and Recreation Commission. As directed in the Council Resolution which created the Commission, they directed themselves to first establishing terms of office, goals and objectives, and By -Laws. Staff was recommending the adoption of Resolution No. 77-33 concurring with the proposed By -Laws and Recommended Terms of Office for the Commission Members. Mayor Mullins expressed his pleasure with the group of people making up the Parks & Recreation Commission as well as the material they had prepared. He stated that the City was really ready to go ahead with this now and make things happen. Councilman McPherson asked Staff whether or not a joint study session of the Council and the Parks & Recreation Commission was being scheduled for the near future and if not, could there be one. Mr. Williams indicated that there was a joint study session scheduled for the Planning Commis- sion and the Parks & Recreation Commission and this would then be followed by a joint session with Council. Councilman Seidler requested, with concurrence of the entire Council, that Item (g) of the Goals and Objectives be made a priority item of the Commission and that a definite time table be established. Councilman Newbrander moved and Councilman Seidler seconded to waive further reading and adopt Resolution No. 77-33, concurring with the proposed By -Laws and recommended terms of office for the Commission members. Motion passed unanimously. XIII OLD BUSINESS A. CASE NO. 23SA, ROY CARVER, APPLICANT: Continued Considera- tion of Applicant's Appeal of Planning Commission Rejection of a Request for Four (4) Directory Signs for the Palms to Pines Shopping Center. (Continued from March 10, 1977, meeting,) Mr. Williams reported that the Planning Commission had denied the application for these four signs in that they were exces- sive in area in relationship to the existing signs in the center; too much information was proposed for each sign which would result in the signs not being effective in that they are adjacent to public roads where traffic will be moving; the intent of ground signs for shopping center is to limit them to the advertisement of the center itself; the proposed signs would not be compatible to the surrounding areas or the projects in which they were proposed; and the proposed signs were not consistent with actions by the Planning Commission on other shopping centers in the community. Staff had found no new facts to justify overruling the Planning Commission and felt other alternative sign programs could be utilized which would meet the needs of the complex. Therefore, it was Staff's recommendation to deny the appeal by Resolution No. 77-21. March 24, 1977 Page 8 MR. ROBERT BEST of the Carver Company addressed Council requesting the approval of the signs. He stressed their compliance even under County jurisdiction with trying to keep the "village -type" atmosphere. He explained the problems people had in locating various shops as some are in the front and some in the back, but no way of seeing all of the stores at one glance. He agreed that the locating of the signs at the entrances would create a traffic problem but suggested that this could be worked out by simple relocation of the signs. Councilman Seidler stated that he felt that there was still some obvious confusion between the applicant and the Staff and suggested a continuance of the matter for two weeks. Councilman Seidler so moved that Case No. 23SA be continued to the meeting of April 14, 1977, and Councilman Brush seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. B. REQUEST for Approval of Future Improvement Agreement for the Installation of Public Improvements at 73-386 Bursera Way - Applicant: James M. & Judith L. Weeks. Mr. Bouman stated that although Resolution 77-36 had been continued for two weeks to allow rewriting of the policy governing this type of agreement, Mr. Erwin had advised that there would be no problem in approving this particular agreement at this time. Staff, therefore, recommended the approval of the Future Improvement Agreement. Councilman Newbrander moved to authorize the Mayor to execute the Improvement Agreement on behalf of the City and Councilman Brush seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. XIV. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS MRS. CAROL ROGERS, 74-380 Avenue 44, Palm Desert, California, addressed the Council urging their assistance in better speed control on Avenue 44, particularly at Deep Canyon and Avenue 44 and San Pablo and Avenue 44. She indicated that possibly more stop •signs would help; also better coverage by the Sheriff's Department. She stated that she had called the Sheriff's Depart- ment several times, but that had not seemed to be the solution. At Council's request, the City Engineer, Mr. Cook, reported that the City was very aware of the problem on Avenue 44 and was watching it and seeking proper alternatives. He assured Mrs. Rogers that he would personally contact the Sheriff's Department so that the street would be better patrolled in the immediate future. He stated that while he did not disagree with the possibility of stop signs, he was not sure that was the answer. XV. REPORTS AND REMARKS A. CITY MANAGER 1. Mr. Bouman gave a brief report relative to a property owners' meeting with Mr. Weeks of the Water District. The meeting had been called to clarify some questions homeowners had and attendance was outstanding. One question that was raised during that meeting was whether or not the Water District had the right to make sewer connections mandatory. Councilman Seidler, at this point, stated that he remembered specifically that Mr. Weeks had reported a totally opposite opinion to the Council in that it was the City's responsibility to make the connections mandatory. All Councilmembers concurred that Mr. Weeks had made this statement. Councilman McPherson suggested that it might be a very good idea to schedule for the immediate future a special meeting of the City Council with representatives of the Coachella Valley Water District to get clear answers on both parts. This should be a public meeting with the March 24, 1977 Page 9 both the Council and Water District representatives available for answers to questions. Mr. Bouman said that he would try to schedule such a meeting if Council so directed. Councilman McPherson asked Dave Erwin whether or not he knew if the Water District did, in fact, have the authority to make sewer connections mandatory and Mr. Erwin said that he believed that they did. Council directed Mr. Bouman to schedule a joint meeting of the City Council and representatives of the Coachella Valley Water District, preferably before the regular Council meeting of April 14, 1977. 2. Mr. Bouman reported that he was working with the City Manager of Indian Wells with the goal of producing a resolution acceptable to both cities as well as to Rancho Mirage relative to Flood Control. The resolution will call for some action on the part of the Coachella Valley County Water District on this matter. Mr. Bouman also pointed out that the media had been reporting some controversy between the City of Indian Wells and Palm Desert, but he stated that quite frankly, there should be a clear understanding that if there are controversies, they are totally unrelated — such as the annexation and the flood control study. 3. Mr. Bouman reported that the March 30, 1977, meeting of the Redevelopment Agency Planning Priorities Committee and the Design Review Board had been cancelled. B. CITY ATTORNEY None C. MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL 1. Councilman Seidler requested that all Council repre- sentation on various committees be reviewed in that many of the committees call for the Mayor's represen- tation and the change in Mayors should be noted. XVI. ADJOURNMENT Councilman McPherson moved and Councilman Newbrander seconded to adjourn the meeting. Motion carried unanimously. Mayor Mullins adjourned the meeting at 9:45 p.m. lU L E'DWARD D. MULLINS, MAYOR ATTEST: SHEILA R. GTLLIGAN, ity Clerk City of Palm Desert, California March 24, 1977 Page 10 vivcii\i‘e1ex GOLF CLUB POST OFFICE BOX 1633 • PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA 92260 March 24, 1977 TO THE CITY OF PALM DESERT AND TO ITS MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Gentlemen: We understand that the application of Marrakesh Building Corporation for permit to proceed with a subdivision of twenty-six (26) houses within the "Marrakesh development" is scheduled to come before the City Council this evening. The undersigned last October purchased from the developers of "Marrakesh" the golf course, the clubhouse, the maintenance facilities and maintenance yard which lies at the northeast corner of the Marrakesh development i.e. the property at the southwest corner of Grapevine and Portola. We understand that over the objection of the permit appli- cant the City of Palm Desert proposed to require installation of drainage facilities which will alter the natural flow coming onto Marrakesh of surface water from the south and west across the Marrakesh property. We further understand that these proposals will have the effect of channeling such surface waters from properties lying south and particularly west of Marrakesh directly onto the maintenance yard owned by the undersigned. This is to advise you that we object to any condition imposed by the City which will have the effect of increasing the exposure of our maintenance yard to increased flow of surface water. This letter will constitute formal notice to you that if our maintenance yard property sustains damage by reason of the drainage changes imposed by the City, we shall look to the City of Palm Desert and its representatives to make good any losses so sustained by the undersigned. Yours very truly, MARRAKESH GOLF CLUB CORPORATION By Richard Dixon President March 24, 1977 Exhibit A Page 11