Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutOrd 1067, 1068 and Res 04-42, 04-75 C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-012 Palm Desert Country Club 06-24-2004REQUEST: SUBMITTED BY: APPLICANT: CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT STAFF REPORT Approval of a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to R-1 9,000 for 41 lots around the golf course perimeter, a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) To PR-6 for 9.68 acres in the area of the existing driving range, a tentative tract map to create 95 residential lots, a precise plan, a development agreement which will provide for among other matters modified development standards and provisions requiring that golf course improvements be carried out in a timely manner, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the above. All property being a portion of Section 13 and 14 T5S R6E. Steve Smith, Planning Manager PDCC Development, LLC 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Dahoon Investment Company, Inc. 77-200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 CASE NOS: C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 DATE: June 24, 2004 continued from May 13 and June 10, 2004 CONTENTS: May 13, 2004 City Council Staff Report, Draft Resolution and Draft Ordinances Recommendation: That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1067 to second reading relating to C/Z 04-01. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 2 June 10, 2004 That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1068 to second reading relating to DA 04-01. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-42 approving PP 04-01 and TT 31836, subject to conditions. Discussion: At the conclusion of the May 13, 2004 hearing, the City Council directed staff and the applicant to investigate and report on a series of issues. Specifically, the City Council requested: 1. That the Planning Commission comment on the proposed relocation of the maintenance facility. 2. That an independent analysis be performed on the applicant's proforma. 3. That the applicant provide a time line of when certain parts of the project will be completed. 4. That the applicant provide a floor plan of the clubhouse remodel. 5. That the applicant consider reinstating Condition No. 17 relating to the open space easement on the remaining golf course. 6. That the applicant install story poles to provide a perspective on the impact on views to be experienced by residents. Response to Issues: Item #1 - Planning Commission Comments on Relocation of Maintenance Facility: Relocation of the maintenance facility was discussed by Planning Commission at its June 1, 2004 meeting. Randy Case explained the project and responded to questions. Theresa Pawley spoke in opposition. Commission members commented as follows (for more complete text, see minutes which will be distributed prior to the meeting): Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 3 June 10, 2004 Commissioner Campbell: • Felt this was the best place for the facility as it would reduce traffic through the area if employees were required to access it from Washington Street and Avenue of the States. • Felt it was well designed and laid out and would be adequately landscaped. • Agreed that dwelling immediately to the west of the access driveway should be provided with mitigation measures (i.e., new wall and windows). Commissioner Lopez: • Felt that the plan was well done. • The berming and landscaping around the exterior of the facility walls would provide adequate screening. • Felt that an alternative driveway access 60 feet east of the existing driveway should be considered if it didn't negatively impact use of the park. Commissioner Tschopp: • Felt this location was the best alternative. • Good landscaping and berms will mitigate the visual impact. • Major benefit will be a reduction in traffic of employees and deliveries going along California. Commissioner Finerty: • Concurred with others. • This location will reduce the traffic through the community. • Need to mitigate impacts to Peterson residence (i.e., west of driveway). Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01. TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 4 June 10, 2004 Chairman Jonathan: Sees certain benefits to existing location, but agreed that the proposed location will reduce traffic through the neighborhood. In its proposed location with the landscaped berms, the facility will be all but invisible. Sees only one impacted property (i.e., dwelling west of access driveway). Should study driveway Alternative #1 to assess impacts on the park. Parks and Recreation Commission Consideration of Relocation of Maintenance Facility: This issue was also discussed by the Park and Recreation Commission at its June 9, 2004 meeting. The Parks & Recreation Commission determined that existing driveway location is appropriate and that they could not support an alternative access which would bisect the park. Note: On a site visit to the facility with Councilman Kelly and Mayor Spiegel, it was suggested that the driveway could be moved 10 feet to the east and that some of the property on the west side would be vacated to and landscaped for the property owner to the west. Item #2 - Independent Analysis of Applicant's Proforma: See separate report from Redevelopment. Item #3 - Project Time Line: The applicant has provided a project time line based on obtaining second reading to the ordinance no later than July 8, 2004 (copy attached). Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 5 June 10, 2004 Phase I (September 04 to March 05) Construction of clubhouse, cart barn and executive golf course Relocate maintenance facility Construct residential infrastructure Phase II (April 05 to November 05) Construct 18-hole course and irrigation improvements Phase II(A) (April 05 to July 06) • Construct residential dwellings Note: Work on clubhouse and executive golf course will be complete before Certificate of Occupancy is issued for first residence. Work on irrigation system upgrade and 18-hole course will be complete before permit issued for 80th dwelling unit. Item #4 - Floor Plan for Clubhouse Renovation: The applicant has provided an updated clubhouse floor plan (copy attached). • The plan shows a cart barn area at the east end providing space for 72 carts. • The plan shows an expanded restaurant area on the southwest side of the building with outdoor patio overlooking the short game practice area. • The existing restaurant area will be renovated to men's and women's locker rooms. Item #6 - Story Poles Per City Council request, the applicant had story poles installed in the driving range area. These delineated distances from existing residences and alternative building heights. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 6 June 10, 2004 Story poles were also provided in the area of the maintenance facility. Item #5 - Open Space Easement: The applicant's proforma and the data reviewed by Mr. Wolk performing the independent analysis assumes that the remaining golf course property will be placed in an IRS approved open space easement (i.e., to establish a tax credit). See RDA's report to see impact on project feasibility without the tax credit. Submitted by: Steve smith Planning Manager Approval: Carlos L. 0 '- ga City Manager /tm CITY COUNCIL TION: APPROVED /( DENIED RECEIVED OTHER MEET' DATE AYES: WO NOES: NIC+% ABSENT: TABSTAIN:, VERIFIED Original on F e witW City Clerk's Office rt, ,ttLE1 L / Approval: Homer Croy ACM for De ent Services * Approved the four legislative documents, as amended per the direction and discussion at this meeting, 5-0. 4) Adopted Resolution No. 04-75, certifying a negative declaration of environmental impact as it relates to Case No. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, and PP 04-01. (W pd o c s\t m\s r\Il 31836. c 10 ) ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM OPEN SPACE (O.S.) TO R-1 9,000 FOR 41 LOTS AROUND THE GOLF COURSE PERIMETER, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM OPEN SPACE (O.S.) TO PR-6 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL SIX UNITS PER GROSS ACRE FOR 9.68 ACRES IN THE AREA OF THE EXISTING DRIVING RANGES AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE. ALL PROPERTY BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 13 AND 14 T5S R6E, PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB AREA. CASE NO. C/Z 04-01 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact is hereby certified and attached as Exhibit "B." SECTION 3: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor cua4ap*a,L -.: L -#Nt /.- - a naw .oz ._ER£D WAKING DR __._. _. 4 saa rL '. acwto r..a. CS 5.10? Wf:viiit[uVl PP.4 OS !RI R'1 UO1 CRC • �..r. .p:..L•....r �. .. (AHOY •... fJYatAaDpCW' `.4� i--' ryK. :, SUWY ` ;,rrn c. ; ...._:lam'+'*"' _' i-i ± Lam. _1Za&1r.4"[1 4OODHAVN - n PR a WOCONIVIN u f -A P v. J5 OM.4 o'. CA R1: p ..J PC ouoc�ax .4fcl{ Dtrh ._ o . a. .wai`i • ltt/4yLl... Proposed Zoning Changes O.S. O.S. To To R-1 9,000 P.R. -6 City of Palm Desert Case No. C/Z 04-01 CHANGE OF ZONE EXHIBIT A CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. Date: ORDINANCE NO. EXHIBIT B Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NO: C/Z 04-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: PDCC Development LLC • 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to R-1 9,000 for 41 lots around the golf course perimeter; a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to PR-6 planned residential six units per gross acre for 9.68 acres in the area of the existing driving range and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the above. All property being a portion of Section 13 and 14 T5S R6E. Property is located within the Palm Desert Country Club area bounded by Fred Waring Drive on the south, Washington Street on the east, Hovley Lane on the north and city of Indian Wells on the west. The Director of the Department of Community Development, 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. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR AMONG OTHER MATTERS MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS BE CARRIED OUT IN A TIMELY MANNER AND A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES THERETO. CASE NO. DA 04-01 AS IT RELATES TO CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND PP 04-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 20th day of April, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2255 has recommended approval of Case No. DA 04-01; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said City Council heard and considered all testimony and arguments of all interested persons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Development Agreement 04-01, Exhibit "A" attached, is hereby approved. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "B" attached, is hereby certified. ORDINANCE NO. 4. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: City Manager Fee Exempt - Govt. Code §27383J (Space above for Recorder's Use) PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between THE CITY OF PALM DESERT a California charter city and PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC a California limited liability company and PDCC GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, LLC. a California limited liability company [Dated as of May_, 2004 for reference purposes only] w cn 0 - • 771 RMPU13`.KCV••231373.1 PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Palm Desert Country Club Development Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into and effective on the date it is recorded with the Riverside County Recorder ("Effective Date") by and between (i) the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California charter city ("City"), and (ii) PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company ("PDCC Development") and PDCC GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, LLC. a California limited liability company, ("Owner") RECITALS WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code authorizing any city, county or city and county to enter into a development agreement with an applicant for a development project, establishing certain development rights in the property which is the subject of the development project application. ("Development Agreement Law''); and WHEREAS, City has adopted an ordinance and regulations establishing procedures and requirements for the approval of development agreements, pursuant to California Government Code Section 65865 ("Development Agreement Procedures"); and WHEREAS, Owner owns certain real property ("Property") owned in fee by Owner and legally described in the attached Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, PDCC Development, the majority of which is owned by Owner, owns the rights to develop certain portions of the Property as a residential subdivision accompanied with improvements to the existing golf courses; and WHEREAS, PDCC Development and Owner have requested City to enter into a development agreement for the development of the Property; and WHEREAS, Owner and PDCC Development propose to develop the Property as a residential subdivision accompanied with improvements to the existing golf courses ("Project"); and WHEREAS, by electing to enter into this Agreement, City shall bind future City Councils of City by the obligations specified herein, and limit the future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of City; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by City and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable; and WHEREAS, the best interests of the citizens of the City and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, City has found that the provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by City have been duly taken or approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes and other procedural matters in accordance with the Development Agreement Law and Development Agreement Procedures; and WHEREAS, all actions taken by the City have been duly taken in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA"); and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Owner (each herein sometimes called a "Party" and jointly the "Parties") do hereby agree as follows: 1.1 this Agreement. ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to 1.2 Ownership of Property. Owner represents, covenants and warrants that it is the owner of fee simple title to the Property. 1.3 Term. The term ("Term") of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of seven (7) years thereafter unless this Term is modified or extended pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Zoning Modifications (Exhibit "B") shall survive the termination of this Agreement for residential lots on which certificates of occupancy have been issued prior to such termination. 1.4 Assignment, Sale and Transfer of Interest in the Property and this Agreement. Owner shall have the right to assign, sell or transfer the Property in whole or in part at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such assignment, sale or transfer shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement. No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part of the Property. 1.5 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by written consent of all parties in the manner provided for in California Government Code Section 65868; provided, however, City's Director of Community Development may, in his/her sole discretion, make and approve minor technical, non -substantive modifications to this Agreement as requested by Owner. 1.6 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed automatically terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 1.6.1 Expiration of the Term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 1.4. 1.6.2 Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the ordinance adopting this Agreement. 1.6.3 The adoption of a referendum measure pursuant to California Government Code Section 65867.5, overriding or repealing the ordinance adopting this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement shall not constitute termination of any Development Approvals (hereinafter defined) granted for the Project prior to such termination. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder, except with respect to: (i) any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination, (ii) any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which occurred prior to such termination, or (iii) any obligations which are specifically set forth herein as surviving the termination of this Agreement. 1.7 Notices. (a) As used in this Agreement, "notice" includes, but is not limited to, the communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder. (b) All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i) when delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below; or (iii) on the date of delivery shown in the records of the telegraph company after transmission by telegraph to the recipient named below; or (iv) on the date of delivery by facsimile transmission to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to City: With a copy to: If to Owner or PDCC Development: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: City Manager and City Attorney Telephone: (760) 346-0611 Facsimile: (760) 340-0574 Best Best & Krieger LLP 74-760 Highway 111, Suite 200 Indian Wells, California 92210 Attention: City Attorney for City of Palm Desert Telephone: (760) 568-2611 Facsimile: (760) 340-6698 PDCC Golf Course Operations, LLC 601 South Figueroa, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, California 90017 Attn: Larry J. Kosmont Telephone: (213) 599-4385 With a copy to: Facsimile: (213) 623-8288 Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel 550 West C Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Attn: Madeline Clark Cahill Telephone: (619) 233-4100 Facsimile: (619) 231-4372 (c) Any Party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, whether a party or an officer or representative of a party, or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change. ARTICLE 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 2.1 Development Approvals. For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "Development Approvals" means the following entitlements issued or approved by City for development and/or use of the Project: (a) ZOA 04-01 (b) TT 31836; (c) PP 04-01 (d) Zoning Modifications (Exhibit "B") 2.2 In order to conform the residential portion development of the Project to the development standards that were implemented in developing the existing residential developments of Palm Desert Country Club, certain modifications to the Palm Desert zoning standards with respect to lot size and set backs need to be implemented. These modifications ("Zoning Modifications") are listed on Exhibit "B", and are approved only for the Project. 2.3 As part of the Project, and in consideration for the Development Approvals, including the Zoning Modifications, Owner and PDCC Development have committed to certain "Club House and Golf Course Improvements" to be developed in two phases in the total estimated amount of up to $5 million. The Club House and Golf Course Improvements are detailed on Exhibit "C" with a specific phasing plan contained in Exhibit "D", dividing such improvements into "Phase 1" and "Phase II", all as is more particularly described on attached Exhibit "D". Owner's and PDCC Development's performance of the Club House and Golf Course Improvements shall be the subject of a separate improvement agreement, Owner's and PDCC Development's execution and performance of which is a condition of the continued validity of this Agreement. Certificates of Occupancy shall be issued for 60 of the 85 First Phase Residences (as that phrase is defined below) in the Project when all of the Phase l Improvements are substantially completed and approved by the City of Palm Desert. Certificates of Occupancy for the 61 st through the 85th residences in both the First Phase Residences and the Second Phase Residences shall be issued when either (a) all of the Phase II Improvements are substantially completed and approved by the City of Palm Desert; or (b) in the City's reasonable discretion, Owner and PDCC Development post a bond for the benefit of the City equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the costs necessary to complete the Phase II Improvements, as such cost amount is evidenced by a certified statement from Owner and PDCC Development to the City ("Owner's Statement") detailing the cost of the remaining the Phase II Improvements, based on the percentage of completion of the Phase II Improvements as of the date the Owner's Statement is issued. For purposes of this Agreement, the term "First Phase Residences" shall mean all of those residences in the Project except for those situated on Project lots 77 through and including lot 84, lot 89 and 90 and lots 92 through and including lot 95, (collectively, the "Second Phase Residences") which are depicted on attached Exhibit "E". Certificates of Occupancy for the remaining 10 residences in the Second Phase Residences shall be issued when all of the Phase II Improvements are substantially completed and approved by the City of Palm Desert. 2.4 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement, Owner's right to develop the Project in accordance with the Development Approvals (and subject to the Conditions of Approval) shall be deemed vested upon execution of this Agreement, which vesting shall expire upon the earlier of the following occurrences: (a) termination of this Agreement; (b) an uncured material default by Owner of this Agreement; or (c) as to a particular phase, parcel, or lot comprising a portion of the Project, the earlier of the final approved City inspection of the completed development on such phase, parcel, or lot, or the issuance by the City of a certificate of occupancy for such phase, parcel, or lot. Except for the expiration set forth in clause (a) of the preceding sentence, the expiration of the vesting right set forth in the preceding sentence shall not terminate the obligations of Owner under this Agreement. Except as explicitly modified by this Agreement, the Project shall remain subject to the following, to the same extent it would without this Agreement: (i) all ordinances, regulations, rules, laws, plans, policies, and guidelines of the City and its City Council, Planning Commission, and all other City boards, commissions, and committees existing on the Effective Date of this Agreement (collectively, the "Existing Development Regulations"); (ii) all amendments or modifications to Existing Development Regulations after the Effective Date of this Agreement and al! ordinances, regulations, rules, laws, plans, policies, and guidelines of the City and its City Council, Planning Commission, and all other City boards, commissions, and committees enacted or adopted after the Effective Date of this Agreement (collectively, "New Laws"), except such New Laws which would prevent or materially impair Owner's ability to develop the Project in accordance with the Development Approvals, unless such New Laws are (A) adopted by the City on a City wide -basis and applied to the Site in a non-discriminatory manner, (B) required by a non -City governmental entity to be adopted by or applied by the City (or, if adoption is optional, the failure to adopt or apply such non -City governmental law or regulation would cause the City to sustain a loss of funds or loss of access to funding or other resources), or (C) New Laws the City reserves the right to apply under this Agreement (iii) all subsequent development approvals and the conditions of approval associated therewith, including but not limited to any further site development permits, tract maps, and building permits; (iv) the payment of all fees or exactions in the categories and in the amounts as required at the time such fees are due and payable, which may be at the time of issuance of building permits, or otherwise as specified by applicable law, as existing at the time such fees and costs are due and payable; and (v) the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes or payment of fees in lieu thereof as required at the time such reservations or dedications or payments in lieu are required under applicable law to be made or paid. 2.4.1 Additional Applicable Codes and Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the City also reserves the right to apply the following to the development of the Project: Building, electrical, mechanical, fire and similar building codes based upon uniform codes adopted in, or incorporated by reference into, the Palm Desert Municipal Code, as existing on the Effective Date of this Agreement or as may be enacted or amended thereafter, applied to the Project in a nondiscriminatory manner. In the event of fire or other casualty requiring construction of more than fifty (50%) percent of any building previously constructed hereunder, nothing herein shall prevent the City from applying to such reconstruction, all requirements of the City's Building, Electrical, Mechanical, and similar building codes based upon uniform codes adopted in, or incorporated by reference into, the Palm Desert Municipal Code, solely to the extent applicable to all development projects in the City. This Agreement shall not prevent the City from establishing any new City fees on a City- wide basis and applied to the Project in a non-discriminatory manner, including new development impact fees, or increasing any existing City fees, including existing development impact fees, and to apply such new or increased fees to the Project or applicable portion thereof where such new or increased fees may be charged. 2.4.2 Owner's Obligations. Conditions of Approval. The Owner shall comply with the Conditions of Approval. Owner acknowledges that additional conditions of approval beyond those set forth in Exhibit "F" may be applicable to the Project if imposed in conjunction with future Project approvals. Failure to comply with the Conditions of Approval shall be a material breach of this Agreement and grounds for its termination. 2.4.3 Project Approvals Interdependent. All approvals required for the Project which may be or have been granted, and all land use entitlements or approvals generally which have been issued or will be issued, by the City with respect to the Project, constitute interdependent actions and approvals by the City. If any material provision of this Agreement or the application of any such provision of this Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if this Agreement terminates prior to completion of the Project, then all Project Approvals are automatically rescinded, and pursuant to Municipal Code section 25.37.110 the zoning of the Property shall revert to the zoning which existed prior to the Project Approvals. 2.5 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that refinement and further development of the Project will require subsequent development approvals and may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Development Approvals, except that minor modifications to the Development Agreement, as determined by the Director of Community Development to not be a substantial change in the proposed Project or conditions of approval, can be approved by the Director of Community Development. In the event Owner finds that a non -minor modification in the Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, Owner shall apply for a subsequent development approval to effectuate such change and City shall process and act on such application except as otherwise provided by this Agreement. 2.6 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. 2.7 Intent and Purpose. The parties acknowledge and agree that City is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the foregoing limitations, reservations and exceptions are intended to reserve to City all of its police power which cannot be so limited. This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to City all such power and authority which cannot be restricted by contract. The provisions of this Agreement and benefits to be received by City and Owner hereunder are in the best interests of City and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its taxpayers and residents and are in accordance with the public purposes set forth in federal, state and local laws and regulations, including California Government Code Section 565865. The parties hereby acknowledge that implementation of this Agreement and the resulting development of the Property will result in substantial public benefits that justify City's decision to execute this Agreement. These benefits include, but are not limited to, furtherance of the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and the City's Redevelopment Plan applicable to the Property, and the strengthening of the City's land use and social structure by stimulating economic activity and job creation within the City. ARTICLE 3 REMEDIES 3.1 Remedies. Each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, including, without limitation, proceedings in order to sue for damages or claim any damages for any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action which arises out of this Agreement. 3.2 Specific Performance. The parties acknowledge that although money damages are available to the parties for a breach of this Agreement, such money damages and other remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance and other non -monetary relief, including temporary and permanent injunctive relief, are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available for the following reason: Owner has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant timeand resources in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is difficult and impracticable to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Owner for such efforts; the parties acknowledge and agree that any injunctive relief may be ordered on an expedited, priority basis. ARTICLE 4 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 4.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder within the period required by Government Code Section 65868.5. 4.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 4.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. 4.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflicts of laws principles (if applicable). This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 4.5 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 4.6 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 4.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 4.8 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party's control, (including the party's employment force), government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), the other party's breach of this Agreement, or other causes beyond the party's control. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, upon the initiation of any legal proceeding by a third party to challenge the modifications to the Existing Development Approvals as described in this Agreement or to challenge any action taken by City in connection therewith, the Term of this Agreement shall automatically be extended to the longer of the period set forth in Section 1.3 or until final resolution of all such proceedings, including any appeals filed in connection therewith. 4.9 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party. 4.10 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and, (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during Ownership of the Property or any portion thereof. 4.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument. 4.12 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property. 4.13 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. The provisions of this section shall not require the taking of any actions which are prohibited by law or, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, impair the lawful discretion of City as to those matters to which the law imparts discretion to City. 4.14 Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is brought by either party against the other for breach of this Agreement, or to compel performance under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs in addition to all other relief to which it may be entitled. 4.15 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Law in effect as of the Effective Date. Accordingly, to the extent the subsequent amendment to the Development Agreement Law would affect the provisions of this Agreement, such amendment shall not be applicable to the Agreement unless necessary for this Agreement to be enforceable. {Signatures follow on next page) ATTEST: By: SIGNATURE PAGE TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By: Dave J. Erwin, City Attorney CITY: CITY OF PALM DESERT a California charter city By: Its: SIGNATURE PAGE TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB OWNER: PDCC GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, LLC a California limited liability company By: Its: By: Its: PDCC DEVELOPMENT: PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC. a California limited liability company By: Its: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On , 2004, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me OR proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On , 2004, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me OR proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On , 2004, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me OR proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public EXHIBIT "A" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description of Property [Attached behind this page] EXHIBIT "B" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ZONING MODIFICATIONS EXHIBIT °C TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Description of Project and Existing Development Approvals — Golf Course Improvements [Attached behind this page] EXHIBIT C GOLF COURSE RENOVATION SUMMARY • New Automated Irrigation System throughout 27 holes. Irrigation system will be in place during phase I of the project. • Relocated green complexes at holes 9, 11, 14, 16, and 18 and addition of two greens to accommodate new residential development. • New practice putting green at clubhouse • New short game area near clubhouse • Reshape fairway landing areas 1,3,7,9, 13 • New water features on holes 9 and18, and a three tier water feature on hole 7 • Rebuild existing lakes on holes 1 and 13 and construct a new lake on hole 7 • Remodel bunkers on holes 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 (front), and holes 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, and 18 • Relocate new tee complexes at holes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, and 9 • New concrete cart paths 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (front) 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, and 17 • Tree removal and relocation of palms at holes 11, 17, and 18 CLUBHOUSE REMODEL AND ADDITION SUMMARY Remodel and renovation of the clubhouse interior with the following primary clubhouse components: • Demolition of existing pro shop, locker rooms, and offices and consolidation of spaces to create a new climate -controlled cart barn area • Demolition of existing dining and bar areas as necessary to build new men's and women's locker rooms (with approximately 100 and 50 lockers, respectively, and associated toilet, shower, and changing areas), administrative offices, pro shop, and a members only bar. • Remodel of current kitchen areas and replacement of existing kitchen equipment as necessary to be able to effectively accommodate dining events of up to 150 people. • Construction of a new enclosed 3,500 SF dining area and public bar. • Abatement asbestos as necessary for remodel and construction work and in full compliance with County, State and Federal regulations governing abatement and disposal of asbestos containing material. • Provision of a new paging, music, phone, and security system for the public areas of the building. • Provision of new interior finishes throughout the building, including new carpet, paint, and tile, and new interior furnishings in all public areas including tables, Exhibit C -- PDCC Development Agreement Page Two chairs bar stools, millwork, specialty lighting, art work, lockers. and pro shop retail fixtures. • Provision of fire suppression system to the extent required by current code, and upgrade of mechanical and electrical systems as necessary to be fully code - compliant and functional. Upgrade the clubhouse exterior with the following primary features; • New enclosed clubhouse entrance of the character and nature depicted in the rendering by den ZER International in the 27 May 2004 submittal by PDCC Development LLC to the City of Palm Desert (attached to this Exhibit C) • Replacement of existing roof • New exterior paint • New accessible ramp to main entrance • New water feature, hardscape, and landscape of the character and nature depicted in the rendering by den ZER International in the 27 May 2004 submittal by PDCC Development LLC to the City of Palm Desert (attached to this Exhibit C) • New parking lot sized and landscaped according to the requirements of the City of Palm Desert and located in the area of the existing lawn on the north side of the clubhouse. • Resurfacing, restriping, and landscaping of existing parking lots that will not be demolished for construction of other amenities associated with the clubhouse and golf course. NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY SUMMARY Creation of a new maintenance facility will include demolition of the existing maintenance facility and associated improvements. Debris and any hazardous materials or unknown substances will be disposed of in full compliance with all Local, County, State, and Federal regulations governing such disposal. Wok efforts will conform with all recommendations for environmental remediation made in the July 2003 Phase I Environmental Study prepared by P & D Consultants, as updated to reflect current conditions. Construction of a new 6,000 SF metal building on a new site near the #14 tee boxes will conform to all City of Palm Desert requirements for new construction to house maintenance operations. The new maintenance yard will be fully enclosed with an 8'-0" high (or as otherwise approved) block wall and landscape the perimeter areas as required by the City of Palm Desert. Paved work areas, a wash area, fuel station, pesticide recovery system, and sand/gravel storage facilities will be provided. EXHIBIT D CLUB HOUSE AND GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS A. Club House remodel - both exterior and interior B. Relocate cart storage barn C. Relocate maintenance facility D. Improve 9-hole executive golf course E. Initial improvements to the irrigation system This phase of improvements will cost approximately $3.0 million. PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS A. Improve 18-hole championship golf course B. Complete all irrigation improvements This phase of improvements will cost approximately $2.0 million. Total Golf Course and Club House Improvements to cost up to $5 million. EXHIBIT "E" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Second Phase Residences (Depiction of Lots) [Attached behind this page] Front Setback Rear Setback Side Setbacks Max. Building Height Min. Lot Area Max. Site Coverage DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CODE REQUIREMENTS R-1 9,000 / PR 20'/as approved 15'/as approved 14' total, 5' minimum/ as approved 18'/24' 9,000/or as approved 35%/40% EXISTING PDCC DEV. PROPOSED STANDARDS R-1 9,000 LOTS 14-20 feet 10-20 feet 5' + 3' 13-18 feet 6,000 10-15 feet 11-22 feet 5'+5' 18' 9,000 sq.ft.gross/ 5,000 sq.ft.net 20-37% PROPOSED PR-6 LOTS 10-15 feet 5-20 feet 5'+5' 18' 4,691 sq.ft. 38.7% EXHIBIT "F" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL [Attached behind this page] RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 95 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND RELATED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR CERTAIN GOLF COURSE RELATED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NOS. TT 31836 AND PP 04-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13th day of May, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2255 has recommended approval of Case Nos. TT 31836 and PP 04-01; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not have a negative impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said tentative tract map and precise plan: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1. That the proposed map is consistent with the general plan as amended. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. 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. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. RESOLUTION NO. 7 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. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. WHEREAS, in 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 thee needs against the public service needs of the residents of the city of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources; and PRECISE PLAN 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and with the findings contained in the staff report dated May 13, 2004, constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Tentative Tract 31836 and Precise Plan 04-01 are hereby approved, subject to the attached conditions. 3. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit "A" attached, is hereby certified. 2 RESOLUTION NO. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 3 ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. TT 31836 AND PP04-01 Department of Community Development: 1. The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein and as defined in the development agreement shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a long-term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. The maintenance program shall be reviewed annually. 8. That the project shall operate consistent with the provisions of a development agreement which must be adopted by the City Council, otherwise this approval shall be null and void. 9. That the applicant shall file necessary map(s) to eliminate property line encroachments and setback deficiencies on existing residences pursuant to the letter dated March 10, 2004 from Randy Case. 10. That all recommended traffic mitigation measures contained in the traffic analysis prepared by George Dunn Associates shall be conditions of this application. 11. All onsite utilities shall be underground. 12. That all units shall comply with development standards prescribed in the R-1 9,000 and PR-6 zone categories except as modified pursuant to Development Agreement 04-01. 13. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, TUMF and School Mitigation fees. 14. The applicant/property owner agrees to defend (with counsel chosen by the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this application and any other challenge pertaining to this project. This indemnification shall include any award of attorney fees. 5 RESOLUTION NO. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 15. That the applicant shall provide a tree removal plan to be approved by the City Arborist. Said tree removal plan shall provide an assessment of the condition of trees by a certified arborist and a tree protection plan for remaining trees. 16. That any newly created Tots not presently within the Home Owner Association area shall be annexed into the Home Owner Association area. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653. shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 2. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project is required to retain onsite a 25 year storm. The maintenance of the retention area(s) shall be by the homeowners association. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. • • • . • Standard 6' curbside sidewalk shall be installed in areas being developed where no sidewalk currently exists, and shall extend across the fairways including the following locations. Along the south side of New York Avenue east to California in area #'s 2 & 8. On both sides of Tennessee Avenue at the project entrance in area #1. Along the west side of Elkhorn Trail in area #6. Along the north side of California Avenue between Virginia Avenue and Tennessee Avenue. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration. "As -built" plans shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. 6. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or service districts with "as -built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for improvements in the public right-of-way prior to issuance of any permits. 7 All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided by the homeowners association. Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the map; and c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans. 9. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 10. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 11. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. Applicant shall be responsible for acquiring all necessary easements for off -site roadway improvements. 12. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 14. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 15. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 16. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control. 17. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. 18. Lot line on Lot 84 shall be adjusted prior to grading permit issuance to correct the encroachment of adjoining residence. Riverside County Fire Department: 1. With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. 8 RESOLUTION NO. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 1,500 gpm for single family dwellings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4"x2-1 /2"x2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in industrial developments. 7. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 8. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 9. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City. 10. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. 9 RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: TT 31836 and PP 04-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: PDCC Development LLC 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3500 Los Angeles, CA 90017 PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: A tentative tract map to create 95 residential Tots, and related precise plan of design for certain golf course related improvements within Palm Desert Country Club. All property being a portion of Section 13 and 14 T5S R6E. The Director of the Department of Community Development, 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. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 10 June 10, 2004 To: Palm Desert City Council RE: Palm Desert Country Club Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Jean M. Benson, Councilmember Jim Ferguson, Councilman Richard S. Kelly, Councilman Please consider, in your decision on the above project, that there are approximately 1,000 homes in the Palm Desert Country Club that are NOT on the golf course. The only view these property owners and renters receive are the public viewsheds, including the golf course street crossings and open space areas near the driving range. If this project is approved, the majority of these viewsheds will be lost. There is no mitigation (alternative viewsheds) for the Toss of the beauty of our neighborhood. We ask that, at the minimum, the developers be required to place story poles, signs and brochures at each view shed opening that will be lost. Placing a story pole for individual homeowners at the driving range does not address the loss of the public viewsheds. Per Sec. 15002(a) of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") Guidelines, the public has a legal right to know the extent of the public view sheds that will be sacrificed should this proposal be approved. The character of the individuals involved in a business transaction determines the success of the outcome of a project and its value in future years. The owner of the golf course paid $4 million cash for his investment and acreage in 2001. In a period of three years, we allege that he and his business partners have deliberately degraded the viewsheds of 800 homes on the golf course in order to force this "savior" project upon the homeowners in PDCC. In other words, we allege that he created the crisis in which he now offers a convenient solution that is detrimental to the PDCC as a whole. This is dishonest manipulation and unscrupulous conduct. If you reward this type of behavior, you debase the foundation of integrity and honest values that most of us strive to live by. You remove incentive for decent people to be good, law-abiding and tax -paying citizens who help one another as a community. Character Matters! Please vote "No" on the PDCC Development LLC project. Thank you. Sincerely, Richard and Lola Green ( 42025 Tennessee Ave., Palm Desert, CA 92211 Phone: (760) 360-1114 Email: lola.green@earthlink.net 10 June 2004 Mr. Mayor and City Council RE: Update on PDCC Maintenance Facility's vanishing Story Poles Thank you for requesting Story Poling on the 14th fairway. Below you will find an update of what has been done. Because we do not know your instruction, we're unable to assess if your direction has been followed as intended. This is what has transpired in the past 3 weeks: I was pleased to see story poles being installed at the proposed Maintenance Facility location Friday morning May 28, as I was leaving for the Planning Dept. Saw Phil Drell in passing and mentioned the poles were going up and thanked him. Upon returning home that afternoon...there was no evidence of the poles. In disbelief I walked the proposed site and located several irrigation height (8"+/-) tiny red flags/markers. Neighbors said the poles were replaced Saturday while was out on errands, again to have been removed prior to my returning home. When I inquired why the poles had been removed, I was told the developer feared the PVC would be stolen. In 24 years in construction, I've never had poles stolen or vandalized...even when left standing for months per City and home- owners wishes. Many residents were away for the Memorial Day weekend, a number of homeowners have left the Valley for summer residences and some like myself were just out on errands. The end result remains the same, most of the impacted residents have not seen the fleeting Story Poles. I asked 6 homeowners directly across from the Park on California Dr. (facing the `would be' Poles), if they had seen the poles. One of the six had seen poles, but didn't know their purpose and they were removed before he walked across the street to site. None of the six homeowners were aware that a Maintenance Facility and Access to this facility from California, were proposed for the 14th fairway. This is, in part, why I feel it is imperative to Story Pole the proposed site for a specified reasonable period of time of your choosing. Homeowners and the Council need to see the size of the Facility to better assess the even more important impact of noise from equipment and vehicles accessing this building beginning at 4:30 AM., safety issues, etc. I believe City Council received a memo dated 1 June from Steve Smith, indicating the poling was in place. As of June 9th there were poles installed at the PDCC driving range location only. At the 14th fairway, looking out 7 large plate glass windows and sliding doors, I have seen a total of one pole... May 28th With deadlines upon us, time is the enemy of affected homeowners. We feel our need to better envision the overall impact of this proposed facility, to allay our fears, has not been satisfied, by this most irregular poling procedure! We are most appreciative of your ongoing efforts. Theresa Pawley @ 77-670 California 345-1456 Bob Peterson @77-680 California 17 May 2004 Mr. Mayor and City Council RE: Palm Desert Country Club -- Story Poles — fr-t 1..►-I-` f At the City Council Meeting 13 May, you instructed The PDCC Development LLC to install Story Poles at Palm Desert Country Club to enable residents and City Council better access the impact of this project. I am not clear whether your instruction included Poling the Maintenance Facility (both 245' by 120' wall and the 5 to 6 thousand square foot building) and the access with an 8' wall. I feel this is imperative for several reasons: The enormously impacted residents on the 13th/14th fairways to date have not been contacted re: the relocation of the Maintenance Facility-- by the Planning Department, the PDCC Homeowners Association or by the Developer. I believe it would be equitable that the homeowners see what is in store for them. I believe if they are made aware visually, they can then question for themselves the many other issues noise pollution, privacy, access (safety issues of entering and exiting), 4:30 AM traffic etc. Because seasonal residents had left the Valley when I learned of this selocation, it would be important to photograph the Poling, so that absent homeowners (at least the ones I can locate), can be brought up to date. Poling the access block wall will better indicate safety issues involved in entering and exiting this proposed access. It will also illustrate the implications of the potential reality of impacted area upon immediate homes, on both sides of California. The Planning Dept., after my pressing, indicated they could suggest the Story Poling of the Maintenance Facility to the Developer. I do not feel terribly assured that this will happen and because of time restrictions, now seems the time to address this issue. Because Wilma was not at the Council meeting, she couldn't suggest how to answer my concerns. A sked her if I could drop you a note to which she agreed. If Council is an inappropriate avenue to insure Poling will be contracted for the Maintenance Facility at the same time it is for the Clubhouse, I wholeheartedly apologize. I ask only for direction to best pursue this issue. If you could make Wilma aware if there is anything I need to do, I will contact her. Thank you for your assistance...for your time. Most sincerely/ Theresa Pawley @ 77-6 0 California 345-1456 Cc: Bob Peterson @ 77-680 California 1'V�G �So�tno - T O : ' +-I i--1 1 t--1&-- FROM: 1-14fir' v L-t")./ -Go -7 o G.- . L712 • RE: Proposed Maintenance Building 13th & 14th Fairway PDCC DATE: May 30, 2004 The thought of losing our diminishing serenity and peaceful enjoyment of our homes, patios and gardens is of great concern to those of us that will be severely affected 365 days a year for the life of our property by the proposed building of a maintenance facility for a 27 hole golf course. We each paid premium prices for our location along the 13th and 14th Fairways, with close proximity to our dub pools. We did not buy a home adjacent to a 245' by 1001+ maintenance facility with it's only access among our homes for innumerable reasons including: 1. Loss of privacy-18 men coming and going a minimum of 4 times daily (includes returnirrg to yard for lunch), 365 days is tremendously different than the expected routine of grounds keepers mowing, watering, or resting along the fairway whichyabsolutely excepted. ►s 2. Intolerable Noise --Although against Palm Desert Noise Ordinance Section 9.24.060 residents never complained about necessary nightly watering in noisy runabouts...however building this facility at the proposed location with all the noise it entails beginning at 4:30/5:00 AM just in not acceptable to residents. Palm Desert Noise Control Section 9.24.010 reads: "Inadequately Controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Palm Desert" Section 9.24.040 states: "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists, include, but are not limited to the following: ...#5 The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities... #8 The time of day or night the noise occurs." The noise generated because of this facility will begin 2 to 21/2 hours before the city code allows construction crews to begin work. 3. Peaceful Enjoyment —Section 9.24.010 "Every person is entitled to an environment in which the noise is not detrimental to his life, health or enjoyment of property." 4. Negative Impact of property values —In order to sell our homes even today we would need to disclose the proposed Facility & location. Wouldn't have a similar impact on a potential buyer as it does on us?? 5. ACCESS —A great increase in congestion in an already extremely congested area with a city park, a busy Clubhouse (rented each day for activities and on weekends for private parties/weddings/church services, PDCC pools, a dog park, possibly a school in the future and parking for all the above. Also at 4:30/5:00 AM, approximately 18 men and their noisy vehicles (conservative # for a 18 hole course...PDCC is 27 holes), Golf course equipment, waste management trucks, all delivery trucks etc. will use. this singular access. 6. Flies —Palm Desert Resort Country Club on Hoverly is a clean, well organized and run Maintenance Facility. Although they dispose of plant material 3 times a week, the have expressed concerns re: flies attracted to plant material @ their yard. 7. Storage of pesticides, diesel fuel, solvents, chemicals, waste products, equipment etc. beside a city park and dose to our homes is an additional concern. Homeowners were never notified of the proposed relocation of the of the Maintenance Yard. The site was flagged (irrigation size flags vie. not installed until this weekend) indicating the enormous size of this facility. Why were several poles indicating building heights installed and then removed by the next morning?? We believe this residential area is the wrong place to a Maintenance Yard for the golf course considering the vehicles and equipment that it will generate 7 days a week. Thank you for listening to just some of our concerns regarding the relocation of this facility. We anticipate you will reflect our concerns in your recommendation to the City Council. TO: ,1 � .. ..•'. �' .f�� ��!„r�� ; ice.' FROM:r n" '7) RE: Proposed Maintenance Building 13th & 14th Fairway PDCC DATE: May 30, 2004 The thought of losing our diminishing serenity and peaceful enjoyment of our homes, patios and gardens is of great concern to those of us that will be severely affected 365 days a year for the life of our property by the proposed building of a maintenance facility for a 27 hole golf course. We each paid premium prices for our location along the 13th and 14th Fairways, with close proximity to our club pools. We did not buy a home adjacent to a 245' by 100'+ maintenance facility with it's only access among our homes for innumerable reasons including: 1. Loss of privacy-18 men coming and going a minimum of 4 times daily (includes returning to yard for lunch), 365 days is tremendously different than the expected routine of grounds keepers mowing, watering, or resting along the fairway which is absolutely excepted. 2. Intolerable Noise --Although against Palm Desert Noise Ordinance Section 9.24.060 residents never complained about necessary nightly watering in noisy runabouts...however building this facility at the proposed location with all the noise it entails beginning at 4:30/5:00 AM just in not acceptable to residents. Palm Desert Noise Control Section 9.24.010 reads: "Inadequately Controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Palm Desert" Section 9.24.040 states: "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists, include, but are not limited to the following:...#5 The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities... #8 The time of day or night the noise occurs." The noise generated because of this facility will begin 2 to 21/2 hours before the city code allows construction crews to begin work. 3. Peaceful Enjoyment —Section 9.24.010 "Every person is entitled to an environment in which the noise is not detrimental to his life, health or enjoyment of property." 4. Negative Impact of property values —In order to sell our homes even today we would need to disclose the proposed Facility & location. Wouldn'tvhave a similar impact on a potential buyer as it does on us?? tT 5. ACCESS —A great increase in congestion in an already extremely congested area with a city park, a busy Clubhouse (rented each day for activities and on weekends for private parties/weddings/church services, PDCC pools, a dog park, possibly a school in the future and parking for all the above. Also at 4:30/5:00 AM, approximately 18 men and their noisy vehicles (conservative # for a 18 hole course...PDCC is 27 holes), Golf course equipment, waste management trucks, all delivery trucks etc. will use this singular access. 6. Flies —Palm Desert Resort Country Club on Hoverly is a clean, well organized and run Maintenance Facility. Although they dispose of plant material 3 times a week, the have expressed concerns re: flies attracted to plant material @ their yard. 7. Storage of pesticides, diesel fuel, solvents, chemicals, waste products, equipment etc. beside a city park and close to our homes is an additional concern. Homeowners were never notified of the proposed relocation of the of the Maintenance Yard. The site was flagged (irrigation size flags not installed until this weekend), indicating the enormous square footage of this facility. Why were several poles indicating building heights installed and then removed by the next morning?? We believe this residential area is the wrong place to build a Maintenance Yard for the golf course considering the vehicles and equipment that it will generate 7 days a week. Thank you for listening to just some of our concerns regarding the relocation of this facility. We anticipate you will reflect our concerns in your recommendation to the City Council. 1191 `�'.:%s='i1" % s►-110<7-- rrr. rfr -� Ffrx ', 3 -t &,c0.1'1-1,e, t ®F ISO GOV t-t-t -1-0 3 (4 b1 Lo Ur e-o u t-rn-1' �.u1 Orrr'-'1't-a vrtf 44".t� T t w► - TO T� Pvs j'�-i-t5 tz l.5-r,ft-rt 0 t-1 rP "s o Ct- LL. y v -I"Or ' v t 1✓ -re) Non f r cg)vi o 7 "J -rt.-tom 1 M r/ti-c,c �17 • - rRd tzc� r'i �-t ►-i� -�� 1- <<-t'✓ cJt Lam► r--+!r- 5 fr-N rA)4-112-r,1--4 !✓1.1 r4,' Y242- - • l tJ w r17Gci roe)]..- �" t ►1J Tt-� Y A-1?-- sIs g ► ,,- I�uL- cpv 11-Jc..Uv 1 (co ►jt) • 4a- T-4P-1 Tit l' ►sL 44.r_-- elm(; tMP, e4 • vfr rib - .e."► b P2iP^ ` lJ" PR 1 c-��� -re) Li V/ c.3 .3 " t F-1"1/4-si N'e' Tz5 tCd L t v ti -k fr t-- A NITGi-Jr--r-sGp o 1.-o-rt 15V-4 \ 1.r-)e-TJ - I, l fro- r,o t ti-iTz tv-e-44n 1 - - pt -s I t...ovr U.tkf or- rfrLv--‘ 141-11.4e v '1/s-1 & ' . TIrt-V-2 M'-Ft ►J &- (1, Mfr2 ') -�- t5P1/ Ae-CA 11-1 1 • it►r-tt -re tJcr' t--1C -11eize-, 4 ,r n-4 - Vokt dPrt1-a t o •J rA -r s vb c -1-1-4 Ie1%"1, S rp-z r& -2 Tt_o t t/9-f A.0 t7 t7 P- � ) Gil v,. . L4� y �� f-/ e �� l 1 X 77-z 3 L 3 S- Joti c�nc/r--z'X i. FROM. i� ' � "' ��� j. RE: Proposed Maintenance Building 13th & 14th Fairway PDCC DATE: May 30, 2004 The thought of losing our diminishing serenity and peaceful enjoyment of our homes, patios and gardens is of great concern to those of us that will be severely affected 365 days a year for the life of our property by the proposed building of a maintenance facility for a 27 hole golf course. We each paid premium prices for our location along the 13th and 14th Fairways, with close proximity to our club pools. We did not buy a home adjacent to a 245' by 100'+ maintenance facility with it's only access among our homes for innumerable reasons including: 1. Loss of privacy-18 men coming and going a minimum of 4 times daily (includes returning to yard for lunch), 365 days is tremendously different than the expected routine of grounds. keepers mowing, watering, or resting along the fairway which is absolutely excepted. 2. Intolerable Noise --Although against Palm Desert Noise Ordinance Section 9.24.060 residents never complained about necessary nightly watering in noisy runabouts...however building this facility at the proposed location with all the noise it entails beginning at 4:30/5:00 AM just in not acceptable to residents. Palm Desert Noise Control Section 9.24.010 reads: "Inadequately Controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Palm Desert" Section 9.24.040 states: "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists, include, but are not limited to the following:...#5 The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities... #8 The time of day or night the noise occurs." The noise generated because of this facility will begin 2 to 21/2 hours before the city code allows construction crews to begin work. 3. Peaceful Enjoyment —Section 9.24.010 "Every person is entitled to an environment in which the noise is not detrimental to his life, health or enjoyment of property." j J rl`1 4. Negative Impact of property values —In order to sell our homes even today we would need to disclose the proposed Facility & location. Wouldn'tvhave a similar impact on a potential buyer as it does on us?? tit 5. ACCESS —A great increase in congestion in an already extremely congested area with a city park, a busy Clubhouse (rented each day for activities and on weekends for private parties/weddings/church services, PDCC pools, a dog park, possibly a school in the future and parking for all the above. Also at 4:30/5:00 AM, approximately 18 men and their noisy vehicles (conservative # for a 18 hole course...PDCC is 27 holes), Golf course equipment, waste management trucks, all delivery trucks etc. will use this singular access. 6. Flies —Palm Desert Resort Country Club on Hoverly is a clean, well organized and run Maintenance Facility. Although they dispose of plant material 3 times a week, the have expressed concerns re: flies attracted to plant material @ their yard. 7. Storage of pesticides, diesel fuel, solvents, chemicals, waste products,equipment etc. beside a city park and close to our homes is an additional concern. Homeowners were never notified of the proposed relocation of the of the Maintenance Yard. The site was flagged (irrigation size flags not installed until this weekend), indicating the enormous square footage of this facility. Why were several poles indicating building heights installed and then removed by the next morning?? We believe this residential area is the wrong place to build a Maintenance Yard for the golf course considering the vehicles and equipment that it will generate 7 days a week. Thank you for listening to just some of our concerns regarding the relocation of this facility. We anticipate you will reflect our concerns in your recommendation to the City Council. r�bLG �''��SDG-1AfllOt-. To: Members Planning Department From: Sherry and Bob Kihm RE: Maintenance Building 13 and 14 Fairway PDCC Date: May 30, 2004 This letter is addressing concerns ! still have for the location of the proposed maintenance building. '_ J I just returned from walking the area of the flagged site. I knew this was a large building, and my belief is this is still the wrong place for a maintenance building for the golf course, especially for the cars and equipment that it will generate during each day's use. 1. Is a maintenance plan for heavy duty equipment usage next to a city park in compliance with the CA Air Resources Board and local Air Quality Management District? In speaking with the PD Parks personnel I was told they did not have a problem with this. When speaking with one of the directors of the Coachella Valley Recreation Dept. he said this was not a park under his control but if it were, he would have a problem with this type of facility being placed next to a city park. 2. Golf Course Maintenance areas have a lot of equipment, supplies and various structure materials as well, as plant materials and chemicals sitting around. This is unattractive to homeowners and park patrons. 3. How wilt management handle the waste products and solvents of the cleaners and chemicals? 4. The location of this facility is a long way from the main clubhouse. It would seem more practical to have the main maintenance building nearer the clubhouse. The current facility is located by the clubhouse and even though it is run down, there is no guarantee the newer faciliy will be maintained any better as the years go by. Most courses that have a facility nearer the club house keep it looking much nicer than those that are located in some off area. 5 Keeping the maintenance building in the same area as currently located keeps down some of the costs of new wiring, new plumbing and sewers, additional grading of road entrances and walls. It would not be creating environmental problems to park users and homeowners. 6. A fence around the current park area has not been maintained. Vandalism occurs on the golf course by people who use this area as an extended play area. What's to prevent the same activities from occuring to a maintenance building placed here/ Thank you for reading these comments. We strongly urge the planning committee and the city council to veto this building at the site of the 14th teebox. TO: FROM:.' RE: Proposed Maintenance Building 13th & 14th Fairway PDCC DATE: May 30, 2004 The thought of losing our diminishing serenity and peaceful enjoyment of our homes, patios and gardens is of great concern to those of us that will be severely affected 365 days a year for the life of our property by the proposed building of a maintenance facility for a 27 hole golf course. We each paid premium prices for our location along the 13th and 14th Fairways, with close proximity to our club pools. We did not buy a home adjacent to a 245' by 100'+ maintenance facility with it's only access among our homes for innumerable reasons including: 1. Loss of privacy-18 men coming and going a minimum of 4 times daily (includes returning to yard for lunch), 365 days is tremendously different than the expected routine of grounds keepers mowing, watering, or resting along the fairway which is absolutely excepted. 2. Intolerable Noise --Although against Palm Desert Noise Ordinance Section 9.24.060 residents never complained about necessary nightly watering in noisy runabouts...however building this facility at the proposed location with all the noise it entails beginning at 4:30/5:00 AM just in not acceptable to residents. Palm Desert Noise Control Section 9.24.010 reads: "Inadequately Controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Palm Desert" Section 9.24.040 states: "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists, include, but are not limited to the following:...#5 The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities... #8 The time of day or night the noise occurs." The noise generated because of this facility will begin 2 to 21/2 hours before the city code allows construction crews to begin work. 3. Peaceful Enjoyment —Section 9.24.010 `Every person is entitled to an environment in which the noise is not detrimental to his life, health or enjoyment of property." 4. Negative Impact of property values —In order to sell our homes even today we would need to disclose the proposed Facility.& location. Wouldn'tyhave a similar impact on a potential buyer as it does on us?? tit 5. ACCESS —A great increase in congestion in an already extremely congested area with a city park, a busy Clubhouse (rented each day for activities and on weekends for private parties/weddings/church services, PDCC pools, a dog park, possibly a school iri the future and parking for all the above. Also at 4:30/5:00 AM, approximately 18 men and their noisy vehicles (conservative # for a 18 hole course...PDCC is 27 holes), Golf course equipment, waste management trucks, all delivery trucks etc. will use this singular access. 6. Flies —Palm Desert Resort Country Club on Hoverly is a clean, well organized and run Maintenance Facility. Although they dispose of plant material 3 times a week, the have expressed concerns re: flies attracted to plant material @ their yard. ,. ' 7. Storage of pesticides, diesel fuel, solvents, chemicals, waste products, equipment etc. beside a city park and close to our homes is an additional concern. Homeowners were never_notified of the proposed relocation of the of the Maintenance Yard. The site was flagged (irrigation size flags not installed until this weekend), indicating the enormous square footage of this facility. Why were several poles indicating building heights installed and then removed by the next morning?? We believe this residential area is the wrong place to build a Maintenance Yard for the golf course considering the vehicles and equipment that it will generate 7 days a week. Thank you for listening to just some of our concerns regarding the relocation of this facility. We anticipate you will reflect our concerns in your recommendation to the City Council. • V,Yt t `t.. /1 /- i, , .: .._ iLr• F. f. .f ) r, • 465 Sunset Drive, Vista, CA 92083 c: /A//%% e;75 From: Bob Peterson �a e: `(/ J/`-' n•4esscge. (7////ifFia.x/ 760 726- 12 12 `// Fax: 760 ^j - ' 0_. N amber of pages it c1uc:L.r.g cr is page vL. x / ' ,G(J // (1, /xl f lfl mr, // ; /2? 4/, 7-,/ -y4 e /9,-)7/ A , ✓i j' /7 '/ /(// (/ (7/�6 --�i� / V/1 A 6/ /,/x , hpka- 41 .67 )/- ((f//7- -7- /(// /a,4 4 fi-,,s 5 /64/ AtifrP., /4/,. yy��//7--J�/' ,1 ;/i/-(' ��" dt 7�/ tJ > %di //-P /// /. c l (•/ 7 /1 f Y:;'A'J /4e(l/5 f //J • fs.' ici.4 43' /iii// ,rT/-- /// // ,(t ✓' gzi, ;i4,)-e ,/ u‘//,' /✓04e-' tic ,o/////Y ��j°✓'Gf�- Owner Broker Robert L. Peterson Fax: 760 %`17 _ / U . ; J -Z• iax+ 465 Sunset Drive, Vista, CA. 92083 760 726- 12 12 To: 7 . ,/ e;77 DO!//IG` / Fax: %6 a — 31 0•9 r From: Bob Peterson Fax: 760 7S"8--/ 3 6 a e: A/v� T\T-.Lmber of pages r_eluig this page: ;— Time k DeseD—DD 4os ✓lesscge yy y , �D ee' DIY//,- ne,4 /90. 1''t r"6.7,747}- Ye tr.1 01 //4 4/. &/pw, ///( ,ve/ 07S/JJ A/111-e ---'1//z 11//1-e- 1/1 oilt14-,ApqrS 4D Dv' Pk �G✓l / f'iil;r C6 111' �lu- � �ir14//mil ))/ )--a1 As) fa 71 0 44D�i ovr 1Di/p, /(6 rit-E ieeA Do G,'✓/ 1 D -�cJ Owner Broker Robert L. Peterson Fax: 760 ie,„<„4„,4, /k` 4)-`f y'„ aiAi �IMCANe.)(X-'-% /41- A/c7i—aorg-- A%-e ZGG. //.7(./ , y_r: /1-47), c/4- 6.4), /574 Afa,- 14,E scs 14-e - 4,5 --h,?4 Y4- mi /41.4/ r/e.'14101,1e4"zii/r-e- A4/-je4ts Ke e/2 ,KySit I ht /1/10K firrt�_ /e 4014-e- ,e4,7 //q/iii4ge zorvif: /‘ p 6 / A ass � A��ri��AY�`'�"746- lrze / �C1orj/ .yhe4 1-,/izi--/izcz-,c_i 0/41/441-p- oviV /on G,1A //c,�'T7o 7"fir i(/e.5-/--e,4,//4/4// iy//4//j ,e-z&r 6 -A-, Li/ovZ, /Var. /1/r<ovi- ze/ovi4lh' Ze-ri-;31 ,27)`z i/ 6 6,-,,t; Iyit,c ,/ gi,V4k ")4i4 ' 1//°11 )/a1/i tyad/i ef/e1/.141) C June 16, 2004 nt •I• Palm Desert City Council: Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Jean M. Benson, Councilmember Jim Ferguson, Councilman Richard S. Kelly, Councilman ity of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 I • C RE: June 24, 2004 Public Hearing Objection to Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Proposed Zoning Change Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 and DA 04-01 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, We feel the need to write an additional letter because it is apparent from numerous conversations with PDCC homeowners that the central issues are being obscured due to a very intense marketing campaign to residents who live on the golf course and to city officials. If this project is denied, the owner, Mr. Cho, will be forced to sell this business at the market value. Since Mr. Cho has allowed the assets and equity in his business to degrade during the three years he's been in charge, the business will sell for a substantial discount from the $4 million he paid for it. (Note: It is fortunate that Mr. Cho's company is not a public company or the Enron -type stockholders would be left holding the bag on this debacle.) The new owner will purchase the property at a price (perhaps $2 - $3 million) where the business plan makes sense, i.e., where he/she can make a profit. The golf course can be profitable if bought at the right price, with the proper upkeep and with advertising. In this scenario, the current owner who has created the chaos, will pay for his own business mismanagement. It is not appropriate or desirable to bail out the business partners who have knowingly created this turmoil at the expense of the residents of this 1,800 home development. If Mr. Cho decides to retain ownership and continue the degrading of the golf course, the local and state agencies can easily use the public nuisance laws and hefty fines to force him to comply. 1 In this way, the burden will be placed where it belongs and NOT on the 1,000 homeowners who do not live on the golf course or on the public. Please allow the market forces of our American capitalistic system to work, and do not apply a government "fix" that creates harm and derision for our community. Once again, the 1,000 PDCC homeowners/renters that do NOT live on the golf course (over 50% of the residents) and the public will receive most of the negative consequences of this proposed development by obstructing the beautiful, public open -space views. For the 1,000 homeowners who do not have a view of the golf course from their living room, the open spaces along the golf course (California, Tennessee, New York, Wyoming, Kansas, Warner Trail, etc.) create tremendous value and are part of the PDCC covenant and intent of our development. Please do not degrade the quality of life in our area. Please vote "NO" on this ill-conceived project that unfairly and disproportionately targets residents off the golf course. Please feel free to call us at our home (760) 360-1114, at any time. Thank you. Sincerely, J Richard and Lola Green 42025 Tennessee Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Email: Iola.green@earthlink.net REQUEST: SUBMITTED BY: APPLICANT: PDCC Development, LLC 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 Dahoon Investment Company, Inc. 77-200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 CASE NOS: C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 DATE: May 13, 2004 CONTENTS: Recommendation Executive Summary Background Draft Ordinance No. 1067 , Draft Ordinance No. No. 04-42 . i3'CV re/CONTINUED TO (i..' I •6 V CITY OF PALM DES RE PASSED TO 2ND READING DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY D _-_- '"--- STAFF REPORT Approval of a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to R-1 9,000 for 41 lots around the golf course perimeter, a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) To PR-6 for 9.68 acres in the area of the existing driving range, a tentative tract map to create 94 residential lots, a precise plan, a development agreement which will provide for among other matters modified development standards and provisions requiring that golf course improvements be carried out in a timely manner, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the above. All property being a portion of Section 13 and 14 T5S R6E. t Phil Drell, Director of Community Development O O O a) ti 4-1 0 and DA 04-01 • 0 14 C4 4 •.14 arw .0 • 04 N4-1�0 ° w $4 .0 O 1�°a°i."u N 4-1 • C 0 1- 40 ^ "d uw4°, aui 0.o O 3°0a.! . '0s'�4 •p • "O ro •rq d G u > > o a) a cu Nc>, ▪ aal Vi 1068 , and Draft Resolution Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 16, 2004 Planning Commission Resolution No. 2255 Planning Commission Minutes of March 16, 2004 Related Maps and Exhibits a1 J4 0 a N 0 0 4a 9A 0 4.4 ro L N 0 N 4a 0 0 C u ro 1- a) "0 0 O u C.) n 0 a• 6.1 + ° aJ > 6 0 6 0 a) 0 0 O 4 O. 4 c� u u 0 4. 0 0 0 E 0 ro 0. 0 0 ai 0.4 0 0. 0 "0 u 4.1 CID 0 0 Condition No. 0 0 0 a "0 0 C. 0 •r E. 0 C. 0 a 0 0 0 ° C.) ro E 0 441 a.• Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 2 May 13, 2004 Recommendation: That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1067 to second reading relating to C/Z 04-01. That the City Council waive further reading and pass Ordinance No. 1068 to second reading relating to DA 04-01. That the City Council adopt Resolution No. 04-42 approving PP 04-01 and TT 31836, subject to conditions. Executive Summary: The Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) area is a golf course/residential community which has been constructed over the past 40+ years. Over the past several years, the Palm Desert Country Club golf course has experienced a succession of owners, declining membership and generally deteriorating conditions. It is the project applicant's position that golf revenues are not sufficient to adequately finance the capital investment costs required to bring the course back to a condition which is both economically viable for owners and a stable recreation and open space asset for the neighborhood. The applicant proposes to remodel the clubhouse, relocate the maintenance facility and renovate the entire 27-hole course tees to greens including installation of a new automated irrigation system designed to save 500 acre feet of water/year (see attached golf course summary). Renovation costs will exceed $5,000,000. Since green fees will not cover the capital costs of these improvements, the applicant proposes to finance the renovations through rezoning of approximately 20 acres of the 220-acre course from open space to residential use allowing the development of 94 one-story single family detached homes. The proposed homes will be designed to be equal or better then the existing homes in Palm Desert Country Club. Their projected selling price will generally exceed current values in the area. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 3 May 13, 2004 Background: The PDCC area was originally zoned R-1 and R-1 9,000 which required minimum 7,200 and 9,000 square foot Tots respectively. On August 17, 1960 Variance No. 409 was granted by the Riverside County Planning Commission reducing the minimum lot sizes to 6,000 square feet and 60 feet of lot width. This variance also restricted dwelling units to a maximum of 1,300 square feet. Even with these provisions in effect, 46 lots of Tess than 6,000 square feet were developed between 1961 and 1985 and 320 homes of greater than 1,300 square feet were built between 1960 and 1964. On November 18, 1964, County Variance No. 656 was approved amending the maximum dwelling unit size to 1,800 square feet, yet between 1965 and 1993, 103 homes in excess of 1,800 square feet were built. While the County's justification for the variance is not absolutely clear, it appears that they imputed a portion of the golf course to each lot within the tract to achieve consistency with the R-1 9,000 standards. The City's zoning employs a similar strategy for golf course country club zoning with the use of the Planned Residential zone that is based on gross project density including the golf course and common areas. Neither of the variances specify setbacks. County standards prescribe a minimum 20 foot front yard measured for street line, rear yard of 10 feet and side yards "not Tess than ten percent of the width of the lot, but not less than three feet in width in any event." The ordinance does not clarify whether that is 10% on each side or in total. Based on physical observations, the predominant side yard setbacks in the area appear to be a total of eight feet with a minimum of three feet. Letter from Criste, Pippin and Golds: Shortly before the Planning Commission hearing a letter from the above noted law firm was received on behalf of the Palm Desert Country Club Preservation Society. The letter, among other matters, discusses a "declaration of restrictions" which was placed on the subject property in 1961 and 1963. These restrictions were designed Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 4 May 13, 2004 to preserve the golf course for a 30-year period with five year extensions. Although the initial 30-year restriction has expired, one of the five year extensions is in effect. At the Planning Commission hearing City Attorney Hargreaves advised commission that the issues raised were private matters for members of the homeowner's association and that it did not preclude the City from processing the applications. (See response letter from City Attorney attached.) Project Description: The applicant seeks approval of a change of zone and tentative tract map redesignating 9.5 acres dispersed around the perimeter of the golf course from Open Space to R-1 9,000 creating 41 single family Tots (the golf course lots) and a change of zone from Open Space to PR-6 for 9.68 acres in the area of the existing driving range adjacent to the clubhouse "the clubhouse lots". The driving range will be eliminated allowing for 53 homes. Since the Planning Commission hearing, the applicant has redesigned this component of the project eliminating one unit and increase the fairway width separating the new project from existing homes by 20 to 40 feet. The 41 golf course Tots will be zoned R-1 9,000 consistent with the existing tract and will range in size from 8,945 to 9,176 square feet. To replicate the effect of the County's variance and the City's PR zone, a portion of each rear yard will be reserved by easement to the golf course resulting in net lot sizes of 5,000 square feet to 6,855 square feet. The 53 clubhouse lots will vary in size from 4,691 square feet to 6,779 square feet. Including common open space and recreational facilities, average lot size will be 7,808 square feet. The clubhouse lots will have private streets connecting to Tennessee Avenue and California Drive. A total of 19 acres of the existing 220-acre course will be converted to residential use. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 5 May 13, 2004 Proposed Dwelling Size and Architecture: The proposed dwellings to be constructed are all single story and range in height from 14 feet to 18 feet. No home will exceed 18 feet in height except for chimneys. Dwelling size will range from 1,732 square feet to 1,853 square feet. PLAN Plan 1 Plan 2 Plan 3 Plan 4 UNIT HEIGHTS AND SIZES SIZE HEIGHT 1,732 sq.ft. 1,853 sq.ft. 1,778 sq.ft. 1,829 sq.ft. Basic 16 ft., maximum 18' Basic 14 ft. -15 ft., maximum 18' Basic 16.5 ft., maximum 17' Basic 15.5 ft., maximum 18' The maximum height occurs with roof sections which are included to improve architecture. Dwelling architecture will be a contemporary Spanish look with tile roofs on all units. This architecture is consistent with recent unit construction in the PDCC area and with recent remodels in the area. On February 10, 2004, the ARC granted preliminary approval. PARKING: 41 Golf Course Lots: These conventional lots will each be provided with a two -car garage, driveway parking and street parking. 53 Clubhouse Lots: Each of these lots will be provided a two -car garage. The streets are too narrow to allow street parking. In order to address the lack of street parking the applicant has provided small community parking lots at the entries to the island. At Tennessee Avenue a parking lot is shown on either side of the entry driveway providing seven spaces and nine spaces. At the California Drive entry parking for 11 cars is provided on the south side. Within the "island" six small parking lots provide a total of 23 Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 6 May 13, 2004 spaces. These 50 community spaces will be more than adequate to make up for the lack of street parking. Front Setback Rear Setback Side Setbacks Max. Building Height Min. Lot Area DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CODE REQUIREMENTS R-1 9,000 / PR 20'/as approved 15'/as approved 14' total, 5' minimum/ as approved 18'/24' 9,000/or as approved Max. Site Coverage 35%/40% Discussion: Evaluation Criteria: EXISTING PDCC DEV. STANDARDS 14-20 feet 10-20 feet 5' + 3' 13-18 feet 6,000 R-1 9,000 LOTS 10-15 feet 11-22 feet 5'+5' PROPOSED PROPOSED PR-6 LOTS 10-15 feet 5-20 feet 5'+5' 18' 18' 9,000 sq.ft.gross/ 4,691 sq.ft. 5,000 sq.ft.net 20-37% 38.7% Approval of the requested tentative map and precise plan is contingent upon a change of zone from Open Space to Residential. A recommendation to change Open Space to Residential must be based on compelling reasons. Therefore, in addition to the usual criteria of consistency with the general plan, design compatibility with neighborhood and other planning issues, this request was also reviewed based on: A. An irrevocable commitment by the developer to complete the golf course and clubhouse improvements. B. A rigorous financial proforma which clearly supports the premise that: 1) the development and sale of 94 homes are necessary to finance the renovations; and 2) projected revenues after the renovation will be sufficient to maintain the course. C. The location and design of the proposed homes do not unreasonably detract from the overall value or enjoyment for surrounding property owners. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 7 May 13, 2004 Planning Commission Action: The Planning Commission at its March 1 6, 2004 meeting on a 4-0 vote, Commissioner Finerty absent, recommended approval of the requests. At the Planning Commission hearing, many persons spoke to the matter. Those speaking in favor cited the following reasons: * Need for golf course renovation and upgrade * Positive impact of saving 500 +/- acre feet of water with a new irrigation system * Overwhelming neighborhood support * Improved property values * Positive impacts 94 new single family homes will have by encouraging existing owners to remodel and upgrade Those speaking in opposition cited the following reasons: * Existing, enforceable CC&R's prohibit development on the golf course * Damage to or elimination of views * Negative impacts to ambiance and property values by adding noise, traffic, people and Tight * Loss of open space * The golf course proforma is inadequate to establish a compelling reason for the change of zone * Removing open space is a terrible precedent to set * Architecture proposed is too high * Significant traffic increases on certain streets * Construction noise * Existing architecture has historical value and should be preserved * Maintenance facility relocation was never discussed with residents - it will create noise, light, view, and privacy impacts General Plan: The entire 523-acre PDCC area is designated low density residential 0-4 units per acre in the updated general plan which would permit up to 2,096 units. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 8 May 13, 2004 Currently there are 1,485 single family lots and 489 apartment/condo units for a total of 1,974 units with an overall existing density of 3.77 units per acre. With the additional 94 lots, the total units will be 2,068 and a density of 3.96 units per acre which is consistent with the low density land use designation. ZONING: The proposed R-1 9,000 designation for the golf course lots is consistent with the County's original historical zoning policy for the development. Instead of the variance used by the County to grant exceptions to the R-1 standards, a development agreement is proposed. The 41 lots have been sited to minimize any significant view impacts on existing homes. The 53 clubhouse lots will be an ungated but relatively self-contained project with private streets and common recreational facilities. The PR zone specifically allows the Planning Commission/City Council to approve unique development standards for master planned developments. The standards proposed are similar to other golf course development in the city. The Homes: In general, the proposed homes will be larger and equal or superior in design to existing homes in the area. Their heights and setbacks will be similar to homes built in the PDCC within the past 15 years. On February 10, the ARC granted preliminary approval subject to conditions concerning window details. The Golf Course, Club House and Maintenance Facility: The complete renovation of the golf course and irrigation system will return the facility to the quality of other first rate courses in the valley. Not only will it be a benefit to golfers, but will add significant value to the existing fairway homes. The remodel of the clubhouse will allow improved services for golfers and restore its ability to act as a focus for community activity. The maintenance facility which is currently located directly adjacent to homes on New York Avenue will be moved to a currently unused area between the 13th fairway and Joe Mann Park. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 9 May 13, 2004 The 245 feet by 120 feet facility will be completely enclosed by an eight -foot wall, berming and landscaping. Within the walls will be a 5,000 square foot building, 19 parking spaces and material storage areas. The facility will be accessed via an existing driveway between Joe Mann Park and a residence at 77-680 California. The design of the facility was reviewed by the ARC on April 27 where a number of potentially impacted residents provided input. The applicant agreed to adjust the site plan so that existing fairway views would be preserved. The revised design will be presented to the ARC on May 11. The results of that meeting will be provided in the oral report. ISSUES: A. Economic Justification: The applicant has submitted a project proforma which indicates that golf and clubhouse revenues will be sufficient to maintain the facilities, but do not support the renovation capital investment. This conclusion is consistent with the City's own experience and the experiences of country club courses throughout the valley. The capital cost of golf courses are paid by the sale of surrounding residential or hotel property. The proposed cost of the renovation exceeds the value of the existing facilities. Assuming that the proposed residential project is successful, the next concern is to provide assurance that the golf course improvements are accomplished along with the residential development. The proposed development agreement ties the two project components together. While it was originally hoped that the 18-hole course could be completed prior to the release of any homes, delays in the design and approval process have required a readjustment of the schedule. There will not be sufficient time to complete the 18-hole course renovation in time to open for play next season. As an alternative, the applicant is proposing to complete the nine - hole executive course renovation, clubhouse remodel and maintenance facility relocation prior to any home release. They will then bond to cover the costs of the 18-hole course. Since the value of the new homes will be tied to the completion of the course improvements, the applicant has significant incentives to complete the project. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 10 May 13, 2004 The final details of the development agreement are still being negotiated by the attorneys. A draft agreement has been included with this report. A final agreement should be available prior to the May 13 meeting. B. Impact of Residential Project on Existing Homes: The last question is, Do some homeowners bear an unreasonable burden of the new residential development? The golf course lots have been strategically placed in existing gaps where streets intersect the course. The developer has gone to great lengths to minimize golf course view impacts on any existing homes. The greatest controversy has involved the impacts of the clubhouse lots. While most PDCC fairway homes have an average 220-foot property line to property line view separation, the homes in the vicinity of the clubhouse lots currently have an unimpeded view through the driving range of over 600 feet. The elimination of the driving range will reduce the view separation to a distance comparable to other fairway lots throughout the development. For the homes on New York Avenue, golf course separation property line to property line will be reduced to a minimum of 215 feet. Homes on Indiana will be reduced to a 160-foot minimum. Utah Circle homes have 180 feet minimum separation. While the loss of the driving range will reduce the length of unimpeded views in the area, liability issues would have impacted views even without the project. Standard driving ranges are 333 yards (1,000 feet) in length. The PDCC range is 222 yards to 255 yards in length. As improvements occur to golf clubs and balls result in longer drives, the need to install 50-foot screening around the driving range would eventually impact views. To assess the economic impact of the project, Dozier Appraisal was hired by the City to appraise five existing homes most directly impacted. The appraisal looked at current home value and predicted future value after completion of the project. Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 11 May 13, 2004 The appraisals concluded there will be no measurable impact on even the most effected homes. This opinion is based on two conclusions. 1. In studying existing PDCC sales data, there is a price premium for golf course homes in comparison to non golf homes, but there is no measurable difference attributable to the quality of a particular fairway view versus another. Once a home is on the golf course, the primary determinant of value is the size and quality of the home. 2. Any marginal decrease in value that might occur due to the shortening of the view would be made up by the increased market value resulting from the improved golf course and the higher priced home included in the project. Since the project was approved by the Planning Commission, the applicant has continued to adjust the design of the clubhouse lots to reduce impacts on the surrounding homes. Two lots were removed from the end of the cul- de-sac lengthening the separation by 20 to 40 feet. Relative to Utah cul-de- sac homes, the new Tots will be six feet to eight feet lower, further reducing the impact of the new homes. Environmental Review: For purposes of CEQA, the proposed project will not have a significant negative impact on the environment and staff has prepared a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact. Part of the Environmental Review included preparation of a traffic analysis by George Dunn Engineering which concluded at page 36 "the project will not result in significant changes in the operations of area roadways." A copy of the entire traffic report is attached hereto by reference. CONCLUSION: The PDCC golf course is the open space and recreational centerpiece of the development. Currently it is in decline both physically and economically. Its continued deterioration will ultimately impact the quality of life and property values. The applicant has presented compelling arguments in support of their proposal to Staff Report Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 Page 12 May 13, 2004 finance the renovation of the facility through the development and sale of 93 homes. While any change will impact some existing homeowners, the plan minimizes significant individual impacts while achieving significant benefits for the whole community. The proposed homes will be compatible with the existing neighborhood. Architectural design quality and overall value will be equal or superior to existing homes. The renovation of the golf facilities and the construction of the new homes will have an overall positive impact for both specific property owners and the neighborhood. Submitted by: Approval: Phil Drell Homer Croy Director of Community Development ACM for Development Services Approval: City Manager /tm (W p d c c s\t rr i s r\ t t 318 36. cc6 ) KOSMONT PARTNERS 111 213 623 8288 06/17/04 14:08 5 :02/04 NO:365 77200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 .June 17, 2004 Mr. Steve Smith Planning Manager City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert Country Club Developm*nt LLC Re: Palm. Desert Country Club — Relocation of Lot 71 Dear Mr. Smith: Phone: 877.760.PDCC Fax: 877.894.5601 Pursuant to our discussion about the location of lot 71. PDCC Development, 1.1.0 (PI)CC) is prepared to shift the location of that lot 20 feet to the north and relocate the new cart path on the south side of lot 71. Currently, lot 71 is adjacent to Mr. and Mrs. Wilmot's home at 43631 Tennessee. Larry Koarnont and I both spoke to Mr. and Mrs. Wilmot and we previously conveyed to them that we would move lot 71 to the north and shift the location of the cart path in order to protect the trees in their yard. 1 hope this letter hclps clarify our position. We will continue to work with the City of Palm Desert for the best possible location for lot 71. Since 1y, ltanci L. Case Partner PDCC Development, Id.0 Received Jun-17-2004 14:13 From-213 623 8288 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 KOSMONT PARTNERS 77200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 June 17, 2004 Mr. Steve Smith Planning Manager City of Palm Desert 73510 Fred Waxing Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 eaft 213 623 8288 06/17/04 14:08 5 :03/04 NO:365 Pa m Desert Country Club Development LLC Re: Palm Desert Country Club —Future Golf Course Landscaping Dear Mr. Smith: Phone: 877.780.PDCC Fax: 877.894.5801 • t, f _- s 71 1 would like to take this opportunity to explain in greater detail the proposed renovation to the golf course and. in particular, the upgrades to the irrigation system and the overall landscaping program. PDCC Development, LLC (PDCC) is enthusiastic about the benefits of completely overhauling the manual irrigation system that currently exists for the 27 holes of golf. That system uses over 1,500 acre-feet of water per year in a very inefficient manner. In its place, PDCC will install an efficient automatic irrigation system that will ;cave over 500 acre-feet of water annually. Given that we are located in a desert region, this water savings is extremely beneficial to all of Coachella Valley. In terms of the proposed landscaping for the newly landscaped areas of the project and for the remainder of the golf course area, we recognize the need to promote xeriscape landscaping throughout the project. Nevertheless, it is important to understand that this is a golf course designed and built over 40 years ago in a traditional manner. To completely convert it to the "desert. courses of today" would be quite difficult and very expensive. The best solution we see is a combination of both. PDCC will work with the City's landscape committees and experts rn identify the areas that can and should be converted to drought -tolerant landscaping. Clearly, for all of the new landscape areas in and around the clubhouse, we will coordinate with the City's Landscape guidelines to design and implement appropriate landscaping, with an objective to introduce xeriscape features. PDCC will take that a step further by looking for other areas throughout the 27 holes of golf that make design and budgetary seise to convert to drought -tolerant landscaping. :g i`,•J LI Klii` i�UV •�r�l_�(_ ~: Received Jun-17-2004 14:13 From-213 623 6288 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 003 KOSMONT PARTNERS 6 213 623 8288 06/17/04 14:08 5 :04/04 NO:365 Mr. Slaw Smith JIr6 17, 2004 Post 2of2 All in all, with the upgrades to the irrigation system and thc improvements to thc golf course, we will greatly improve the duality of the golf course and save hundreds of acre-feet of water each year. Since XL Randy L. Case Partner PDCC Development, LLC Received Jun-1T-2004 14:13 From-213 623 8288 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 004 CITY OF PALM DESERT COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development DATE: May 10, 2004 SUBJECT: Correction to Palm Desert Country Club Project report. Total lot count remains 95 units. CASE NO: TT 31836 Right up to completion of the staff report, the applicant was shuffling units and adjusting the tract design in response to neighboring concerns. Staff was under the mistaken impression that one lot near the clubhouse had been deleted, reducing the total project count from 95 to 94. In fact, the units were slightly rearranged. The total lot count will remain 95, consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. 77200 California Drive Palm Desert, CA 92211 May 27, 2004 City Council City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 Palm Desert Country Club Development LLC Re: Palm Desert Country Club Remodel Project ("Project") — Relocation of Maintenance Facility Dear Council Members, Phone: 877.760.PDCC Fax: 877.894.5601 We are in support of the proposed relocation of the Maintenance Facility and the Facility's design as submitted to the City of Palm Desert by PDCC Development, LLC ("PDCC") as part of the overall golf course improvement program. Please recognize this support and approve the Project as submitted by PDCC at the next City Council meeting. Thank you for your support and consideration. Address Print Name Signature 7 74'2 cii441;1 G.c of ' dA f.0—.7"_ 77 1,L.o � J is-Alitr r i41044 1115-S- /E, , r 1 ct, n -) l V\ 6..,b- , r ,yicm /*✓ CA-Ferr2A/ R r C g l a w LuEA44 C' 1,1)86. o� 717 ,r y 5 - C 3 /11 ,' r_ 1-4 - C 8" tri PC) 7 W k.c co 0 CD 3 0 CD 0 7 C (./3 0 0 0 0 — PIMP / C>„ < N.)• 0 co CU • Cn c ; a) (0 "CI 0 O • f", (s) // Construction - Residential Homes (April '05 - July '06) Construction - Residential Infrastructure (Sep 1 '04 - May '05) Construction - 18 hole Golf Course and irrigation Improvements (April '05 - Nov '05) Prep. Working drawings - Residential Infrastructure Jul 1 - Oct 1 CONSTRUCTION Construction - Clubhouse, Cart Bam, Maintenance Facility & 9 Hole Eexecutive Course 'Sent '04 - Mar '05) Close on Golf Course (July 15th) DESIGN PHASE Prep working drawings - Clubhouse & Maintenance (July 1 - Sep 30) !Second Council Meeting (July 8th) Descri • tion PRE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITIES City Council apporval (June 24th) C— C J N ;tea C c m t � . ..� tit' { �. h (,yy i T. -. 4 - •be�(1 .if A n S f4 0 co tj, 3 -...f•pn: Jf +1F 404t. trw ii�1ilgi. t.�.. S' tJT �>(� CO zy f % 0 Z . = ;1 . .; c— M > > „dry , 8 0) 3 M M o co 0 co c 940.41, 44.4 ••••.i yV� .t �wf 1 0 • • r • 4 r t v " arimmimmuminnimailmmumminimminamiammaii, )11,1 (),,)111:111a11111)141 _011.1_1S!..111 VO 11E630 ravd tT 12TxIff uniovBONVN_RINIVVI ernio AuNnoo .1113S3C1 rrrdd Mrld 2dVOSCINV1 OLLV1413HOS t L 0 cr) MICHIGAN DRIVE = S.1.? 0 C.) 2 0 2 0 cr 11. 0 w w DRIVE L _j jOr ,1'40•••I , , •„, is• 0/..2,„s • -"t• • •<4 $7; ; = - k . , %;$' 44`17;- 1.• 141, • •=4 •-•"*- 4"!'' A*. =7"'""e•Ts..,.;-,.,,4: • 2.11' 4P.),..3„ • • ," ' • . • • , i4e. 4 • ...••••••! •N. , •* — .•" • ••• • .. • ,t • • ()if )// 1110../f 02d./4 r•••.I ••••N pm' • r • rniT CAT Or, 775 \/ e e R & w2 \ ,! r¥ — 3 r,, net: cant) cut 1- w 0 U MAINTENANCE FACILITY GRAPHIC SCALE 8 8 01 Front view access rOt -....-,4 . ....„... c. ':.........4. 1. :.„. . , f ,, ..• ...- ..... .....-L. ., ,,,,-144,' -;;', ...: .. , • ‘E•&•c4": *,,,, ,.: - • 4, .. :•:.:- '''.;:tt"...ci;; , "1";,.....„..;„ p!..k......". ...;.. :-....„,i 4' = ?4,,V,.* •,-, 1.- '' .-.." -/ \ ....,•• 1.:::,;V:1'.' :, ,'..- . , • : , , •,%'':-.., .. ,;i4.4.--,1,-..,:e7 .,;.. . '.: • )- . ", - 4A.Clz. '-':::: "';,t . : . t .,- ,.-z,r„ ., .4 , „a •.* ....$6,,, ' tigA. Reav v‘e' access lip 0 drZ!1 t1rr.01l Fj i di..Z1jI111r!a]/ V AGENDA PACKET MINUTES : MEETING DATE 63vl — 94 PALM DE DRAFT SUBJECT REYfS10NTf JUNE 1 2004 B. Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and DA 04-01 - PDCC Development, LLC, Applicant Per City Council request, provide comments on proposed maintenance yard for Palm Desert Country Club. Mr. Drell said they could hear the description and comments from Mr. Case, the applicant. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there were probably some folks present that might wish to comment, so they would entertain those comments after the presentation and then they would have some discussion and make their comments to the Council. MR. RANDY CASE, Palm Desert Country Club LLC, a partner in the development, addressed the commission. He said that with him was Sherrie Ryan, also a partner, a couple of experts in the audience to help answer questions, their architect Richard Denzer, and Gary Lewis from the golf course management company. He said he had about 14 slides in their presentation and copies of what would be shown were distributed to the commission. Mr. Case said that they were before the commission on March 15 and discussed everything in detail except the maintenance facility. There were a couple of questions and issues raised by some members of the public and they knew where they proposed to put the maintenance facility and touched on it that night, but didn't go into detail. They had since gone back to the architectural review board twice, had a series of meetings with the public and they were pleased to show the commission what has come about from that. They are proposing to relocate the maintenance facility in the same location at the end of the 13th green and the beginning of the 14th tee box next to the city park right off of California and Avenue of the States. Chairperson Jonathan asked if it was at California and New York. Mr. Case clarified that was the location of the current location and where the clubhouse is located. Right off of Washington, Avenue of the States turns into California and there is the homeowner's 35 MINUTES LMr 1SUBJECT TCr,," REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 association. There is a park next to that which the City leases from the homeowner's association. Right behind that park is the proposed location. He showed slides that identified the location of the proposed maintenance facility, described the location of the clubhouse and the current location. He also showed pictures of the current maintenance facility, which he thought was pretty poorly located and maintained in their estimation. He said they stated before that they are planning to put about $6 million into this golf course, both into the golf course irrigation system, clubhouse and the maintenance facility and maintenance equipment. It was important to them to house the maintenance equipment. Most of the equipment sits out in the sun and sand and wasn't well kept, sealed, enclosed or maintained. There were a couple of small facilities, small buildings where equipment and some of the maintenance happens, but it was very small, undersized and inadequate for the 27-hole golf course. He mentioned that Ron Gregory was also part of the team and was in the audience and was their landscape architect. With Richard Denzer and Ron Gregory they put together a landscape plan to surround the facility. They would see pictures of some views of existing homes that he thought really hid the entire facility. He said there is currently a chain link fence that separates the park from the golf course and they were planning ten feet from that fence to locate the maintenance facility with an eight -foot concrete cinder block wall around the outside of the facility. The size of the entire yard was approximately 25,000 square feet. Inside it was about a 6,000 foot maintenance building that would be able to house all the equipment, supplies and tools. Chairperson Jonathan noted that there is an existing restroom facility. He asked if it would be taken out. Mr. Case said no, they were still working out the details about how to get over to it. They were going to completely renovate that restroom facility and the other one on the course. They are also looking at potentially relocating to the other side. They have the access road there. It is not used every few minutes of the day, but 36 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION FTSUSJECT TC _ R V1SION JUNE 1, 2004 there is a little bit of a tricky situation for golfers to walk across there to get to the restroom. So they might relocate that. An important thing on the picture is the area near the 13th green which has virtually been unused for many years and is pretty much dried and dead back there. They were going to extend that 13th green and the lake about 35 yards back so that they had really all golf course back in that area. It would be the fall away and safety zone areas for that 13th green. The 14th tee box, the back tees, would be relocated up slightly. The 13th hole would be extended and the 14th reduced or shortened by about 20 yards. Chairperson Jonathan asked if those tee boxes were for the 14th green. Mr. Case said for the 14th hole, going directly west. There are three holes in this one section, the 12th is a par three, the 13th is now a par four and they were going to extend it to a par five and then 14 goes back right to left and is a par four. He noted that there are about nine single family homes and then a number of duplexes. There are existing trees around the greens. Some homes and duplexes wouldn't see the facility because there are so many trees. They are planning for the homes that may have a view of the facility to berm up to eight -feet and then landscape around that berm so they couldn't see the wall. The only thing they would see is part of the building. The building is 12 feet in the front and goes up to 16 feet in the back. Commissioner Lopez asked about the width of the building. Mr. Case said it is 50 feet one way and 120 feet the other, a 6,000 foot facility. Chairperson Jonathan asked if the tall poles on the other side of the fence represented the rear wall of the structure. Mr. Case said yes. There were a number of poles put out last Friday. The smaller white poles were the top of the fence that surrounds the maintenance yard and then they had bigger poles to the back and up 50 feet. The little bit smaller poles represented the building itself. He thought they were still up today if some of 37 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT"I REVISION JUNE JUNE 1, 2004 the commissioners got by there. They would be putting them up again next week for the Council to see before the next Council hearing. Using the slides he showed more views of the area, the park, the dog run, the trees in the area and views from the homes. He pointed out that one home was next to the access road. The golf course currently has a 20-foot access road. Back when this golf course was built in the early 1960's, they started with three holes, the 12th, 13th and 14th and the maintenance facility was located in this area. So they used the 20-foot access road which comes off of California. That was shown in a couple of slides. The two homes closest to the access road, he showed the bathroom, then to the maintenance facility yard and building, and said it was behind the bathroom up in trees, probably starting about 70 or 80 feet from the bathroom on the other side. This was looking directly east and kind of north. At the architectural review commission and with a number of the property owner meetings they had, there had been a lot of discussion about the access to this facility. The red access is the existing 20-foot access from California. That is the proposed access for the maintenance facility. They could see it outlined on the aerial photo. They could see that the access point comes along that 20 feet, swoops around the bathroom and goes directly into the maintenance yard. He said they were asked by staff, by the architectural review commission and by citizens, specifically the couple of homes and homeowners right next to the existing access road that they are proposing as the access to look at alternatives. They looked at three potential alternatives that would bisect the park in various locations. The first alternative in blue was located so that it was one house in distance away from the existing house, so it was about 60-feet away. It would bisect the park and leave partly an unused piece there. They could probably do a dog run or something else, but it bisects it. The benefit is it is farther away from that one house. The next alternative was Tight green and went along the basketball court. It would result in them having to relocate the volleyball 38 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION T.. SUBJECT TC. REVISION JUNE 1, 2004 court and the basketball court. There would be a serious amount of construction. They could utilize the existing parking lot, but there would be quite a bit of work that would have to be redone to that park in order to have that one as the chosen access point. The last one in yellow went through the parking lot and through the rose garden that is a remembrance garden set aside for the homeowners association. A lot of people use it. This access would be along the very eastern 20 feet of it. Each of these accesses are proposed to be 20 feet. He said they listed the advantages, the disadvantages and mitigation that might be resulting from selecting one versus the other. Mainly they just get further away from the homes. Unfortunately, it would leave the park in a tough situation. There were some questions about relocating some of the park. Unfortunately, with them moving the green 35 or so yards back, they have a safety zone there and they would really be encroaching into that safety zone and it would be very dangerous to have the park any further into the golf course area up there. He showed pictures of the different alternative access points and the views. He said that right now, the park fence on the west end of the park reduces about three feet of the access. It's really about 17 feet when they measured it, so there might have to be some adjustment if that is the access that is chosen to slightly move over one corner of the existing park fence. But they could do that pretty easily and wouldn't want to move it much but the very corner where they are turning in they would have to move it slightly to the east. He said the first alternative he spoke of is 60 feet from the house. Chairperson Jonathan asked if Mr. Case would reduce the width of the access road to 17 feet. Mr. Case said no. Currently there is an access there and because of the west end of the park there is a wrought iron fence with some block posts and it was really about 17 feet. For some reason when the fence was built it shrunk down the access by about 39 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 p AFT SUBJECT II Li "1 REVISION three feet. Physically it was only about 17 feet and they probably need 20 feet according to the Fire Department to really get the facilities in there. So they might have to slightly move even the existing access and move that fence slightly to the east. For some reason when it was built it wasn't surveyed and it isn't on the access line and doesn't leave 20 feet there. They would need 20 feet. He thought they could probably live with 18 in the front, but the back they had to make sure they had enough radius room to turn. He said they went to the architectural review commission one time with a different location and they said to go back, redesign it and put it closer to the fence to avoid people's views from the nine homes and a couple of those duplexes. They did that. They had a wall on top of the berm. They said no, put the wall with the berm on the outside with some landscaping so they can pretty much virtually hide the entire facility, other than the building. So he thought they had addressed the visual concerns from around it and if they look at the poles and go to the perimeter around the outside of those homes, it will be difficult to see much because of the horizon, the homes, and the landscaping in the back. It is pretty well hidden. He said Ron's folks did a good job at trying to hide the facility. He thought the issue was the access and they knew that. They have tried to work with the property owner that is nearest to the access point they are recommending, which is the existing access point. They have an agreement, which he signed, that although he isn't in favor of that access point, he understands that is where it might be because bisecting the park might be a little more difficult than it is good. They have agreed to construct an eight -foot wall, a sound and visual wall, along his property line and then also agreed to double pane most of the windows that are even closest to that access point. The access issue is when the maintenance facility people go there in the morning. They are going to be driving in there. Golf course workers come in early to mow the lawns and they are going to be coming in at 5:00 a.m. and there is going to be 10-15 people that work there. That is what it is going to be during the week primarily. They'll have some truck traffic, grass dumping trucks, sanitation trucks, some delivery trucks, not that much 40 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION DrislAFTSUBJECT Tr Rv[sioN JUNE 1, 2004 truck traffic, no more than what is already on California during the day already. The issue is in the morning. They think they have done what they can and believe that he agreed they have done what they can to alleviate the potential for noise and visual to that nearest house. The rest of the houses are closer to California than the access point so there is nobody that is effected as much as he is. Commissioner Finerty asked what the plan is for the existing maintenance yard and how it will be cleaned up. Mr. Case said the existing maintenance yard will be cleaned up and they proposed to put new homes along that stretch of New York, about 11 single family homes. There would need to be some soil remediation and some things they had to do to clean that up and opening that whole area with a short game practice facility, expanding the lake that is right behind it and really clean that area up all around the clubhouse with the things they are doing there. Chairperson Jonathan asked why they wouldn't build a new maintenance facility in the existing location. Mr. Case said that is a good question and one they have been asked many times. The depth of the maintenance facility, the size that they need, puts the maintenance facility into the lake that is behind it and into the practice area that they are redoing because of the loss of the driving range. The area is prohibitive and isn't deep enough. The lots they have there are 90-95 feet deep. This is 120 feet. They can't get radius and satisfactory turning in there. He thought that was the best answer he could give them. There really was not enough depth based on what their plans are for that whole area. He said that it is there and people have lived next to it. There are houses all around that maintenance facility now. Their goal was to remove the maintenance facility to the most remote point they could away from all houses, but secondly, in the process of redoing the clubhouse and that whole entry area there at New York and California is to create an atmosphere that wouldn't have the maintenance facility next to the clubhouse. When they get the luxury of starting a design of a golf course, 41 SUBJECT Ti 1 REVIS10�i4 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 there aren't maintenance facilities next to clubhouses. Albeit that is the way this one is, it really is because of the depth problem they've got and can't get an adequate depth on the facility and it was really prohibitive. Commissioner Tschopp asked if Mr. Case had any plans on the 6,000 square foot building now. He asked if it was a two-story building and asked what the height is. Mr. Case said there are plans and apologized he didn't bring them, but he could get them to them. He said it is a butler building that is 12 feet in the front and the side view is trapezoidal, so it is 12 feet up to 16 feet. It is one story. (There was a picture and Mr. Case asked Richard to point out where the building is and walk it up to the commission.) He said they originally came out with a 19.5 foot building that was triangular shaped and because of the comments from the architectural review board and from the homeowners out there, they reduced it down and minimized the building both from a height and width stand point. So it is 16. The 16-foot wall if they remembered the posts out there is right next to the fence. He said it goes down to 12 feet. Chairperson Jonathan asked if there would be landscaping between the building and the fence or between the building and the parking lot there. Mr. Case said there would be landscaping all around the facility, all around the outside wall of the maintenance yard. Along the fence there are a lot of shrubs and flowers along there. They plan on berming up behind the fence to the wall and planting all along there so the people on the one side of California looking through the park, which is pretty dense already with vegetation, will not see that wall. What they will see are shrubs, trees and vegetation. The only thing they would be able to see, and for a short time, would be the building itself. The 16-foot back side is a little bit taller than the trees along the fence line. With landscaping and the right types of planting, they could virtually hide that building as well. 42 11:-"AFT SUBJECT Tf ® REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 Commissioner Tschopp asked if there was a landscape agreement or some other mechanism to assure that the landscaping is maintained to a level they hope to have to hide the building and the roadway. If he recalled correctly, Mr. Case thought the architectural review board will require them a period to establish that landscaping and get it to what they are trying to show in this rendering. Commissioner Tschopp asked if this would be part of that agreement. Mr. Drell explained that the whole project would be subject to a landscape maintenance agreement. Commissioner Tschopp asked if there were any restrictions or mitigations that they had taken on themselves for traffic. He understood that workers needed to come into work early and leave early, they have noisy equipment, and he asked if there were any other things he was self - imposing or agreeing to to try and mitigate some of that noise. Mr. Case said other than the wall and landscaping, they would have a protective gate. They need to do some things. The existing property owner has a six-foot fence that goes right to the sidewalk. Obviously with the park there there is a lot of traffic on the sidewalk. They need to really design this along with City staff to make sure, but other than the landscaping and the sound barrier wall, which is similar to what is seen on freeways, they feel like they have done primarily what is going to be causing noise withing the facility. With the traffic itself, he was assured that coming onto California would be no more than what is already on California during the day. That is a busy street now. In the morning is when they would have 10-12 cars coming in earlier than normal. They still have traffic at 5:00, not as much traffic for people going to work, but there is still traffic on California. But after that they will have the same trucks coming through California. They have to come down California to get to the existing maintenance facility already. So the amount of traffic would not really be that much different. It would be a little more condensed early on. 43 MINUTES SUBJECT Tt '� ' REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 Commissioner Lopez asked if there is a school there. Mr. Drell said there is a Montessori School there in the association building on the far east side of the park. He believed as part of the analysis going on for the Council which includes both operational golf analysis, plus all sorts of economic analysis for the whole deal, there would be an acoustical study that would specifically study this phenomena of cars going by this house at five in the morning and make a recommendation as to what sort of mitigation is going to be required. That is something that will be coming back to the Council. Mr. Case said the other point that is important to make with their automated irrigation, at night now every homeowner out there that surrounds this golf course hears trucks and people from ten o'clock at night to six in the morning, all night every night driving around doing the coupler sprinkler system. So that will be completely reduced so there are some offsets that are clearly more beneficial than the other way. Commissioner Campbell asked if they could require the employees coming to work to enter from Avenue of the States instead of going through California where all the homes are. If they entered from Avenue of the States and go onto California, the park is there and they really didn't have that many residents. Mr. Case thought that was a great idea. He said they could do that with delivery trucks as well. They could require the trucks that are bringing supplies and things in to use that same entrance. That would really reduce what is there now because they had to go half way through California to get to the maintenance facility now. Chairperson Jonathan asked if anyone wished to speak in FAVOR or OPPOSITION. MS. THERESA PAWLEY, 77-670 California Drive, addressed the commission. She said she was also speaking for her neighbor Bob Peterson, the Petersons were not able to be at the meeting. They asked her to speak on their behalf. She informed commission that their two homes received the dubious distinction of being the most impacted by the location of the maintenance facility and by the proposed access. They have opposed this location with tenacity 44 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION E SUBJTC h - R�VISIO�ECT+i JUNE 1, 2004 in part because of a quote from her attorney. "Act now or forever weep. She wanted to comment on a couple of things Randy said. When the commission asked about the existing location of the maintenance facility and why it didn't just stay, he has always indicated to them that it was too small, but they can't understand that because it is large enough to put 11 homes on, but too small to build a nice maintenance facility on. That was one issue. When he mentioned the night irrigation, she would address that later on as well, but it was her understanding that the night irrigation would continue for the first year until the new irrigation system is installed. So that is a small issue. She felt a little like Paul Harvey and the rest of the story because this is the view point of the neighborhood and she thought they had in excess of 25 letters that will express some of these opinions. The thought of losing or diminishing serenity and peaceful enjoyment of their homes, patios and yards is a great concern to many of them that will be severely effected 365 days a year for the life of their property by the proposed relocation of this enormous facility designed to service a 27-hole golf course. They each paid premium prices for their locations along the 13th and 14th fairways. They did not, and would not, buy a home adjacent to an enormous 150- foot plus or minus by 300 foot maintenance yard with this access steps from existing homeowners for innumerable reasons. Number one, Toss of privacy. Approximately 18 men. They have said between 14 and 18, although the standard for the desert for a low end golf course appears to be one maintenance man per hole. The resort which is closest to them out on Hovley has 18 holes and employs 18 men each day. So 18 men coming and going a minimum of four times daily up and down the fairway going out to work, back for lunch, going out again and back, 365 days is tremendously different than the expected routine of grounds keepers mowing, watering or resting along the fairway, which is absolutely accepted and always has been. Number two is the noise issue. Although against Palm Desert Noise Ordinance Section 9.24.060, residents have never 45 r....m. r .0'a ;;'A SUBJECT 1-(( im REVISION MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 complained about the necessary night watering and the noisy runabouts. However, building this facility at the proposed location with all the noise it entails beginning at 5:00 a.m. isn't acceptable to the residents. As they know, Palm Desert Noise Code Section 9.24.010 reads, "Inadequately controlled noise presents a growing danger to health and welfare of the residents of the city of Palm Desert." Section 9.24.04 states, "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of provisions of this section exists include, but are not limited to, the following. The fifth item listed was the proximity of noise to sleeping quarters; the eight item is the time of day or night the noise occurs. The noise generated because of this facility will begin two to 2.5 hours before the city code allows construction crews to begin their work. The third point is peaceful enjoyment. Section 9.24.010 says each person is entitled to an environment in which the noise is not detrimental to his life, health or enjoyment of property. Number four is the negative impact on property value. In order to sell their homes, even today they would need to disclose the proposed facility and location. Wouldn't it have a similar impact on a potential buyer as it does them? Number five is the access that Randy spoke about. It is truly an issue to them for a number of reasons. A great increase in congestion in an already extremely congested area with a city park, a busy clubhouse rented out each day for activities and on weekends for private parties, weddings and church services, Palm Desert Country Club pools, a dog park and possibly a school in the future and parking for all of the above. At 5:00 a.m. approximately 18 men and their noisy vehicles, they weren't always talking about quiet Hondas here. Golf course equipment, Waste Management trucks and all delivery trucks will begin using this single access. She'd like to note that the Petersons' bed is five feet from this access. The red access that was on Randy's display. Chairperson Jonathan asked Ms. Pawley to bring her comments to a conclusion since she had exceeded her five minutes. 46 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION _ SUBJECT Tr 4 �01 FJ 2Rig Ms. Pawley noted that she was speaking for several people, but she would. She said there was also an issue with flies. The resort next to them has, although they are very conscientious and are a great resort, they have a problem with flies in the plant material. They have it dumped three times a week, but still have an issue. There's also a question of storage of pesticides, diesel fuels, solvents, chemicals and waste products beside the city park and beside their homes. One important issue that hadn't been brought up. At most sites sound drifts and disappears from its point of origin. In this horseshoe location surrounding the 13th and 14th fairways, sound has always seemed to be contained within the area. She learned only recently that the noise for example of a basketball bouncing in the park is as loud in the homes midway down the 13th fairway, the homes along Michigan, as it is in her living room, a fraction of that distance. Sound reacts more like an amphitheater which their homes are unfortunately a part of. She believed this was another reason, consciously or unconsciously, they fear the ongoing noise of the maintenance facility. When she left for the Planning Department last Friday, they were working with the poles and flagging the area. When she got home late that afternoon the poles were gone. They were put in again the next morning. But in 24 years of construction, she has never had poles stolen on a project, even when they were required to stand for six months. When she asked her neighbors why the poles weren't there, they said that the developer was afraid they would be stolen. It was a three-day weekend and so many people were out of town they didn't a chance to see the poling. She could only assumed that the poles would be reinstated and left in place for a reasonable period. Homeowners not currently in the valley have requested photographs of the poling. Another issue is that the Petersons requested that the potential eight -foot wall just beyond their property line be poled. Randy Case said that this poling would not be necessary, but the Petersons did not concur. The Petersons in two letters in their conversations reiterate that they absolutely object to the relocation of the maintenance facility. Should the City Council rule upon the 47 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 D irk‘i AF - R��I SUBJECT T( Si0i�! relocation of this facility against the homeowners wishes, the Petersons will then explore their meager alternatives of the wall and the windows that Randy talked about. Homeowners on both sides of California and Michigan greatly resent the relocation of this facility without any notification to the residents. They continue to believe that this residential area is the wrong place to build a maintenance yard considering the vehicles and equipment that it will generate seven days a week. The proposed access between the Petersons' home and an extremely busy park with children coming and going, roller blades, skate boards and bikes throughout the day is a huge problem. It remains to be seen if alternatives to the access will work. The homeowners' singular hope is that Planning Commission's recommendation to the City Council will reflect the variety of concerns they have listed in more than 25 letters delivered to the commission. She thanked them for their time. MR. SCOTT JOHNSON, 77-150 Florida Avenue, addressed the commission. He said he has been director of golf at Palm Desert Country Club for ten years now and a homeowner there for 12. He wasn't going to speak tonight, but he only came in fear that what happened just happened. Theresa stands up there and says that she speaks for that community. Knowing that, he went out this weekend and put those poles up and he put them up and down three times in fear that they would be stolen at night. They had two break ins in their cart barn and had six carts stolen this week, just this week alone. They could check the police reports. They have out of bound stakes thrown in that lake that they live on, number 13. The kids come out, they pull them out and they even concreted them in and they dug them out and threw them in. The poles being stolen was not something they didn't want to expend the cost on again of having to go out and buy more poles, measure them, they measured them at every foot, taped them so people could see the actual height, they were marked every one foot so people could see the actual height, if the commission was out there. Chairperson Jonathan said they were out there. 48 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 r ,.,, r -- f _ SUBJECT Tr Li 'AREVISION Mr. Johnson said that's why they did that. He believed they were handed signatures that he went out and got this week. They were from the horseshoe that she talked about the commission getting 25 letters from in favor of them moving the maintenance yard there. He walked door to door and one of the homeowners is here now that lives over there. He did, however, have two people who said they did not want to sign. He told them that was perfectly fine, they were entitled in their opinion. But he didn't want to come here tonight and have the commission believe that all those homeowners back there in the horseshoe are against this, because they are not and they are the most effected people by this because they all look directly at it. The two end homes were not home and they were not able to get to those. He went back there this morning and one was a renter and the renter did not want to sign, they wanted the homeowner to sign. So he would get that one to them. Regarding traffic, right now they have eight maintenance workers. Not 18, they have eight. He has five irrigators that come in and they are there from 12:00 a.m. until 8:00 a.m. They live in Indio and come down the suggested path anyway. They come in from Avenue of the States. They go by Theresa's house every morning now as it is. Her house is closer to the street than it will be to the entrance way that they will be going into. He goes by Theresa's house every day. He goes and gets coffee and opens up the shop every day at 5:30 in the morning. The park itself is noisy now as it is anyway with kids playing basketball and skate boarding. It's nothing more than what they are going to have now. Their maintenance workers do not go in and outover and over. They come in once at 4:30 a.m. and leave at 2:30 p.m. Their irrigators come in at 12:00 a.m. and leave at 8:00 a.m. Hopefully a year from now they wouldn't have that. The homeowner's building, he is a home owner there. He checked the schedule and last year it was rented out ten times. Not busy every day with birthdays and weddings. Ten times in a year it was rented. So concerning undue traffic, the traffic goes by that place every day now. There aren't any more cars that will be going by 49 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 DRAFTSUBJECT T( - _ RiVISICA there. The trucks that deliver their stuff to the maintenance yard had to go that way anyway because they weren't allowed to come up Elkhorn or past the school on Warner Trail. So the trucks come in that way any way and go by her house. The trucks don't come at 5:30 in the morning, most of the deliveries and pick ups from Waste Management are between the hours of ten and two. He just wanted to let them know that the whole community isn't against the project. Everybody that lives in that facility in that area is not against the project. In fact, if they checked those addresses, according to the map that is almost every house in that horseshoe. From where the old green starts where the lake is all the way through, if they counted the amount of homes that are there, they would match those signatures and they could call any one of them. MS. LOU CLUB, 43-035 Texas Avenue, addressed the commission. She said she also has a property on Michigan Drive. She has it rented to a close friend of hers and is there almost on a daily basis. She has sat in that house when they are playing basketball games late at night and if they are sitting out on the patio they can hear the basketball. If they are in the house with the door shut, they can't hear it. Anybody who bought property on California Drive, and she had been in the Palm Desert Country Club area for 21 years and she was in real estate sales as a broker for ten years and before that ten years as a sales person, anybody buying a home on California Drive knows it's a through street from one main thoroughfare to another. If they didn't want the traffic, they shouldn't have moved there in the first place. She didn't see any reason not to have the maintenance building where it is designed to be now. She thanked the commission. There was no one else wanting to address the commission. Chairperson Jonathan asked for commission comments. Having been at the location today, Commissioner Campbell thought this was the best place for this facility. The park is right there and the way it is going to be landscaped and bermed, she didn't think any of the neighbors would have any objections. The home that is right there by the road that will be the entrance to the maintenance yard, it will be quite an 50 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION c, - '' SUBJECT Tf �` R V1SiON JUNE 1, 2004 improvement having an eight -foot wall and having new windows put on. She thought it would increase the property value for that particular home. Commissioner Lopez asked for confirmation that they were just to provide comments. Chairperson Jonathan concurred. Their comments would be on record and the Council could do with those comments as they wish. Commissioner Lopez thought the overall project itself, that of moving the new greens, moving the tee and adding in the maintenance yard building would work great. Feeling comfortable with what these folks are telling them regarding how it will be landscaped and bermed he thought would work out just fine. He was more inclined to go with Alternative 1 as an access, only from the stand point it would move it a little farther away from the residents that are right there and there might be some opportunity then to utilize that area around there for a small dog park or the location for the restroom. It was an opportunity to move it farther away from the residents. That would be his personal opinion as to the access location. Overall, he thought the location and the project itself would be very nice. Commissioner Tschopp thought there was no argument that the existing maintenance facility is a dump and needs to be improved. In looking at the different alternatives, he thought this was actually the best alternative. The road as proposed that was the original location of the access road if the maintenance shed is built there is still the best, most viable use of that piece of property. What the developer is proposing for the wall and windows for the owner of the house next door will work out very well for the owner and should mitigate most of the noise. He also thought that if the landscape is done and maintained properly around the maintenance shed there will be very little and limited visual impact to the residents and will actually enhance some of that area. They might even find it decreases some of the noise from the park and the rest of the Palm Desert Country Club area. The access closer to the main Washington thoroughfare means Tess driving on California, so in some ways there are some indirect benefits that will happen also. He thought overall given the different alternatives this was the very best one and if done properly would actually enhance and work very well for the neighborhood. 51 MINUTES PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION A rT SUBJECT 11. m REVISION JUNE 1, 2004 Commissioner Finerty concurred. The selling point for her was to take the existing traffic and bring it in through Avenue of the States. That is a great indirect benefit for everyone else. She was not entirely sold on the project anyway. She still had an issue with taking open space and converting it to more houses. She also thought that when they purchase a home and they are next to a driveway or open land, you never know what it is you're going to get. Same goes for purchasing on California, so choosing a location not in this area would have prevented the problem. She didn't know what the compensation would be as far as the eight - foot wall and the double paned windows with regard to possibly being awakened every morning. She wasn't certain that was going to mitigate all of the noise. Seemed like there still may be existing noise and would still be an existing problem. She thought it still might be an issue for that home owner to try and sell the home. She wasn't sure what impact this would have on the property values. Chairperson Jonathan said he actually could see some benefit to the present location for the maintenance facility. They didn't have drawings or renderings and hadn't gotten into a precise plan, so he took it on face value that the current location would not facilitate a facility. If it did, he saw some advantages because there are already structures and it would be Tess objectionable. It would maintain the open space by the park and there are a number of benefits. On the other hand, there is an opportunity to remove some traffic from that area, so he is taking it on face value that the existing location will not facilitate the requirements for the new maintenance facility. Given that, then the proposed location makes eminent sense. It is an unused area that is largely tucked away and will be relatively invisible when the landscaping matures with proper maintenance. The only down side he could see was on one residence and that is important. In that regard, he thought that Alternative 1 in terms of access, he tended to agree with Commissioner Lopez. That could make a lot of sense. He was out there today and couldn't recall if the end of that park is already a doggie park or not. Mr. Drell said that is the one open play area. He didn't think they would want to put a dog park there. The impact of a dog park would be far greater from a number of senses. Chairperson Jonathan said he didn't mean to get into the redesign of the park, but if the design of the park facilitated the proper use of that end 52 MINUTES DRAFT - SUBJECT Tr REVISION PALM DESERT PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 1, 2004 piece, then the Alternative 1 access would make logical sense because they would be avoiding the only negative impact in his mind of locating the maintenance facility in that place. If not and it messed up the park, then he thought the proposed red access road would be acceptable with the mitigations being proposed. He asked if there were any other comments for Council on this matter. Commissioner Tschopp said that a lot of times they look at the value of the open space and they certainly take into consideration the homeowner's right. At the same time homeowners have to be aware when they buy a house next to an access road that it probably means that something will be developed at the end of that access road and that the access road some day might be used. So on both sides of the proverbial fence they have to take a clear look. Mr. Drell said they had comments and if the commission was so inclined they could make a recommendation. Chairperson Jonathan said the Council asked them for comments and would defer to his fellow commissioners, but he was comfortable leaving it at that and letting them read the comments. Mr. Drell said they could glean what a recommendation might be. Chairperson Jonathan asked if that was acceptable to the commission. They said yes. Chairperson Jonathan thanked staff for the suggestion and thanked those attending for spending their time. The commission really valued their input. Action: None. C. Case No. VAR 04-01 - SUZANNE LOPEZ, Applicant Request for adoption of a resolution approving a variance to allow the reduction of a required minimum front yard setback from 20 feet to 17 feet to allow construction of a carport at 45-807 Portola Avenue. Mr. Drell explained that the reason why this was originally presented as a resolution to Council was because staff anticipated the appeal of the architectural issue to Council. The applicant was withdrawing the appeal 53 CITY CLERK'S OFFICE PALM DESERT. CA 2001i JUN 24 AM 11: 58 Date: June 22, 2004 To: Mr. Mayor and Members of City Council From: Ethel Curie RE: Proposed relocation of the Maintenance Facility and Access from CA. Dr. I am firmly opposed to the relocation of the Maintenance Yard and Access to it off California Dr. It will significantly bring even more noise pollution into my home. My home had just been remodeled before I bought it, with beautiful French doors across the golf course side of the house. Can you imagine all the maintenance equipment and vehicles for a 27 hole course, going up and down the fairway each morning beginning at 5 am just outside these French doors? Congestion is already a problem in our neighborhood. You are aware of the constant community activities at the Association buildings, the City of Palm Desert Park, the dog park, the Association Pool and parking lot. I don't see any safe access to the proposed Facility considering the number of children going and coming from the park on California at all hours. I would not have purchased a home in this location had there been a Maintenance Yard in the proposed location. Should the City Council decide that the Maintenance Yard must be moved from its location of 40+ years, to the 14th fairway (against homeowner's wishes), access must be kept away from homes! Thank you for weighing our concerns. Sincerely Curie Ethel 77-660 California Dr. .77_6 7e, 044 '/J 722, G Letter to City Council for tonight's meeting Page 1 of 1 Michelson, Wilma From: Green, Lola [Lola.Green@gcinc.com] Sent: Thursday, June 24, 2004 3:17 PM To: CityhallMail Subject: Letter to City Council for tonight's meeting Wilma, Attached is the June 24th letter (PDCC6) and the attachment to the letter (PDCC5) for tonight's meeting. Thanks again for all of your efficiency. Lola Green «PDCC6.doc» «PDCC5.doc» ca AGENDA PACKET anon T m XjJ%/ - 6 wow DATE t - - Y.- b 4/ 6/24/2004 June 24, 2004 Palm Desert City Council: Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Jean M. Benson, Councilmember Jim Ferguson, Councilman Richard S. Kelly, Councilman City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 RE: June 24, 2004 Public Hearing Objection to Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Proposed Zoning Change Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 and DA 04-01 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, Yesterday, June 23, we became aware of a June 18, 2004 Palm Desert Redevelopment Agency report concerning the PDCC. There are several issues of concern in the report. 1. The study mentions "constraints of confidentiality requested by the developer''. Has an objective party reviewed the scope of the confidentiality to determine that this is NOT essential information for the community to know? What further information is being denied those who will be negatively impacted by this project? 2. The developer is receiving IRS and State of California tax credits on this project, which we believe is the State of California Land Conservation/Preservation, 55% credit and the IRS conservation credit. We question the ethicality of taking land that has been dedicated in perpetuity for over 40 years, reducing it in size and taking government money to preserve it. This golf course is fragmented, it will not protect endangered species or species of concern and it is not conservation in nature. It is a privately owned, for —profit golf course. The Coachella Valley multi species habitat conservation plan does not consider this to be land that will meet the goals of habitat conservation. Additionally, the land and/or conservation easement, is being dedicated to an unknown agency that will have approval from the Wildlife Conservation Board. None of this information has been made public and is of great 1 concern to the residents of PDCC. An easement of this nature affords certain rights and privileges to the conservation easement holder. What are these stipulations and rights? We, as a community, have a right to know and it is vital to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) process that the public be allowed to comment on the actual scope and nature of the project that is being considered for approval and not just on the parts of the project that the developer wishes to disclose at his convenience. 3. It is our belief that the owner of the golf course and his business partners have not been forthcoming in describing the true impacts of the project. The developer has made bold claims that they have contacted all the residents, gone door-to-door, and have addressed the serious concerns of the PDCC. After five public letters and comments to the Planning Commission and City Council, I have yet to be contacted by the developer. They have carefully picked and chosen those to whom they contact to build their one-sided case. CEQA is not intended to work in this manner. CEQA is intended to afford a fair and unbiased assessment of ALL the project impacts, to ALL the parties who will be affected by the project. Please refer to the attached June 16, 2004 letter and the many alarming, unethical and unjust elements of this project. We, ask, once again, as one of the 1,000 homeowners who are not on the golf course who will receive the negative impacts without benefit of mitigation from the developer, that you vote a resounding "NO" on this project. Thank you. Sincerely, /s/Richard & Lola Green Richard and Lola Green 42025 Tennessee Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Email: lola.green@earthlink.net 2 June 16, 2004 Palm Desert City Council: Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Jean M. Benson, Councilmember Jim Ferguson, Councilman Richard S. Kelly, Councilman City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 RE: June 24, 2004 Public Hearing Objection to Palm Desert Country Club (PDCC) Proposed Zoning Change Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 and DA 04-01 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, We feel the need to write an additional letter because it is apparent from numerous conversations with PDCC homeowners that the central issues are being obscured due to a very intense marketing campaign to residents who live on the golf course and to city officials. If this project is denied, the owner, Mr. Cho, will be forced to sell this business at the market value. Since Mr. Cho has allowed the assets and equity in his business to degrade during the three years he's been in charge, the business will sell for a substantial discount from the $4 million he paid for it. (Note: It is fortunate that Mr. Cho's company is not a public company or the Enron -type stockholders would be left holding the bag on this debacle.) The new owner will purchase the property at a price (perhaps $2 - $3 million) where the business plan makes sense, i.e., where he/she can make a profit. The golf course can be profitable if bought at the right price, with the proper upkeep and with advertising. In this scenario, the current owner who has created the chaos, will pay for his own business mismanagement. It is not appropriate or desirable to bail out the business partners who have knowingly created this turmoil at the expense of the residents of this 1,800 home development. If Mr. Cho decides to retain ownership and continue the degrading of the golf course, the local and state agencies can easily use the public nuisance laws and hefty fines to force him to comply. 1 In this way, the burden will be placed where it belongs and NOT on the 1,000 homeowners who do not live on the golf course or on the public. Please allow the market forces of our American capitalistic system to work, and do not apply a government "fix" that creates harm and derision for our community. Once again, the 1,000 PDCC homeowners/renters that do NOT live on the golf course (over 50% of the residents) and the public will receive most of the negative consequences of this proposed development by obstructing the beautiful, public open -space views. For the 1,000 homeowners who do not have a view of the golf course from their living room, the open spaces along the golf course (California, Tennessee, New York, Wyoming, Kansas, Warner Trail, etc.) create tremendous value and are part of the PDCC covenant and intent of our development. Please do not degrade the quality of life in our area. Please vote "NO" on this ill-conceived project that unfairly and disproportionately targets residents off the golf course. Please feel free to call us at our home (760) 360-1114, at any time. Thank you. Sincerely, /s/Richard & Lola Green Richard and Lola Green 42025 Tennessee Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Email: lola.green©earthlink.net 2 AGENDA PACKET -� SECTIOM 04/394 (:=2):::) GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS June 21, 2004 7c:N G 't 2004 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT T CITY OF PALM DESERT ACOUSTICAL ANALYSIS MAINTENANCE FACILITY CITY O F PALM DESERT Prenared_bPrepared for: Gorton Bricken President /mmb MR. RANDY CASE PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC 601 South Figueroa, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, California 90017 1621. East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, Califomia 92705-8518 Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 1 04/394 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS SUMMARY This analysis has been completed to determine the noise exposure and the necessary mitigation measures for the access driveway to the new maintenance facility. Details are discussed in the body of the report. A. NOISE IMPACTS The study examined the' impacts, of employee use of the driveway, occasional delivery trucks and trash trucks. The study found that with the proposed eight foot (8') high wall along the residential side of the driveway, the project would comply with both the daytime and nighttime limits of the City's Noise Ordinance. The trash trucks would comply only with the daytime limits. B. ADDITIONAL MITIGATION It is recommended that trash pickups only occur between 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, Califomia 92705-8518 Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 2 04/394 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of the noise impact of the access driveway for the proposed maintenance facility for the Palm Desert Country Club located in the City of Palm Desert. A vicinity map showing the general location of the center is presented on Exhibit 1 -- Site Location Map. The locations of the existing and proposed facility are also shown on Exhibit 1. 2.0 DESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT The existing maintenance facility is located near New York Avenue and Connecticut Street. The existing facility houses equipment and materials as shown on Exhibits 2 and 3. The proposal is to relocate the maintenance facility to a portion of the golf course shown in the upper photo on Exhibit 4. Access to the facility is off California Drive, which is a residential street as shown in the lower photo on Exhibit 4. The relocated facility site plan is shown.on Exhibit 5. Access from California Drive is via a driveway shown on this plan. The view of the driveway looking from California Drive is shown in the upper photo on Exhibit 6. To the left, is an existing residential lot and house. To the right, is a City Park. The view looking back from the golf course toward California Drive is shown in the lower photo on Exhibit 6. The rear of the residential lot is a grassed area as can be seen in the upper photo on Exhibit 7. This grassed area blends into the golf course as shown in the lower photo on Exhibit 7. There are no walls or other structure separating this lot from the golf course. The noise impacts to this lot are the focus of this study. 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, Califomia 92705-8518 Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 3 04/394 3.0 APPLICABLE NOISE CRITERIA The City's Noise Ordinance limits the allowable noise at residential uses to the levels given in Table 1. TABLE 1 NOISE LIMITS AT RESIDENTIAL ZONES ONE HOUR AVERAGE TIME SOUND LEVEL 7:00 A.M. to 10:00 P.M. 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. 55 dBA 45 dBA If the ambient noise level without the project is higher than the limits in Table 1, the ambient value becomes the allowed limit. 3.0 EXISTING NOISE LEVELS Measurements were conducted midday at two locations. Location #1 was 40 feet from the centerline of California Drive and Location #2 was 100 feet from the centerline of California Drive. There were no people on the golf course or in the park at the time. The charts are shown on Exhibit 8 and 9. The results are given in Table 2. The equivalent hourly traffic count was 222 cars for Location #1 and 288 for Location #2. TABLE 2 MEASURED NOISE LEVELS AT MIDDAY LOCATION AVERAGE LEVEL #1 58 #2 52 The ambient level is higher than the allowed level of 55 dBA at Location #1 and less than the allowed level at Location #2. The levels will drop at night and may be equal to or slightly higher than the ambient level during this period. The ambient level evidence is not strong enough to suggest adjusting the allowed level to equal the ambient in this report, although there may be times and locations along the driveway where the ambient is higher. 4 04/394 4.0 PROJECT NOISE LEVELS Use of the driveway is limited to employee cars entering and leaving the new maintenance facility each day, an occasional bulk carrier truck and trash pickup. In this case, the trash pickup consists of grass cuttings. The employees come to the site at 5:00 A.M. and leave about 3:00 P.M. The golf course reports a staff of ten to twelve people. Calculations were carried out based on a 15 mile per hour speed in the driveway for a setback of ten feet from the center of the driveway. The calculations are contained in Appendix 1. The employee cars produce an average level of 42.1 dBA. The occasional trucks and the trash pick up produce an average level of 52.6 dBA for a single pass in an hour. However, the trash trucks will enter and leave in a single hour for two movements an hour. In that event, the average level will be three dBA higher, or 55.6 dBA. The employee cars are less than the allowed nighttime limit of 45 dBA and daytime limit of 55 dBA. The occasional trucks are less than the daytime limit of 55 dBA. The trash trucks are slightly higher than the daytime limit of 55 dBA. PDCC proposes to erect an eight foot high wall alongside the driveway on the residential side. The calculations in Appendix 2 indicate that this wall will reduce the noise from the employee cars by about 13 dBA to 27 dBA and the noise from the occasional truck by eight to about 43 dBA. The trash truck noise will be reduced to 46 dBA. Both the cars and occasional trucks will be less than the daytime limit of 55 dBA and the nighttime limit of 45 dBA. The trash trucks will be slightly over the nighttime limit, but less than the daytime limit. While no additional mitigation is needed to comply with the City's Noise Ordinance, it is proposed to install dual pane windows in the house on the driveway side. 5 EXHIBIT 1 SITE LOCATION MAP EXHIBIT 2 MAINTENANCE TRACTOR TRACTOR AND HAUL CARTS EXHIBIT 4 CALIFORNIA DRIVE AirlION/4 SONVNEUNNIVi 8f n° A11 Nf oo llama I IVd NV•1d SdVO8ONVI 011VME -IOS Ilia LOIN" 44 'N 'N v w oI v t tJ 'N it uN Pwit v 0 o) ii if 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 a • I i n<k \sc%(\C t 9 I EXHIBIT 6 ACCESS ROAD LOOKING TOWARD PDCC ACCESS ROAD LOOKING TOWARD CALIFORNIA DRIVE EXHIBIT 7 REAR YARD OF HOUSE VIEW FROM REAR YARD OF HOUSE 0 0 -J C � 0) CO Co 0 (0 10 v 00) CO 00 0 0 0 0 CO1/7co0 et O O I I I I I I I I I I I I co aml W a CHART SPEED Q a W J Q cn LOCATION O m 0 co O 0 1A O : Brae' & Kjeer • , r • N 0 O 0_ 0 1 I I 1 1 1 I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a) CO I� CO 10 a CD CO t� (0 to et o m 0 0 0) m 12. W 0 4.2 00 et O 0 ,- E N CD M Q a W t 0 CHART SPEED W J N LOCATION 0 O 0 m 0 O O 0 et m CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) ao I. Cc LC) et 0 CO N co to et I I I 1 I I I I I I I I ed 1 1 1 1 1 1 I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CA 00 N c0 ' et co 00 N (0 11) et Ca 0 0 0 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS APPENDIX 1 NOISE CALCULATIONS 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, Califomia 92705-8518 Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 HOURLY NOISE LEVEL PROJECT : PDCC STREET NAME : BULK CARRIER TRUCK SITE TYPE : HARD AUTO INPUT DATA METK HVTK SPEED: 0 0 15 % VOLUME: 0 0 100 VOLUME = 1 HVY TRK GRADIENT = 0 DBA NOISE LEVEL AUTO 0.0 MED.TRK. 0.0 HVY.TRK. 45.6 TOTAL 45.6 NOISE LEVEL AT 10 FT AUTO MEDIUM TRK HEAVY TRK TOTAL 0.0 0.0 52.6 52.6 LEQ AT SPECIFIED DISTANCES DISTANCE 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 250 300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 1000 LEQ 45.6 43.8 42.6 41.6 40.8 40.2 39.6 38.6 37.8 37.2 36.6 36.1 35.6 35.2 34.8 34.5 34.1 33.8 33.6 32.6 HOURLY NOISE LEVEL PROJECT : PDCC STREET NAME : ENTRY OR LEAVING CARS SITE TYPE : HARD AUTO INPUT DATA METK ' HVTK SPEED: 15 0 0 % VOLUME: 100 0 0 VOLUME = 12 HVY TRK GRADIENT = 0 DBA NOISE LEVEL AUTO 35.1 MED.TRK. 0.0 HVY.TRK. 0.0 TOTAL 35.1 NOISE LEVEL AT 10 FT AUTO MEDIUM TRK HEAVY TRK TOTAL 42.1 0.0 LEQ AT SPECIFIED DISTANCES DISTANCE LEQ 50 35.1 75 33.3 100 32.1 125 31.1 150 30.3 175 29.6 200 29.1 250 28.1 300 27.3 350 26.6 400 26.0 450 25.5 500 25.1 550 24.7 600 24.3 650 23.9 700 23.6 750 23.3 800 23.0 1000 22.1 0.0 42.1 GORDON BRICKEN & ASSOCIATES ACOUSTICAL and ENERGY ENGINEERS APPENDIX 2 BARRIER CALCULATIONS 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K Santa Ana, California 92705-8518 Phone (714) 835-0249 FAX (714) 835-1957 J BARRIER NOISE REDUCTION ANALYSIS,WALL HEIGHT VARIABLE REFERENCE VEHICLE LEVELS AT 50 FEET AUTO = 35 M.TRUCK = 0 H.TRUCK = 0 PROJECT PDCC DESCRIPTIONEMPLOYEES SOURCE ELEVATION 0 RECEIVER ELEVATION 0 BARRIER ELEVATION 0 RECEIVER HEIGHT 5 DISTANCE TO SOURCE 10 DISTANCE TO RECEIVER.. 5 AUTO NOISE LEVEL 40.22879 M.TRK NOISE LEVEL 5.228788 H.TRK NOISE LEVEL 5.228788 SOURCE NOISE LEVEL 40.23 ANGULAR CORRECTION(DB) - 0 WALL HEIGHT ANL MTNL. HTNL TNL TIL 0.00 40.23 5.23 5.23 40.23 -0.00 FN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.00 40.23 5.23 5.23 40.23 -0.00 FN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.00 40.23 5.23 5.23 40.23 -0.00 FN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.00 40.23 5.23 5.23 40.23 -0.00 FN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.00 34.64 5.23 5.23 34.65 5.58 FN 0.0524 0.0000 0.0000 5.00 32.87 -1.03 5.23 32.88 7.35 FN 0.3556 0.1430 0.0000 6.00 30.53 -3.14 5.23 30.55 9.68 FN 0.9292 0.5718 0.0000 7.00 28.46 -5.44 -1.01 28.47 11.77 FN 1.7539 1.2678 0.1378 8.00 26.80 -7.33 -2.97 26.81 13.42 FN 2.7940 2.1950 0.5335 9.00 25.48 -8.82 -5.14 25.49 14.74 FN 4.0090 3.3117 1.1553 10.00 24.59 %-10.00 -6.95 24.60 15.63 FN 5.3615 4.5792 1.9713 BARRIER NOISE REDUCTION ANALYSIS,WALL HEIGHT VARIABLE REFERENCE VEHICLE LEVELS AT 50 FEET AUTO = 0 M.TRUCK = 0 H.TRUCK = 45.6 PROJECT PDCC DESCRIPTIONDELIVERY TRUCKS SOURCE ELEVATION 0 RECEIVER ELEVATION 0 BARRIER ELEVATION 0 RECEIVER HEIGHT 5 DISTANCE TO SOURCE 10 DISTANCE TO RECEIVER5 AUTO NOISE LEVEL 5.228788 M.TRK NOISE LEVEL 5.228788 H.TRK NOISE LEVEL 50.82879 SOURCE NOISE LEVEL 50.83 ANGULAR CORRECTION(DB) - 0 WALL HEIGHT ANL MTNL HTNL TNL TIL 0.00 5.23 5.23 50.83 50.83 0.00 FN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.00 5.23 5.23 50.83 50.83 0.00 FN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 2.00 5.23 5.23 50.83 50.83 0.00 FN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.00 5.23 5.23 50.83 50.83 0.00 FN 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 4.00 -0.36 5.23 50.83 50.83 0.00 FN 0.0524 0.0000 0.0000 5.00 -2.13 -1.03 50.83 50.83 0.00 FN 0.3556 0.1430 0.0000 6.00 -4.47 -3.14 50.83 50.83 0.00 FN 0.9292 0.5718 0.0000 7.00 -6.54 -5.44 44.59 44.59 6.24 FN 1.7539 1.2678 0.1378 8.00 -8.20 -7.33 42.63 42.63 8.20 FN 2.7940 2.1950 0.5335 9.00 -9.52 -8.82 40.46 40.46 10.37 FN 4.0090 3.3117 1.1553 10.00 %-10.41 %-10.00 38.65 38.65 12.18 FN 5.3615 4.5792 1.9713 L• h.D CITY ',1_EI.2, _ ;;I;`` � UFFI PM DESERT, CA 21 June 2004 2t 4 `)UN 22 PP1 5: 0 RE: PDCC January 2004 Traffic Analysis Dear Mayor Spiegel and Members of the City Council C C iAGENDA PACKET SECT:CA ..�,y/ MEETING ATE 67 There appears to be a significant omission in the PDCC Traffic Analysis prepared by George Dunn Engineering. Eight intersections surrounding the periphery of PDCC were surveyed (see attachment). However the main entrance, the most congested and obvious intersection at Washington and Ave. of the States was ignored in hundreds of pages of data. This all important corridor accommodates residents, PDCC Clubhouse with 3 to 5 events per day (schedule attached), PDCC pools, the Memorial Rose Garden, the dog park, a future school recently approved by the City of Palm Desert, the Bookmobile once a week, the always bustling Joe Mann Park and the busy parking lot to support these numerous activities. To the above malay, Junelthe Planning Commission added their recommendation of the proposed Maintenance Facility site and specified that ALL Maintenance Facility traffic (14 to 18 grounds keeper's private vehicles, industrial Waste Management trucks, delivery trucks including semi trailers etc.) must all use the Washington / Ave. of the States intersection to reach California and the proposed Maintenance Yard access entrance between the park and the Peterson's home at 77-680 Califomia. City Planning sent me to Mark in Engineering with my queries. After a brief conversation regarding the existing traffic analysis Mark indicated that to his knowledge there was not any other traffic analysis done on PDCC and it looked like a study was needed. Knowingly adding further congestion of industrial and commercial vehicles to the most traffic burdened site in the entire PDCC development seems unconscionable. Residents of this neighborhood know each time we leave our driveways, our children biking, skate boarding, running on the sidewalk along California anxious to reach to the park and pool, are put in jeopardy by our actions. Will the array of maintenance vehicles and all maintenance related traffic share our unending concern, as they pass the park and cross the children's established path to the park and pool?? Six months ago we were helpless as a dog was hit at the corner of the park adjacent to the proposed access to the Maintenance Facility site. It was a reminder of how quickly a life could be lost by a careless second and a driver that doesn't stop after hitting "something large". The boxer surprisingly survived! However even with current congestion levels, fearing for the safety of "our" children is a daily reality. Thank you for consic ng our concerns. sa Pawley 77-670/California • 1. Introduction This traffic study documents the assumptions, methodologies and findings of the traffic analysis conducted for the proposed development within the Palm Desert Country Club in the City of Palm Desert, California. Figure 1 shows the project vicinity. FIGURE 1- PROJECT VICINITY The project will renovate the existing clubhouse, make improvements to the existing golf course, and construct 95 single-family homes within the existing Palm Desert Country Club area. Figure 2 shows the located on the proposed development. Agency Liaison/Study Intersections This report was prepared in conformance with methodologies developed in consultation with engineering staff of the City of Palm Desert. The list of intersections selected for study is provided below. 1. Hovley Lane East/Idaho Street 2. Hovley Lane East/Warner Trail 3. Hovley Lane East/Kansas Street 4. California Drive/New York Avenue 5. Fred Waring Drive/Warner Trail 6. Fred Waring Drive/Elkhorn Trail 7. Fred Waring Drive/Tennessee Avenue 8. Fred Waring Drive/California Drive • �►v� oV "tr'Tr7 GEORGE DUNN ENGINEERING 1 Palm Desert Country Club Project Palm Desert, California Traffic Analysis • • \ji 'A*4 Palm Desert Country Club LAC ZONE 3 • J brUlk. voo. #11110-4111C*01-"VaV.AW,RY.:0* • or '1.1-77"Pititp • '1'r* ticTir,A4111 tziiettemeitifienotime. .fttirasymialkicirai GEORGE DUNN Vrital rt/e4,•64-A•ittv(e•Vifi fticz- %Jost, &frovrAs rivro Vf-ifr‘e 14,9c,_17/4Porit- Val- vigil-- frent-oVvV 9chl•oin, Jaw rtfrv.$ rref-44- 1:444.11.16,- t.,01" Fos- Pre,%1 PALM DESERT t-smt-i-m-v.we.*freAvri'l COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE INPROVEMENT, CLUE NOUSE RENOVATION & RESIDENTIAL PROJECT Phasing Exhibit Phase 1, 85 lots USN Phase 2, 30 lots Total Lot Count 05 lots cevauwit. MCC DINIUMNINT.LLC. Ni SLUM MO WI NOLA CA KIM SISSISMI1414 10011111111. KAMM saasasamollOUJT10101 SPRUCIEW. SUMI IcA USW 1111.7111.061 r vt-N-"W4-1 ENGINEF_-RING Palm Desert Country Club Project Figure 9 r Sand Dune L `c Luma Valley Wyc�, Moroc 0 Rd. �l Kybar Rd. New York Ave 941 Tennessee Av Oklahoma Ave. Kentucky Ave. Caltfomia Dr 1,461 Florida Ave. Minnesota Ave 1,(0 1,224 I,iin% 369 of J 1,031 Fred Waring Dr. LEGEND ADT Count Location )00( ADT Count 3,804 Hovley Ln. E Michigan Dr. California Dr. Mission Dr. Edinburgh St. Delaware Pl. J Mountain View Ave. -J Robin Rd. Tucson Cir s Hidden River Rd. Darby Rd. GEORGE DUNN Palm Desert Country Club Project Figure 6 ENGINEERING Existing (Year 2nnll )" •-' "- 1.13 EL_:. r More Kvbar Rd. New York Ave. _Fatima Valley Rd. 55 (6%) Tennessee Ave. Oklahoma Ave. Kentucky Ave. California Dr 200 (22%) Florida Ave. Fred Warn• Dr. 1 LEGEND ADT Count Location XXX Project Added Daily Volumes (XX%) Percentage of Existing ADT 200 (22%) 73 (8%) 73 (8%) Minnesota Ave. 2 64 (7%) Hovley In. E. Mich! n Dr California Dr Misfit° Dr. Edinbursth I St. Delaware P. Mountain View Ave. 6i 0 Hidden River Rd. CO - Tucson Cir. Robin Rd. 13 CaI s a Darby Rd. Via Gibraltar GEORGE DUNN Palm Desert Country Club Project Figure 20 ENGINEERING Project Added 24-Hour Volumes PDCC Association Current Schedule posted on the activity board 6/20/04 MONDAY: Attitude Adjustment Jazzercise Dance lessons Weight Watchers Board Mtg on 2nd Monday TUESDAY: Attitude Adjustment Bridge AA Mtg WEDNESDAY: Attitude Adjustment Jazzercise Women's AA THURSDAY: Attitude Jazzercise Dance Class FRIDAY: Attitude Adjustment Jazzercise Narcotics Anonymous SATURDAY: Desert School of Self Defense Private parties, weddings, etc PDCC HOA members can reserve SUNDAY: 2 Church Services Private parties, weddings etc Occasional concerts PDCC Association is located on California at Avenue of the States Desert Country Club Association Jun-23-2004 14:59 From -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT 760241T098 AGENDA �F-954 Op p-r,4 _Sill i g SECTION_. ' MEET)N DATE cu I i fra 0 0Bears' a► 4 ss emalLows sarsays, Vista.) Cm. e2085 760 7738 6-112 To it A 7 2 Jely/1914 From: Bob person Date: 4—A3-0"/ Time 0,4 raw 760 7 9-/bJ' Number of pages including this page: .2-- cc Message: + 6ih 44e 01 . ,tt 475 7%gy3 u aJ Q - 14,4 j9is '- • •Pr-e It; G16r&WY A:f *-11404. Aki Cal" rI e 11/G S .4,iir.4 4Vdrewi' ��r1.t91G.G 1�4 Ayr" j9/4 Ji 4'/ 01 it o�-�' 'r Gi .4"44 . /1 014/ Owner Broker Robert L. Peterson Fax! 760%s-g- /th.; 9 Received Jun-23-2004 14:27 From-7607581088: Received Jun-23-04 03:56pm From-7603417096 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 001 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 01 -Q ry to Jun-23-2004 14:59 From -PALM DESERT PUBLIC WORKS DEPT Received Jun-231004 14;1T From-760T j10a9 Received Jun-23-04 03:56pm From-760341TO98 T-719 P.002/002 F-954 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 02 i ay5 $ P F 7a45 istuulliCON REAL r4068 suxutcmt To. o "' % ! o )t 1. m j J j 'a$oes Teo ' ,�a�e1$ C..G JOG... From: BobonPazFax: Date: f/ _ , 49 b Time D .4f0N pages : 760e:%��f3'1�,3 :Y umber of including this pag t SKr d 04'Y SK ho od ' 0,( Am .4.4-47/164 I - -I .5141 Aft lie 01/ rA:f ye / or /4 de leh‘ detl,4- IN*/ die. &lr • .0in+ G� Ctrs✓ 1-.44 Owner Broker Robert 4. Pax: 7GO7S Peterson /4/ Awed. Z+ :1 lard CZ NIT'100Z VO 'l83S30 aflVd 301140 5, k i10 A 110 u A!30.r d ,e 744. ,� `,�,iet4 44-e oi,41/ei 14 mVoie4s.- eh", vr4ho/ fife Moor/y Ater / le 1-e/e 41-94e ialt? Pr/ eir 4*x/ II4 Ale r.• Qv) • 'S 004'7 r4'' ;a ,e14 4,24•01‘, Afi‘. A ,'r /4'15 n;q 8CP ,p o ti 4011 • E et 4 ok l .. ems•--4•`• • .0> �; c tot ♦. fir• • u st i, /M• : O Oti :o•4 • ©a i.•••••••••-•• /=s• O iN �9 O cos• 4o= o. t �Qr t. v 0C 21 1 7, 'grab t 7,57 POR NW l/4 NE 1/4 SEC.13, T5S R 6E tinll P►U U1111{ A1P1S} IP_: £99f 77..5*OflR't _3 BCON 465 Sunset Drive, Vista, C.A. 92083 760 726-1212 To: if44 th ra r my/ e! !!`% -3 // Xly From: Bob Peterson Date: Time Fax: 760 '73 - /03 Number of pages including this page: CC: 4JI/ DtIcY 6dit1 ei#46 444/ r�l R /0(4147 6,4 // be, ii'r46/ l'c' ; .i.+=_..�.-.--:,,iZLV: :,,,,,STST.uvuuwi..... r4SS�u4^Q \tRTvT_�]Sn1.iV�..Yn ( Alit /1.41/c if yr/ I-Kic' # f% /S igioa-- ifaekz2- As' . z -. ‘ 44//,��40old fir �A,, //,� 444#4, ,,,,,Ak 1 Dili,„ ii,e_f, ik t ,,,,,i --(k- si'‘Pe Di- f r n. Message; ll lf/l ,f-f fb / y//', pri// id ma✓ i/J/i/ d'ii-e-- ii/j/c 4 ,, 1,,,x., 44,4,7' 1,e el?" "97k Ail 4e,.//x/ y�' ✓lam✓ • �1/ L S i ;� 6 le-/ &/,iC 6 44�1' ?/, /il& 4/ / ile 4 ill) , f. -,ale '• %$ , it 6A- /4. lea, ,Oldli .d/1vv 477 (r �r0. Ili( 4,fl J�/�f ,6, -4.5 i/e/71', . //Ale ley/ 4k _4/17 171 4,e, 4/74 61/461 ort-i-ni r Ad I 1 y_c i 4./ q7-1-7 es4 4J, iti4 A06 / ilk 0 4".f Md e&Ys ( ,x Owner Broker Robert L. Peterson Fax: 760/'3 - %o.; OCON } 465 Sunset Drive, vista, C.A. 92083 To: / % Q9S‘ry 69Y7 6,e/je/ 7 Fax: From: Bob Peterson ,� /1,n'` 650iX/1/ Pf Fax: 760 7 5 /33 V Date: 6//J9 Number of pages including this page: Time 419---i'4 CC: 760 726-1212 26" - 3II -709' - nese-?-rece .... .__._...__s�3.:r:`3iu'1'-'v�i•.��S�i..^... �. _....�.aa,, ,.,,,,,'w,S,,,,,,, ‘-aelo Message:, Are Adofe of�''41 �+?S 3 7 f L.' 4/� eG AnAt Dom*/ 11-4:0/P /101-4C- GfiGh41 relal 'A?), 'Lien ei/a0":(e' 4 /%?4 J/qr' 4/. AiseCj/l tryylx:f ixe 4oe 0/ 04,4,-Aers 40-se. S'4 ' iJ /,/) th, / dt// i/3cn- fiN front' I/S � Ovr /y/;ojw _ if C of//4 ?/I tie/c- i r ��u- i ' C/' 64-1 d%N.r( G to is_, id i!9/14t'ialK4 /i/ 6 erdA S /Y-001 rAT AWA IYI)f 4J �O /r' / /%/' - 1€ .1 Aro/ 9/1w-- 61J/-4 Owner Broker Robert L. Peterson Pax: 760 AS-8 - /0 .-; 6a,„La,/ Ait,„,, ,„..,,,-„Li /It' 44/1 /744444l.oata ,H /,,, ‘-;-_,76 i'L /e-crrr .1/4.4z' 1,6" ow- �ir /4/6Y--tiose,/,---/‘4Y ri ,z'--6 -/-4- MaLe // /ico, 171--. 10(4 141,4 6z-e-ii,i-d /t4.4 /16-,141t Ail' 6-',',011/ . I i A of ii/,‘4, joi 4e- 4i#4;€1 ,#` 771z--' 61ele ir fig, en / .9.C� //91 �6SSvV�UJ i%w, - ,ei.,, ,6,201/ Aii, ri, k Mri felf•A',IL /bwel i/v- 41 i'leZ3 /1/Al ,,e/a6 4e /of,' i &rig< - 40w/4a AP-e-- -1,- re p-t, e4 r'4411 Ao- I At /4/116K AlCe— ive 404104 "1/1 Aeie 01 --chi A h#/ i,e 41,.- "'kip- -0,1, lifeeki /Vefiii94e -iiiim 146 -ii/7 #,/e- ,a,Vor h .47/ ; /.‘. Y/4i- xviii'; 6 , 7 "Iceics /it-m- ieri, ,i'd 0//'; i 4 A elf -Ce ‘e/e 47-1,-- frte SI Ie7;',i12' 9% /� %%j�oi�s4,y � h-' ii/�aZi ,6G ,on apt ,/�,Yr'7 !�/astts�..ar�� o r � 5�itf Ad �nl�G.k � A Ark. iK,41-iiiite e/te4 ,ofee,r. iv Ile- (1- A",, &hid ileir ide- /14/4#/ri- Aous, -/-1A-e_ zmi-aL(he 6Gl7W 4112 of( 6ti/C/ {yQ L `✓ 7 •iGY,G /A i+..1 Pd! � / / , / v�scs" .d'j*GA, '�i.C� �/d✓ �r, Ov✓ �dt/��w TO : Ala (/ FRO e t ;_ RE: Pro os d 7%7S aS� p Maintenance Building 13th & 14t DATE: May 30, 2004 ti airway PDCC The thought of losing our diminishing serenity and peaceful enjoyment of our homes, patios and gardens is of great concern to those of us that will be severely affected 365 days a year for the life of our property by the proposed building of a maintenance facility for a 27 hole golf course. We each paid premium prices for our location along the 13th and 14th Fairways, with close proximity to our club pools. We did not buy a home adjacent to a 245' by 100'+ maintenance facility with it's only access among our homes for innumerable reasons including: 1. Loss of privacy-18 men coming and going a minimum of 4 times daily (includes returning to yard for lunch), 365 days is tremendously different than the expected routine of grounds keepers mowing, watering, or resting along the fairway which is absolutely excepted. 2. Intolerable Noise --Although against Palm Desert Noise Ordinance Section 9.24.060 residents never complained about necessary nightly watering in noisy runabouts...however building this facility at the proposed location with all the noise it entails beginning at 4:30/5:00 AM just in not acceptable to residents. Palm Desert Noise Control Section 9.24.010 reads: "Inadequately Controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Palm Desert" Section 9.24.040 states: "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists, include, but are not limited to the following: ...#5 The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities... #8 The time of day or night the noise occurs." The noise generated because of this facility will begin 2 to 21/2 hours before the city code allows construction crews to begin work. 3. Peaceful Enjoyment —Section 9.24.010 "Every person is entitled to an environment in which the noise is not detrimental to his life, health or enjoyment of property." 7 4. Negative Impact of property values —In order to sell our homes even today we would need to disclose the proposed Facility.& location. Wouldn'tvhave a similar impact on a potential buyer as it does on us?? ►r 5. ACCESS —A great increase in congestion in an already extremely sf congested area with -a city park, a busy Clubhouse (rented each day for activities and on weekends for private parties/weddings/church services, PDCC pools, a dog park, possibly a school in the future and parking for all the above. Also at 4:30/5:00 AM, approximately 18 men and their noisy vehicles (conservative # for a 18 hole course...PDCC is 27 holes), Golf course equipment, waste management trucks, all delivery trucks etc. will use this singular access. 6. Flies —Palm Desert Resort Country Club on Hoverly is a clean, well organized and run Maintenance Facility. Although they dispose of plant material 3 times a week, the have ex essed concerns re•. ies attracted to plant material Ccr, their yard. �-i.try = a= 7. Storage o des, diesel fuel, solvents, chemicals, waste products, equipment etc. beside a city park and dose to our homes is an additional concern. °-c'_-r4: ',nit'-e- i ��j . CCU- -- 4�E'1--B-- )j I, 7 " 7 i y -ee L-ez- /4 Homeowners were neevverrptifle.d of the proposed relocation of the of the Maintenance Yard. The site was flagged (irrigation size flags - not installed until this weekend), indicating the enormous square footage of this facility. Why were several poles indicating building heights installed and then removed by the next morning?? We believe this residential area is the wrong place to build a Maintenance Yard for the golf course considering the vehicles and equipment that it will generate 7 days a week. Thank you for listening to just some of our concerns regarding the relocation of this facility. We anticipate you will reflect our concerns in your recommendation to the City C uncil. A i ( ( �'r l r -/ - 1,_ , , 1:4t-(,7 (e2: `--eVc -// /l To: Members Planning Department From: Sherry and Bob Kihm RE: Maintenance Budding 13 and 14 Fairway PDCC Date: May 304 2004 This letter is addressing concerns I still have for the location of the proposed maintenance building. I just returned from walking the area of the flagged site. I knew this was a large building, and my belief is this is still the wrong place for a maintenance building for the golf course, especially for the cars and equipment that it will generate during each day's use. 1. Is a maintenance plan for heavy duty equipment usage next to a city park in compliance with the CA Air Resources Board and local Air Quality Management District? In speaking with the PD Parks personnel I was told they did not have a problem with this. When speaking with one of the directors of the Coachella Valley Recreation Dept he said this was not a park under his control but If It were, he would have a problem with this type of facility being placed next to a city park. 2. Golf Course Maintenance areas have a lot of equipment, supplies and various structure materials as well, as plant materials and chemicals sitting around. This is unattractive to homeowners and park patrons. 3. How will management handle the waste products and solvents of the cleaners and chemicals? 4. The location of this facility is a long way from the main clubhouse. It would seem more practical to have the main maintenance building nearer the clubhouse. The current facility is located by the clubhouse and even though it is run down, there is no guarantee the newer faciliy will be maintained any better as the years go by. Most courses that have a facility nearer the club house keep it looking much nicer than those that are located in some off area. 5 Keeping the maintenance building in the same area as currently located keeps down some of the costs of new wiring, new plumbing and sewers, additional grading of road entrances and walls. It would not be creating environmental problems to park users and homeowners. 6. A fence around the current park area has not been maintained. Vandalism occurs on the golf course by people who use this area as an extended play area. What's to prevent the same activities from occuring to a maintenance building placed here/ Thank you for reading these comments. We strongly urge the planning committee and the city council to veto this building at the site of the 14th teebox. 61 01- k 11•A• F t4 C4---UP V.-A/ 5 • 4 s. n • ..„ . _ • -it • _ ; _ • . ere / • „;••• . • // : • •••••-• - ••;•• • - •-• t '17 .`" t.iily.f.., (.......„,....:,, ....,•,:. ,....• i .7._„...,......_,,...1...,/, ../t1.../. : ' 1. • , - C71. ......e.i;---..........- .. .. ,. ' . ? ./. _—_ 6>—?....c....--;„ 1_,..-../..___ . 1,/,:........--, • •_e_....,..„ , • . . k /7- • y /7 ' ; ••• /L. / 1. ' .r . / 4/ ..... C--,-- , - ) I ./ 2 - 41.1.--/ ..i-y• / 4'7,e'.4.-/•••* -1* r 6 '7 -2 ,/ / // I )) L „� ' ^c' ! ). 4 CU i ) 146 FROM',ruelk.,i-- StaVVI Ps4D qa121. RE: Proposed MainteninceBuilding 13th & 14th Fairway PDCC DATE: May 30, 2004 The thought of losing our diminishing serenity and peaceful enjoyment of our homes, patios and gardens is of great concern to those of us that will be severely affected 365 days a year for the life of our property by the proposed building of a maintenance facility for a 27 hole golf course. We each paid premium prices for our location along the 13th and 14th Fairways, with close proximity to our club pools. We did not buy a home adjacent to a 245' by 100'+ maintenance facility with it's only access among our homes for innumerable reasons including: 1. Loss of privacy-18 men coming and going a minimum of 4 times daily (includes returning to yard for lunch), 365 days is tremendously different than the expected routine of grounds keepers mowing, watering, or resting along the fairway which is absolutely excepted. 2. Intolerable Noise --Although against Palm Desert Noise Ordinance Section 9.24.060 residents never complained about necessary nightly watering in noisy runabouts...however building this facility at the proposed location with all the noise it entails beginning at 4:30/5:00 AM just in not acceptable to residents. Palm Desert Noise Control Section 9.24.010 reads: "Inadequately Controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Palm Desert" Section 9.24.040 states. "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists, include, but are not limited to the following:...#5 The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities... #8 The time of day or night the noise occurs." The noise generated because of this facility will begin 2 to 21/2 hours before the city code allows construction crews to begin work. 3. Peaceful Enjoyment —Section 9.24.010 "Every person is entitled to an environment in which the noise is not detrimental to his life, health or enjoyment of property." 4. Negative Impact of property values —In order to sell our homes even today we would need to disclose the proposed Facility & location. Wouldn'tthave a similar impact on a potential buyer as it does on us?? 5. ACCESS —A great increase in congestion in an already extremely congested area with a city park, a busy Clubhouse (rented each day for activities and on weekends for private parties/weddings/church services, PDCC pools, a dog park, possibly a school in the future and parking for all the above. Also at 4:30/5:00 AM, approximately 18 men and their noisy vehicles (conservative # for a 18 hole course...PDCC is 27 holes), Golf course equipment, waste management trucks, all delivery trucks etc. will use this singular access. 6. Flies —Palm Desert Resort Country Club on Hoverly is a clean, well organized and run Maintenance Facility. Although they dispose of plant material 3 times a week, the have expressed concerns re: flies attracted to plant material @ their yard. 7. Storage of pesticides, diesel fuel, solvents, chemicals, waste products,. equipment etc. beside a city park and close to our homes is an additional concern. Homeowners were never notified of the proposed relocation of the of the Maintenance Yard. The site was flagged (irrigation size flags not installed until this weekend), indicating the enormous square footage of this facility. Why were several poles indicating building heights installed and then removed by the next morning?? We believe this residential area is the wrong place to build a Maintenance Yard for the golf course considering the vehicles and equipment that it will generate 7 days a week. Thank you for listening to just some of our concerns regarding the relocation of this facility. We anticipate you will reflect our concerns in your recommendation to the City Council. LG rfr - -t r U ``( eeJur.xz.+, /p-*soc1.1-149r-L /3 (o 1-4f-4 rft 4-% Pfr)6 : 34-1-- 1016 * e 1 ' F1-$ exrzr- \lory. Trir- r,Ly'v— U iti' cau L�- Ti-cp'= r c- -e,G4-T ' t-1 I F &e'L,. - �.ocv f, L" t�•T�r1 -sc-ems t.n -to iv,[4 *- t . Lo J6.Tti e-15`t-th - V: " G.ov .(fr-4.-ue orra -fl41V F LU C,d TLc i o - .-v T t v-+e__ To &d t t7v tr r f 4 0 t" i its-Trfre.o T Ta4 n4t9 c, no t-1 i eet z.+1 f t� —M r'rat 1-A-F-1/ e-048-Te bY7 t7 *t -vr fre- a fPt7 /c- 1 Mi-tve-►}i---` vs 'To c tt l.L. . r' rt- (-4 rfrc-A- 12 ,6-Fr4A- 6 "t' 1. - rt..a - a► ¶ (--&1-1 r r'+ t vUtz- 'vZo vie- r`t. zpv►z .4401.1 t',7 t - - t- `ice rget t'tt M fk,--L-rt-tJogul- 't Lt !t pip- its peTY ►-'t -r ;i He .t7T i*4-1z2. • SiP� tssc } - r.1rte -t-tL %/2" PION , l .tr t J t•Ll •s' , t tJ 011991-V TO f!-N(17, girl'©Q� ... T'> Lt•3 �t`1Cr' i4 r— Pvr-- 11a C7 • 4411 - t4fr4 Tr4.1,1 24- 112-11)-j fe.c.rvz,r1 v4fr, r•-/A-1( uv--1 tarvi.c) -re I-1 ok-1 Vooltiole1/41/6-%te 1J1- Tr, ar-44, 1-- to rttr fr -4.6( 6Prt4roo:rto 1.1 • r.5.114-W-Tt tive'ck evr 4 VA-4)41- LiVrr (71 j T2> c,1--ekg-÷ e.rzv fr-ir.it-T V34.1" .4c-rat%' 1-116-01—, autvrof met-Lip/poi-47(T t-1--trtr> 1-1 a= ••,- r", E./ G.../ 1. t i = _ C...••••••• L....7_ "...I. ...sr•-•• it.••=0„..•*...., A VA F-- f't „... „ to • •i're-AtIr 44, 0 i-11-r t,r.frr-1-1 riz-or1,0*A )-40-v-ptt.s&-- (_ 1(7 t-v-12-} 1-0 - -ft 6'tt) TDpJCA-t Pelz‘f 1.-c,t- vep‘c. 1srm2- esirit-ite)N1 . 1:Zery: rc isrtr-tel— F--freAvAl-<( rizorer2 tz-rAdeprOzT-Loo ,e4-12-evex A017 frivsa,T iece-t-417 frt5t9vr, garCt.el-list3 -n-kpi *ult.) - .t, et--) raK 77-6 3a C414 3 ys- / ,S TO: FROM: Kam-Z,244,44 RE: Proposed Maintenance Building 13th & 14th Fairway PDCC DATE: may 30, 2004 The thought of losing our diminishing serenity and peaceful enjoyment of our homes, patios and gardens is of great concern to those of us that will be severely affected 365 days a year for the life of our property by the proposed building of a maintenance facility for a 27 hole golf course. We each paid premium prices for our location along the 13th and 14th Fairways, with close proximity to our club pools. We did not buy a home adjacent to a 245' by 100'+ maintenance facility with it's only access among our homes for innumerable reasons including: 1. Loss of privacy-18 men coming and going a minimum of 4 times daily (includes returning to yard for lunch), 365 days is tremendously different than the expected routine of grounds keepers mowing, watering, or resting along the fairway which is absolutely excepted. 2. Intolerable Noise --Although against Palm Desert Noise Ordinance Section 9.24.060 residents never complained about necessary nightly watering in noisy runabouts...however building this facility at the proposed location with all the noise it entails beginning at 4:30/5:00 AM just in not acceptable to residents. Palm Desert Noise Control Section 9.24.010 reads: "Inadequately Controlled noise presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of the residents of the City of Palm Desert" Section 9.24.040 states: "The characteristics and conditions which should be considered in determining whether a violation of the provisions of this section exists, include, but are not limited to the following: ...#5 The proximity of the noise to sleeping facilities... #8 The time of day or night the noise occurs." The noise generated because of this facility will begin 2 to 21/2 hours before the city code allows construction crews to begin work. 3. Peaceful Enjoyment —Section 9.24.010 "Every person is entitled to an environment in which the noise Is not detrimental to his life, health or enjoyment of property." /' 4. Negative Impact of property values —In order to sell our homes even todr / we would need to disclose the proposed Facility.& location. Wouidn'tvhave a similar impact on a potential buyer as it does on us?? 5C 5. ACCESS --A great increase in congestion in an already extremely congested area with a city park, a busy Clubhouse (rented each day for activities and on weekends for private parties/weddings/church services, PDCC pools, a dog park, possibly a school in the future and parking for all the above. Also at 4:30/5:00 AM, approximately 18 men and their noisy vehicles (conservative # for a 18 hole course...PDCC is 27 holes), Golf course equipment, waste management trucks, all delivery trucks etc. will use this singular access. 6. Flies —Palm Desert Resort Country Club on Hoverly is a clean, well organized and run Maintenance Facility. Although they dispose of plant material 3 times a week, the have expressed concerns re: flies attracted to plant material @ their yard. 7. Storage of pesticides, diesel fuel, solvents, chemicals, waste products,. equipment etc. beside a city park and close to our homes is an additional concern. Homeowners were never notified of the proposed relocation of the of the Maintenance Yard. The site was flagged (irrigation size flags not installed until this weekend), indicating the enormous square footage of this facility. Why were several poles indicating building heights installed and then removed by the next morning?? We believe this residential area is the wrong place to build a Maintenance Yard for the golf course considering the vehicles and equipment that it will generate 7 days a week. Thank you for listening to just some of our concerns regarding the relocation of this facility. We anticipate you will reflect our concerns in your recommendation to the City Council. a .x.. t 1 a c.3 /21-80g o 4/1 Tt 01--1 7 06/21/2004 11:20 FAX 949 923 6192 THE KEITH COMPANIE 2.. 0 AGENDA PACKET IZiool OFFICE Facsimile Date: June 21, 2004 Project; To: Rochelle, City Clerk, City of Palm Desert Promo: Annette DiMaggio Fax: 760-340-0574 Fax! 949.923.6192 Pages: 3 (including this sheet) SE£TI3i MEETING DATE (-1) f1 Tit • CC: Re: PDCC Lot #399 reconsideration • Urgent ❑ Othcr: ❑ For approval ❑ Por your use ❑ As requested ❑ For review & comment Rochelle, Please forward attached letter to the Mayor and City Council Members as soon as possible today. I greatly appreciate your assistance. Thank: you, tte DiMaggio mailto: annettejdimaggio@keithco.corr phone: 949.923.6098 or 714.488.6382 If you have any problems with this fax, please call 949.923.6098 77te document being faxed IS Intended only for the use of the individual or entity to which k is addressed end may contain information that Is privileged, confidenlaf and axamot from disclosure under applceble law. If the reader of this message is not the Intended recipient or the employee or agent brponrJble for delivering the message to ma Intended recipient you are nereoy notified that dissemination, distribution or copying of th/s communication it giddy, prohibited. If you have received this co n nunication In error, please notify us immediately by telephone end return the original to us et the eddmga on the right via Untied Steles Rostaf Service Received Jun-21-04 11:29am From-949 923 6192 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 01 19 Technology Irvine California 92019 L' 849,923.6000 www.keitheo.eom 06/21/2004 11:20 FAX 949 923 6192 THE KEITH COMPANIES E1002 June 21, 2004 Palm Desert Mayor and City Council Palm Desert Civic Center 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, CA 92260 ATTN: Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor, City of Palm Desert Buford Crites, Mayor Pro Tenn, City of Palm Desert Jean Benson.. Councilmember, City of Palm Desert Jim Ferguson, Councilmember, City of Palm Desert Richard Kelly, Councilmember, City of Palm Desert RE: New home site (Lot i399) behind address 77011 California located at east corner of California and Tennessee As a recent homeowner. at 77011 California in the Palm Desert Country Club, I am writing to implore the City Council to reconsider and remove lot #399 from the proposed residential project. We recently purchased the home because of its expansive view of the golf course and the fact that the backyard feels safe and private. Our home is located at 77011 California (east comer of California and Tennessee). I spoke by phone with Steve Smith, Planning Manager, to obtain lot size and distance information. He was extremely helpful in advising me that the distance between our backyard and the new home would range from 20 10 50 feet along the length of our backyard. The proposed area is very narrow as is and it is my understanding that the golf cart path would run along the line of our backyard, which will result in a great amount of golfer/golf cart traffic closer to our backyard. This translates into an immediate loss of privacy, increased noise and threatened safety. We have two very small children (one age 4 and the other 17 months) with another on the way and would feel that the area between our backyard line and the new home would only serve to make the area unsafe for our children as an intruder could easily walls up the path and enter our yard completely unseen. We would not feel our children would be safe in this area and we would feel the need to keep our blinds closed at all times to preserve our privacy. This is no way to live. Additionally, the fact that our view of the golf course would be completely obstructed is very upsetting. As an employee of a large civil engineering firm (The Keith Companies --we have a location on Fred Waring Drive), I can appreciate the value that can be added by renovating or even adding lots to an existing development. However, I find that building a new home in this particular space does not add any value to my home, rather it REMOVES value by removing the view and relegating our home to no longer being a "golf course view" home, not to mention adding to the unsafe feeling of having what is essentially a transient alley -way behind my home. Received Jun-21-04 11:20am From-949 023 0192 To -PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 02 06/21/2004 11:20 FAX 949 923 6192 THE KEITH COMPANIES ql 003 The proposed new home is essentially being forced into an arca that was not originally designed for that purpose. The original purpose of this space was to serve as the tee and as a golf cart entry/exit path and its space is just adequate for that purpose. I am asking one or all of you to please respond to me as soon as possible. While I want to support the overall proposed plan, I will be strongly compelled protest and join the lawsuit blocking the plan unless lot #399 is removed from the plan. Pleasg reconsider and remove the Lot #399 (behind 77011 California) from the residential project plan. I can be reached by business phone at 949.923.6098, on my cell at 714.488.6382 or by e-mail at aimette.dimaggio@keitheo.com Thank you sincerely for your consideration, ette DiMaggio Palm Desert Country Club Resident 77011 California Palm Desert, CA 92260 Received Jun-21-04 11:29am From-949 223 6192 To —PALM DESERT CITY CLE Page 03 May 25, 2004 To: Palm Desert City Council Robert A. Spiegel, Mayor Buford A. Crites, Mayor Pro Tem Jean M. Benson, Councilmember Jim Ferguson, Councilman Richard S. Kelly, Councilman City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260-2578 C Q CLZ`;i;'iSLOFFICE 1-(r DESER T, CA 2004 JUN 18 P?4 3: 46 66 AGENDA PACKED' SECTIOIt ii1-'ISM -6 MEETING DATE 6 a4 6 L. ouseasmariagerararsierNIOissi RE: Public Documentation for the Palm Desert Country Club Case Nos. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 and DA 04-01 Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council, We are requesting that the substantial visual impacts to the public of the above project be adequately portrayed to the residents and non-residents of the area. If this proposed development is approved, it must be granted based on a full understanding by the public of the true, visual impacts (Ocean View Estates Homeowners Association, Inc. v. Montecito Water District, 116 Cal. App. 4th 396). Currently, the destruction of open space is not fully understood because there has been limited visual analysis done by the developer. We suggest the following signage, story pole and leaflet requirements that will clearly communicate the locations and height of the structures that will eliminate and degrade the public viewsheds, to the people who live, work and play in this area. Many of the signage standards below are derived from the Coachella Valley Fugitive Dust Control Plan Handbook, which is jointly produced by the South Coast Air Quality Management District and the Coachella Valley Association of Governments. Signage, story pole and leaflet description: 1. A sign must be located at each location where a structure is proposed, within 10 ft of the road, where the public can easily view the sign and height of the proposed structure. 2. Sign size to be 48" x 96" and must meet the approval of the City of Palm Desert. 3. Each sign must be accompanied with a story pole that has a flag on top to show the height of the proposed structure. 4. Text height shall a minimum of 4" for the project description and a minimum of 6" for the contact information. 1 5. Sign background must contrast with lettering, typically black text with white background. 6. Sign should be 1-inch A/C laminated plywood board. 7. The lower edge of the sign board must be a minimum of 3 ft. and a maximum of 5 ft. above grade. 8. The sign must be posted for a minimum of 60 days. 9. An enclosed plastic box that will hold 8-1/2 x 11 leaflets must be attached to each sign in a manner that is highly visible and handicap accessible. The leaflets will have exactly the same information that is on the sign, so that people on walks or enjoying other recreation can take the contact information home with them. (Many people do not carry a pen and paper when they are exercising.) 10. The developer must keep the leaflet box filled at all times with the signage information. A signage example is give below: PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC Change of Zone 04-01, Tract 31836, Development Agreement 04-01 NOTICE OF PROPOSED PROJECT THAT WILL AFFECT THIS VIEW "THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS SHOWN AT THE FLAG AT THE TOP OF THE STORY POLE" Written comments on this proposed project should be made to the City of Palm Desert as follows, prior to the , 2004 hearing. All written comments will be considered in the decision to approve/disapprove this project. Email: ssmith@ci.palm-desert.ca.us Steve Smith, Planning Manager Write: Attn: Phil Drell, Director of Community Development City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Dr. Palm Desert, CA 92260 Fax: (760) 341-7098 Call: (760) 346-0611 Thank you. Sincerely, d-taoLA.A, Richard and Lola Green 42025 Tennessee Ave. Palm Desert, CA 92211 Email: lola.green@earthlink.net SECTION AGENDA PACKET // T// f2 To: Steve Smith MEETING DATE 74-�� From: Theresa Pawley @ PDCC Date: June 16, 2004 Re: Memo June 1 re: Story Poles @ proposed Maintenance Facility PDCC I'm confused. Please see my attached letter June 10 to Council. When I wrote this letter, someone had referenced your memo, but I had not seen/read it yet. After reading your memo June 14, I'm still confused! It appears you may have been misinformed when writing the last paragraph of your memo re: the proposed Maintenance Yard and I just wish to let you know what actually transpired. Poles were installed May 28 and taken down May 28. I'm told poles were re -installed May 29 and taken down May 29. I never saw them Saturday, but I was away from my home for several hours. Poles did not appear again until after 9:00 AM Tuesday June 15 for Council to see. Council was on sight between 10:00 and 10:30 AM. and by 12:ish the poles and several low flag markers outlining the lake side perimeter, had vanished. It is important for you to know that the poles at the proposed Maintenance Facility are not "available to view now should anyone wish" as your memo indicated. They are not and have not been available to view except for only a part of 2 days over Memorial Day weekend when many residents were out of town and for several hours Tuesday morning (June 15) when residents were at work. Did you and Council see poles for Tots #44 thru 54 in the Utah and Tennessee area Tuesday?? I didn't find any when looking for them June 15. When we have installed poling for our projects, we have been required to follow rigorous guidelines including specific signage, leaflets and poling from 2 to 6 months. Lola Green wrote the attached letter regarding poling standards in Coachella Valley. If you ve any q ns or comments please feel free to contact me at 3451456. Theresa Pawley 77-670 California Dr. cc: Mayor Spiegel and City Council 9,1 :C tic/ 8 r Pint' 4001 0 '1 613S (.1 1-1 301..40 S„1 10 d CITY OF PALM DESERT DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor Spiegel and City Council FROM: Steve Smith, Planning. Manager DATE: June 1, 2004 SUBJECT: Story Poles at Palm •Desert Country Club EIVED 012 UN �{TY OF PALM v�.ai.R? C1'� A LRiag RT CITY MANAGER We are advised that the story poles in the driving range area of the project will be installed and be available for viewing by the afternoon of Tuesday, June 8, 2004. Staff will take photos of the area once the poles are in place. In the matter of the maintenance facility, poles outlining the fence and building locations have been in place since Friday, May 28, 2004. These poles are being reinstalled today in order to allow Planning Commission to view them. They are available to view now should anyone wish. STEW- MITH PLANNING MANAGER /tm cc: Carlos L. Ortega, City Manager • Homer Croy, ACM for Development Services 10 June 2004 Mr. Mayor and City Council RE: Update on PDCC Maintenance Facility's vanishing Story Poles Thank you for requesting Story Poling on the 14th fairway. Below you will find an update of what has been done. Because we do -not know your instruction, we're unable to assess if your direction has been followed as intended. This is what has transpired in the past 3 weeks: I was pleased to see story poles being installed at the proposed Maintenance Facility location Friday morning May 28, as I was leaving for the Planning Dept. Saw Phil Drell in passing and mentioned the poles were going up and thanked him. Upon returning home that afternoon...there was no evidence of the poles. In disbelief I walked the proposed site and located several irrigation height (8"+/-) tiny red flags/markers. Neighbors said the poles were replaced Saturday while I was out on errands, again to have been removed prior to my returning home. When I inquired why the poles had been removed, I was told the developer feared the PVC would be stolen. In 24 years in construction, I've never had poles stolen or vandalized...even when left standing for months per City and home- owners wishes. Many residents were away for the Memorial Day weekend, a number of homeowners have left the Valley for summer residences and some like myself were just out on errands. The end result remains the same, most of the impacted residents have not seen the fleeting Story Poles. I asked 6 homeowners directly across from the Park on California Dr. (facing the 'would be' Poles), if they had seen the poles. One of the six had seen poles, but didn't know their purpose and they were removed before he walked across the street to site. None of the six homeowners were aware that a Maintenance Facility and Access to this facility from California, were proposed for the 14th fairway. This is, in part, why I feel it is imperative to Story Pole the proposed site for a specified reasonable period of time of your choosing. Homeowners and the Council need to see the size of the Facility to better assess the even more important impact of noise from equipment and vehicles accessing this building beginning at 4:30 AM., safety issues, etc. I believe City Council received a memo dated 1 June from Steve Smith, indicating the poling was in place. As of June 9th there were poles installed at the PDCC driving range location only. At the 14th fairway, looking out 7 large plate glass windows and sliding doors, I have seen a total of one pole... May 28th With deadlines upon us, time is the enemy of affected homeowners. We feel our need to better envision the overall impact of this proposed facility, to allay our fears, has not been satisfied, by this most irregular poling procedure! We are most appreciative of your ongoing efforts. Theresa Pawley @ 77-670 California 345-1456 Bob Peterson @77-680 California 9,7 :C 1.1d 8 ► Nnr tiooz VO '1.2j3S 0 l-flVd 301.410 S.: r 3-13 k jij 17 May 2004 Mr. Mayor and City Council RE: Palm Desert Country Club — Story Poles At the City Council Meeting 13 May, you instructed The PDCC Development LLC to install Story Poles at Palm Desert Country Club to enable residents and City Council better access the impact of this project. I am not clear whether your instruction included Poling the Maintenance Facility (both 245' by 120' wall and the 5 to 6 thousand square foot building) and the access with an 8' wall. I feel this is imperative for several reasons: The enormously impacted residents on the 13th/14th fairways to date have not been contacted re: the relocation of the Maintenance Facility— by the Planning Department, the PDCC Homeowners Association or by the Developer. I believe it would be equitable that the homeowners see what is in store for them. I believe if they are made aware visually, they can then question for themselves the many other issues noise pollution, privacy, access (safety issues of entering and exiting), 4:30 AM traffic etc. Because seasonal residents had left the Valley when I learned of this relocation, it would be important to photograph the Poling, so that absent homeowners (at least the ones 1 can locate), can be brought up to date. Poling the access block wall will better indicate safety issues involved in entering and exiting this proposed access. It will also illustrate the implications of the potential reality of impacted area upon immediate homes, on both sides of California. The Planning Dept., after my pressing, indicated they could suggest the Story Poling of the Maintenance Facility to the Developer. 1 do not feel terribly assured that this will happen and because of time restrictions, now seems the time to address this issue: Because Wilma was not at the Council meeting, she couldn't suggest how to answer my concerns. Asked her if I could drop you a note to which she agreed. If Council is an inappropriate avenue to insure Poling will be contracted for the Maintenance Facility at the same time it is for the Clubhouse, I wholeheartedly apologize. I ask only for direction to best pursue this issue. If you could make Wilma aware if there is anything I need to do, I will contact her. Thank you for your assistance...for your time. Most sincerely Theresa Pawley @ 77-670 California 345-1456 Cc: Bob Peterson @ 77-680 California 9 *t :€ 1d 81 wit' ion d0 '1d3S30 xi1Vd 301330 S. `h d313 Ain A I _'1..:1 ee, AGENDA PACKET SECTION MEETING DATE PALM DESERT REDEVELOP MEMORANDUM 1 TO: CARLOS ORTEGA, CITY MANAGER FROM: JUSTIN MCCARTHY, ACM REDEVELOPMENT DATE: JUNE 18, 2004 SUBJECT: PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED JUN 1 8 2U04 CITY CT PALM DESERT CITY MANAGER This memorandum is an addendum to the Planning Department staff report regarding the PDCC Development LLC request for a zone change. Redevelopment staff have been requested to review and comment on the proposed renovation of the Palm Desert Country Club golf course with respect to its financial feasibility, the adequacy of the proposed capital improvements and improvement budget, and its ability to sustain appropriate maintenance for the long term. The improvements and operations proposed by the Developer will improve the golf course to what could be considered a good moderately priced golf course. It is staffs opinion that there is demand for a moderately priced course. Our assessment is that while the capital improvements are important, the new irrigation system and consistent maintenance, over time, at the level proposed will have a greater impact on the long-term market viability and aesthetic condition of the golf course than the proposed capital improvements alone. Discussion The following comments reflect the constraints of confidentiality requested by the developer. However, the developer was cooperative and provided significant information for our review. Also, our comments reflect give and take with the members of the development team and the fact that the development budget is still being refined. It should be noted that the proposed capital improvement budget is now actually $6.8 million and not the $5 million originally considered. Proposed Capital Improvements and Budget The proposed capital expenditure budget for the golf course, club house and maintenance facility improvements has been increased by a total of $1.8 million to account for the additional work we feel is needed to bring the course and facilities to the standard of a moderately priced course. The Developer concurs that this total budget is appropriate and has revised the capital improvements budget to $6,823,000. (It should be noted that these numbers have changed daily and may continue to change as the Developer refines his estimates.) The scope of improvements should be memorialized in greater detail per the attached draft Exhibit "C" to the City's Development Agreement. Proposed Operating Budget Based on review and experience we feel the operating budget is on the optimistic side. However, with good management, the golf course can generate adequate cash flow to sustain operations and maintain the course providing the funds are dedicated to that purpose. We felt the proposed annual maintenance budget was appropriate. The annual capital improvement budget was too low and should be increased. And, the proposed annual G & A budget which covers maintenance of the clubhouse needs to be fixed. The primary issue is how to ensure that maintenance funds are not diverted, thus leading to the long-term degradation of the course and clubhouse. To address the community's long-term concerns regarding condition of the clubhouse and course, the City should require a covenant that mandates a minimum of $1.1 million per year subject to annual escalations (or an amount as mutually agreed) be spent on maintenance to cover maintenance on the golf course and maintenance facility; a minimum of $275,000 per year be budgeted for G & A to cover maintenance of the clubhouse; and that a minimum of 2.5% of annual gross revenue be dedicated to capital improvements. Given the initial investment, the capital improvement amount could be phased in commencing in year five. IRS Credit for Open Space The project is infeasible without the credit. Conclusion The City and community have an opportunity to restore what is now a significantly blighted golf course to an acceptable level. It would cost the community at least $13 million to replicate what the developer proposes. Given the above issues and to ensure the long-term maintenance of the golf course, staff believes that Agency assistance may be needed to address the City's and community's concerns while maintaining project feasibility. This could be in the form of a long term operating covenant tied to long-term funding. The project would generate roughly $156,000 per year in tax increment, or approximately $2.3 million in bonded value over the life of the project area. If new conditions are added that degrade the financial feasibility of the project, project generated revenue could be available to assist the project. G:\RDA'Justin McCarthylMemo Re city council pdccl .doc 2 Recommendation 1. The golf course and facilities capital budget should be established at $6,823,000. 2. The annual golf course maintenance budget should be guaranteed at $1.1 million per year to commencing with operations anticipated in 2006 with annual increases. 3. The annual G & A Budget should be fixed at $275,000 subject to annual increases to ensure long-term maintenance of the clubhouse. 4. The capital improvement project budget should also be fixed at a minimum of 2.5% of gross revenue commencing in year five. 5. The attached modifications to the proposed Development Agreement should be incorporated in the final City Development Agreement including the attached Exhibit "C", Scope of Improvements. 6. The project should be approved subject to the new conditions and referred to the Redevelopment Agency for negotiation of an agreement. The agreement would address the level and manner of assistance needed to underwrite the cost of new conditions, additional capital improvements, or long-term maintenance of the golf course. Permits would not be issued until an agreement was approved. This could be part of the proposed maintenance agreement. This would give the developer entitlements and provide an opportunity to firm up the numbers while providing the City Council the final approval of the project, and provide for a mechanism to ensure long-term maintenance of the golf course. Such a public/private partnership is not uncommon, and would help address many of the items of concern. McCarthy Redevelop :DY:mh Attachment (as noted) G:RDA\Justin McCarthy\Memo Re city council pdccl.doc 3 Proposed Modifications to the Development Agreement: 1. A review of the Development Agreement identified that the Developer would provide up to $5 million for overall improvements. We would recommend that the numbers be increased to the proposed level of improvements of $6.823 million. 2. The Development Agreement identified that a bond would be posted prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the 61st through 95th residences for the development of the Phase II improvements. The surety or bond should be posted prior to release of lots; and not prior to issuance of a C of O. 3. The City should condition the sale or transfer of the property on the Developer's good standing with regard to the improvements and maintenance and compliance with the Maintenance Agreement. 4. A Maintenance Agreement should be negotiated as a condition of approval of the Development Agreement within 60 days of approval of Development Agreement. 5. The proposed Exhibit "C" should be added to the Development Agreement. EXHIBIT C I. GOLF COURSE RENOVATION SUMMARY 18 HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS Relocate Green Complexes 9 (Front Side) 11, 13, 14, 16, 18 (Back Side) 2 New Greens, Practice Area 2005 Regrass Green Complexes 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 (Front Side) 10, 12, 13, 15, 17 (Back Side) 2005 New Practice Putting Green 2004/5 New Short Game Area 2004/5 Relocate New Tee Complexes 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 (Front) 11, 12, 14, 17 (Back Side) 2005 Redo Existing Tees 2, 3, 4, 8 (Front) 13, 14, 18 (Back Side) 2005 Remodel Bunkering 1, 2, 4, 6, 8 (Front) 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18 (Back) 2005 Remodel Bunkering 3, 5, 9 (Front Side) 10, 11, 14, 16, 18 (Back Side) 2005 Reshape Fairway Landing Areas 1, 3, 7, 9 2005 New Waterfalls Between holes 9 and 18 (three tier water feature) 2005 Lake Construction Rebuild Lake 1, Expand/ Rebuild Lake 13, and Rebuild Lake 7 2005 New Concrete Cart Paths 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 18 (Front) 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17 (Back) 2005 Tree Removal and Relocation of Palms 11, 17, 18 9-HOLE GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS Relocate Green Complexes 1, 2, 6 2004/5 Regrass Green Complexes 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9 2004/5 Relocate and add New Tee Complexes 1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9 2004/5 Relocate Entire Holes 1, 2 2004/5 Remodel Bunkering 4 2004/5 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS Redesign and Installation of Fully Automated Irrigation System w/ Computer Control Phase I, Phase II All Areas Other than those Covered Above 2004/5 Exhibit C — PDCC Development Agreement Page 2 II. CLUBHOUSE REMODEL AND ADDITION SUMMARY Remodel and renovation of the clubhouse interior with the following primary clubhouse components: • Demolition of existing pro shop, locker rooms, and offices and consolidation of spaces to create a new climate -controlled cart barn area • Demolition of existing dining and bar areas as necessary to build new men's and women's locker rooms (with approximately 100 and 50 lockers, respectively, and associated toilet, shower, and changing areas), administrative offices, pro shop, and a members only bar. • Remodel of current kitchen areas and replacement of existing kitchen equipment as necessary to be able to effectively accommodate dining events of up to 150 people. • Construction of a new enclosed 3,500 SF dining area and public bar. • Abatement asbestos as necessary for remodel and construction work and in full compliance with County, State and Federal regulations governing abatement and disposal of asbestos containing material. • Provision of a new paging, music, phone, and security system for the public areas of the building. • Provision of new interior finishes throughout the building, including new carpet, paint, and tile, and new interior furnishings in all public areas including tables, chairs bar stools, millwork, specialty lighting, artwork, lockers, and pro shop retail fixtures. • Provision of fire suppression system to the extent required by current code, and upgrade of mechanical and electrical systems as necessary to be fully code - compliant and functional. Upgrade the clubhouse exterior with the following primary features; • New enclosed clubhouse entrance of the character and nature depicted in the rendering by den ZER International in the 27 May 2004 submittal by PDCC Development LLC to the City of Palm Desert (attached to this Exhibit C) • Repair and/or replacement of existing roof as necessary to provide a weather tight enclosure • New exterior paint • New accessible ramp to main entrance • New water feature, hardscape, and landscape of the character and nature depicted in the rendering by den ZER International in the 27 May 2004 submittal by PDCC Development LLC to the City of Palm Desert (attached to this Exhibit C) Exhibit C — PDCC Development Agreement Page 3 • New parking lot sized and landscaped according to the requirements of the City of Palm Desert and located in the area of the existing lawn on the north side of the clubhouse. • Resurfacing, restriping, and landscaping of existing parking lots that will not be demolished for construction of other amenities associated with the clubhouse, golf course, or proposed residential development. III. NEW MAINTENANCE FACILITY SUMMARY Creation of a new maintenance facility will include demolition of the existing maintenance facility and associated improvements. Debris and any hazardous materials or unknown substances will be disposed of in full compliance with all Local, County, State, and Federal regulations goveming such disposal. Work efforts will conform with all recommendations for environmental remediation made in the July 2003 Phase I Environmental Study prepared by P & D Consultants, as updated to reflect current conditions. Construction of a new 6,000 SF metal building on a new site near the #14 tee boxes will conform to all City of Palm Desert requirements for new construction to house maintenance operations. The new maintenance yard will be fully enclosed with an 8'-0" high (or as otherwise approved) block wall and landscape the perimeter areas as required by the City of Palm Desert. Paved work areas, a wash area, fuel station, pesticide recovery system, and sand/gravel storage facilities will be provided. RESOLUTION NO. REVISED 06/24/04 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 95 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND RELATED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR CERTAIN GOLF COURSE RELATED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NOS. TT 31836 AND PP 04-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 13t day of May, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to June 10 an June 24, 2004, to consider the request of PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2255 has recommended approval of Case Nos. TT 31836 and PP 04-01; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify approval of said tentative tract map and precise plan: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 1. That the proposed map is consistent with the general plan as amended. 2. That the design or improvement of the proposed subdivision is consistent with applicable general plan. 3. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development. 4. That the site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. 5. 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. 6. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems. 7. 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. 8. That the design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not restrict solar access to the property. RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, in 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 thee needs against the public service needs of the residents of the city of Palm Desert and its environs, with available fiscal and environmental resources; and PRECISE PLAN 1. The design of the precise plan will not substantially depreciate property values nor be materially injurious to properties or improvements in the vicinity. 2. The precise plan will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of property in the vicinity by the occupants thereof for lawful purposes. 3. The precise plan will not endanger the public peace, health, safety or general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and with the findings contained in the staff report dated May 13, 2004, constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Tentative Tract 31836 and Precise Plan 04-01 are hereby approved, subject to the attached conditions. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, Califomia 2 ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL CASE NOS. TT 31836 AND PP 04-01 Department of Community Development: 1 . The development of the property shall conform substantially with exhibits on file with the Department of Community Development, as modified by the following conditions. 2. Construction of a portion of said project shall commence within one year from the date of final approval unless an extension of time is granted; otherwise said approval shall become null, void and of no effect whatsoever. 3. The development of the property described herein and as defined in the development agreement shall be subject to the restrictions and limitations set forth herein which are in addition to state and federal statutes now in force, or which hereafter may be in force. 4. Prior to issuance of a building permit for construction of any use contemplated by this approval, the applicant shall first obtain permits and/or clearance from the following agencies: Coachella Valley Water District Palm Desert Architectural Commission City Fire Marshal Public Works Department Evidence of said permit or clearance from the above agencies shall be presented to the Department of Building and Safety at the time of issuance of a building permit for the use contemplated herewith. 5. Access to trash/service areas shall be placed so as not to conflict with parking areas. Said placement shall be approved by applicable trash company and Department of Community Development and shall include a recycling program. 6. Project is subject to Art in Public Places program per Palm Desert Municipal Code Chapter 4.10. Method of compliance shall be established prior to completion of the Architectural Review Commission process. 7. Applicant agrees to maintain the landscaping required to be installed pursuant to these conditions. Applicant will enter into an agreement to maintain said 3 RESOLUTION NO. landscaping for the life of the project, which agreement shall be notarized and which agreement shall be recorded. It is the specific intent of the parties that this condition and agreement run with the land and bind successors and assigns. The final landscape plan shall include a Tong -term maintenance program specifying among other matters appropriate watering times, fertilization and pruning for various times of the year for the specific materials to be planted, as well as periodic replacement of materials. All to be consistent with the Property Maintenance Ordinance (Ordinance No. 801) and the approved landscape plan. The maintenance program shall be reviewed annually. 8. That the project shall operate consistent with the provisions of a development agreement which must be adopted by the City Council, otherwise this approval shall be null and void. 9. That the applicant shall file necessary map(s) to eliminate property line encroachments and setback deficiencies on existing residences pursuant to the letter dated March 10, 2004 from Randy Case. 10. That all recommended traffic mitigation measures contained in the traffic analysis prepared by George Dunn Associates shall be conditions of this application. 11. All onsite utilities shall be underground. 12. That all units shall comply with development standards prescribed in the R-1 9,000 and PR-6 zone categories except as modified pursuant to Development Agreement 04-01. 13. The project shall be subject to all applicable fees at time of issuance of permits including, but not limited to, TUMF and School Mitigation fees. 14. The applicant/property owner agrees to defend (with counsel chosen by the City), indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Palm Desert, its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding to attack, set aside, void, or annul the approval of this application and any other challenge pertaining to this project. This indemnification shall include any award of attorney fees. The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any claim, action or proceeding and shall cooperate fully in the defense. 15. That the applicant shall provide a tree removal plan to be approved by the City Arborist. Said tree removal plan shall provide an assessment of the condition of trees by a certified arborist and a tree protection plan for remaining trees. 4 RESOLUTION NO. 16. That any newly created lots not presently within the Home Owner Association area shall be annexed into the Home Owner Association area. Department of Public Works: 1. Drainage fees, in accordance with Section 26.49 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code and Palm Desert Ordinance Number 653, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 2. Storm drain/retention area design and construction shall be contingent upon a drainage study prepared by a registered civil engineer that is reviewed and approved by the Department of Public Works prior to start of construction. Project is required to retain onsite a 25 year storm. The maintenance of the retention area(s) shall be by the homeowners association. 3. Signalization fees, in accordance with City of Palm Desert Resolution Nos. 79-17 and 79-55, shall be paid prior to recordation of final map. 4. Full public improvements, as required by Sections 26.40 and 26.44 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code, shall be installed in accordance with applicable City standards. • Standard 6' curbside sidewalk shall be installed in areas being developed where no sidewalk currently exists, and shall extend across the fairways including the following locations. Along the south side of New York Avenue east to California in area #'s 2 & 8. On both sides of Tennessee Avenue at the project entrance in area #1. Along the west side of Elkhorn Trail in area #6. Along the north side of Califomia Avenue between Virginia Avenue and Tennessee Avenue. 5. As required under Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 26.28, and in accordance with Sections 26.40 and 26.44, complete improvement plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval before construction of any improvements is commenced. Offsite improvement plans shall be reviewed and approved by the Director of Public Works and a surety posted to guarantee the installation of required offsite improvements prior to recordation of the final map. Such offsite improvements shall include, but not be limited to, curb and gutter, asphalt paving and concrete sidewalk in an appropriate size and configuration. "As -built" plans shall be submitted 5 RESOLUTION NO. to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the acceptance of the improvements by the City. 6. Improvement plans for utility systems shall be approved by the respective provider or service districts with "as -built" plans submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to project final. Utility plans shall be submitted to the Public Works Department for improvements in the public right-of-way prior to issuance of any permits. 7. All public improvements shall be inspected by the Department of Public works and a standard inspection fee shall be paid prior to issuance of grading permits. 8. Landscaping maintenance of any common areas shall be provided by the homeowners association. Landscape treatment shall be water efficient in nature and shall be in accordance with the City of Palm Desert landscape design standards. Applicant shall be responsible for executing a declaration of Conditions, covenants and Restrictions, which declaration shall be approved by the City of Palm Desert and recorded with the County Recorder. The declaration shall specify: a) the applicant shall oversee the formation of a property owners association; b) the property owners association shall be formed prior to the recordation of the map; and c) the aforementioned landscaping shall be the responsibility of the property owners association. Landscaping plans shall be submitted for review simultaneously with grading plans. 9. In accordance with Palm Desert Municipal code Section 26.44, complete grading plans and specifications shall be submitted to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to issuance of any permits. 10. Traffic safety striping shall be installed to the specifications of the Director of Public Works. A traffic control plan must be submitted to, and approved by, the Director of Public Works prior to the placement of any pavement markings. 11. Full improvements of interior streets based on residential street standards in accordance with Section 26.40 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code shall be provided. Applicant shall be responsible for acquiring all necessary easements for off -site roadway improvements. 12. Complete tract map shall be submitted as required by ordinance to the Director of Public Works for checking and approval prior to the issuance of any permits. 13. Any and all offsite improvements shall be preceded by the approval of plans and the issuance of valid encroachment permits by the Department of Public Works. 6 RESOLUTION NO. 14. A complete preliminary soils investigation, conducted by a registered soils engineer, shall be submitted to, and approved by, the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 15. Pad elevations, as shown on the tentative map, are subject to review and modification in accordance with Chapter 26 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code. 16. Applicant shall comply with provisions of Palm Desert Municipal Code Section 24.12, Fugitive Dust Control as well as Section 24.20, Storm Water Management and Discharge Control. 17. Prior to the start of construction, the applicant shall submit satisfactory evidence to the Director of Public Works of intended compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Construction Permit for storm water discharges associated with construction. Developer must contact Riverside County Flood Control District for informational materials. 18. Lot line on Lot 84 shall be adjusted prior to grading permit issuance to correct the encroachment of adjoining residence. Riverside County Fire Department: 1 . With respect to the conditions of approval regarding the above referenced plan check, Fire Department recommends the following fire protection measures be provided in accordance with City Municipal Codes, appropriate NFPA Standards, CFC, and CBC and/or recognized fire protection standards. The Fire Department is required to set a minimum fire flow for the remodel or construction of all commercial buildings per UFC article 87. 2. A fire flow of 1500 gpm for a 1-hour duration at 20 psi residual operating pressure must be available before any combustible material is placed on the job site. 3. Provide, or show there exists, a water system capable of providing a gpm flow of 1,500 gpm for single family dwellings. 4. The required fire flow shall be available from a wet barrel Super Hydrant(s) (4"x2-1 /2"x2-1 /2"), located not less than 25' nor more than 200' from any portion of a single family dwelling measured via vehicular travelway. 7 RESOLUTION NO. 5. Water plans must be approved by the Fire Marshal and include verification that the water system will produce the required fire flow. 6. All buildings shall be accessible by an all-weather roadway extending to within 150' of all portions of the exterior walls of the first story. The roadway shall be not less than 24' of unobstructed width and 13'6" of vertical clearance. Where parallel parking is required on both sides of the street, the roadway must be 36' wide and 32' wide with parking on one side. Dead-end roads in excess of 150' shall be provided with a minimum 45' radius turn -around 55' in industrial developments. 7. Whenever access into private property is controlled through use of gates, barriers or other means, provisions shall be made to install a "Knox Box" key over -ride system to allow for emergency vehicle access. Minimum gate width shall be 16" with a minimum vertical clearance of 13'6". 8. A second access is required. This can be accomplished by two main access points from a main roadway or an emergency gate from an adjoining development. 9. All buildings shall have illuminated addresses of a size approved by the City. 10. Conditions subject to change with adoption of new codes, ordinances, laws, or when building permits are not obtained within 12 months. // 8 ORDINANCE NO. REVISED 06/24/04 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WILL PROVIDE FOR AMONG OTHER MATTERS MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND PROVISIONS REQUIRING THAT GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS BE CARRIED OUT IN A TIMELY MANNER. CASE NO. DA 04-01 AS IT RELATES TO CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND PP 04-01 WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Palm Desert, California, did on the 16th day of March, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing to consider the request of PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2255 has recommended approval of Case No. DA 04-01; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, said City Council heard and considered all testimony and arguments of all interested persons. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. 2. That Development Agreement 04-01, Exhibit "A" attached, is hereby approved. 3. The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation in the city of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO: The City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: City Manager Fee Exempt - Govt. Code §273831 (Space above for Recorder's Use) PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT between THE CITY OF PALM DESERT a California charter city and PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC a California limited liability company and PDCC GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, LLC. a California limited liability company [Dated as of May_, 2004 for reference purposes only] RMPUB\KCV\231373.1 PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This Palm Desert Country Club Development Agreement ("Agreement") is entered into and effective on the date it is recorded with the Riverside County Recorder ("Effective Date") by and between (i) the CITY OF PALM DESERT, a California charter city ("City"), and (ii) PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a California limited liability company ("PDCC Development") and PDCC GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, LLC. a California limited liability company, ("Owner") RECITALS WHEREAS, to strengthen the public planning process, encourage private participation in comprehensive planning and reduce the economic risk of development, the Legislature of the State of California adopted Section 65864 et seq. of the Government Code authorizing any city, county or city and county to enter into a development agreement with an applicant for a development project, establishing certain development rights in the property which is the subject of the development project application. ("Development Agreement Law"); and WHEREAS, City has adopted an ordinance and regulations establishing procedures and requirements for the approval of development agreements, pursuant to California Govemment Code Section 65865 ("Development Agreement Procedures"); and WHEREAS, Owner owns certain real property ("Property") owned in fee by Owner and legally described in the attached Exhibit "A"; and WHEREAS, PDCC Development, the majority of which is owned by Owner, owns the rights to develop certain portions of the Property as a residential subdivision accompanied with improvements to the existing golf courses; and WHEREAS, PDCC Development and Owner have requested City to enter into a development agreement for the development of the Property; and WHEREAS, Owner and PDCC Development propose to develop the Property as a residential subdivision accompanied with improvements to the existing golf courses ("Project"); and WHEREAS, by electing to enter into this Agreement, City shall bind future City Councils of City by the obligations specified herein, and limit the future exercise of certain governmental and proprietary powers of City; and WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of this Agreement have undergone extensive review by City and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable; and WHEREAS, the best interests of the citizens of the City and the public health, safety and welfare will be served by entering into this Agreement; and WHEREAS, City has found that the provisions of this Agreement and its purposes are consistent with the objectives, policies, and general land uses and programs specified in City's General Plan; and WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by City have been duly taken or approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes and other procedural matters in accordance with the Development Agreement Law and Development Agreement Procedures; and WHEREAS, all actions taken by the City have been duly taken in accordance with all applicable legal requirements, including the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) ("CEQA"); and NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, City and Owner (each herein sometimes called a "Party" and jointly the "Parties") do hereby agree as follows: 1.1 this Agreement. ARTICLE 1 GENERAL PROVISIONS Binding Effect of Agreement. The Property is hereby made subject to 1.2 Ownership of Property. Owner represents, covenants and warrants that it is the owner of fee simple title to the Property. 1.3 Term. The term ("Term") of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall continue for a period of seven (7) years thereafter unless this Term is modified or extended pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Zoning Modifications (Exhibit "B") shall survive the termination of this Agreement for residential lots on which certificates of occupancy have been issued prior to such termination. 1.4 Assignment, Sale and Transfer of Interest in the Property and this Agreement. Owner shall have the right to assign, sell or transfer the Property in whole or in part at any time during the term of this Agreement; provided, however, that any such assignment, sale or transfer shall include the assignment and assumption of the rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement. No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a part of the Property. 1.5 Amendment or Cancellation of Agreement. Except as otherwise provided herein, this Agreement may be amended or canceled in whole or in part only by written consent of all parties in the manner provided for in California Government Code Section 65868; provided, however, City's Director of Community Development may, in his/her sole discretion, make and approve minor technical, non -substantive modifications to this Agreement as requested by Owner. 1.6 Termination. This Agreement shall be deemed automatically terminated and of no further effect upon the occurrence of any of the following events: 1.6.1 Expiration of the Term of this Agreement as set forth in Section 1.4. 1.6.2 Entry of a final judgment setting aside, voiding or annulling the adoption of the ordinance adopting this Agreement. 1.6.3 The adoption of a referendum measure pursuant to California Government Code Section 65867.5, overriding or repealing the ordinance adopting this Agreement. Termination of this Agreement shall not constitute termination of any Development Approvals (hereinafter defined) granted for the Project prior to such termination. Upon the termination of this Agreement, no party shall have any further right or obligation hereunder, except with respect to: (i) any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination, (ii) any default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which occurred prior to such termination, or (iii) any obligations which are specifically set forth herein as surviving the termination of this Agreement. 1.7 Notices. (a) As used in this Agreement, "notice" includes, but is not limited to, the communication of notice, request, demand, approval, statement, report, acceptance, consent, waiver, appointment or other communication required or permitted hereunder. (b) All notices shall be in writing and shall be considered given either: (i) when delivered in person to the recipient named below; or (ii) on the date of delivery shown on the return receipt, after deposit in the United States mail in a sealed envelope as either registered or certified mail with return receipt requested, and postage and postal charges prepaid, and addressed to the recipient named below; or (iii) on the date of delivery shown in the records of the telegraph company after transmission by telegraph to the recipient named below; or (iv) on the date of delivery by facsimile transmission to the recipient named below. All notices shall be addressed as follows: If to City: With a copy to: If to Owner or PDCC Development: City of Palm Desert 73-510 Fred Waring Drive Palm Desert, California 92260 Attention: City Manager and City Attorney Telephone: (760) 346-0611 Facsimile: (760) 340-0574 Best Best & Krieger LLP 74-760 Highway 111, Suite 200 Indian Wells, California 92210 Attention: City Attorney for City of Palm Desert Telephone: (760) 568-2611 Facsimile: (760) 340-6698 PDCC Golf Course Operations, LLC 601 South Figueroa, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, California 90017 Attn: Larry J. Kosmont Telephone: (213) 599-4385 With a copy to: Facsimile: (213) 623-8288 Sullivan, Hill, Lewin, Rez & Engel 550 West C Street, Suite 1500 San Diego, CA 92101 Attn: Madeline Clark Cahill Telephone: (619) 233-4100 Facsimile: (619) 231-4372 (c) Any Party may, by notice given at any time, require subsequent notices to be given to another person or entity, whether a party or an officer or representative of a party, or to a different address, or both. Notices given before actual receipt of notice of change shall not be invalidated by the change. ARTICLE 2 DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY 2.1 Development Approvals. For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "Development Approvals" means the following entitlements issued or approved by City for development and/or use of the Project: (a) ZOA 04.-01 (b) TT 31836; (c) PP 04-01 (d) Zoning Modifications (Exhibit "B") 2.2 In order to conform the residential portion development of the Project to the development standards that were implemented in developing the existing residential developments of Palm Desert Country Club, certain modifications to the Palm Desert zoning standards with respect to lot size and set backs need to be implemented. These modifications ("Zoning Modifications") are listed on Exhibit "B", and are approved only for the Project. 2.3 As part of the Project, and in consideration for the Development Approvals, including the Zoning Modifications, Owner and PDCC Development have committed to certain "Club House and Golf Course Improvements" to be developed in two phases in the total estimated amount up to $6.8 million. The Club House and Golf Course Improvements are detailed on Exhibit "C" with a specific phasing plan contained in Exhibit "D", dividing such improvements into "Phase 1" and "Phase II", all as is more particularly described on attached Exhibit "D". Owner's and PDCC Development's performance and maintenance of the Club House and Golf Course Improvements shall be the subject of separate improvement and maintenance agreements, Owner's and PDCC Development's execution and performance of which are a condition of the continued validity of this Agreement. The final tract map for lots 1 through 54 shall not be approved by the City and recorded until either (a) all of the Phase I Improvements are substantially completed and approved by the City of Palm Desert; or (b) in the City's reasonable discretion, Owner and PDCC Development post a bond for the benefit of the City equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the costs necessary to complete the Phase I Improvements, as such cost amount is evidenced by a certified statement from Owner and PDCC Development to the City ("Owner's Statement") detailing the cost of the remaining Phase II Improvements, based on the percentage of completion of the Phase II Improvements as of the date the Owner's Statement is issued. The final tract maps for the remaining lots shall not be approved by the City and recorded until either (a) all of the Phase II Improvements are substantially completed and approved by the City of Palm Desert; or (b) in the City's reasonable discretion, Owner and PDCC Development post a bond for the benefit of the City equal to one hundred twenty-five percent (125%) of the costs necessary to complete the Phase II Improvements, as such cost amount is evidenced by a certified statement from Owner and PDCC Development to the City ("Owner's Statement") detailing the cost of the remaining the Phase II Improvements, based on the percentage of completion of the Phase II Improvements as of the date the Owner's Statement is issued. 2.4 Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms, conditions, and covenants of this Agreement, Owner's right to develop the Project in accordance with the Development Approvals (and subject to the Conditions of Approval) shall be deemed vested upon execution of (1) this Agreement; (2) the improvement agreement referenced in Section 2.3; and (3) the maintenance agreement referenced in Section 2.3 in a form reasonably acceptable to the City that guarantees the long term maintenance of the Club House and Golf Course Improvements which vesting shall expire upon the earlier of the following occurrences: (a) termination of this Agreement; (b) an uncured material default by Owner of this Agreement; or (c) as to a particular phase, parcel, or lot comprising a portion of the Project, the earlier of the final approved City inspection of the completed development on such phase, parcel, or lot, or the issuance by the City of a certificate of occupancy for such phase, parcel, or lot. Except for the expiration set forth in clause (a) of the preceding sentence, the expiration of the vesting right set forth in the preceding sentence shall not terminate the obligations of Owner under this Agreement. Except as explicitly modified by this Agreement, the Project shall remain subject to the following, to the same extent it would without this Agreement: (i) all ordinances, regulations, rules, laws, plans, policies, and guidelines of the City and its City Council, Planning Commission, and all other City boards, commissions, and committees existing on the Effective Date of this Agreement (collectively, the "Existing Development Regulations"); (ii) all amendments or modifications to Existing Development Regulations after the Effective Date of this Agreement and all ordinances, regulations, rules, laws, plans, policies, and guidelines of the City and its City Council, Planning Commission, and all other City boards, commissions, and committees enacted or adopted after the Effective Date of this Agreement (collectively, "New Laws"), except such New Laws which would prevent or materially impair Owner's ability to develop the Project in accordance with the Development Approvals, unless such New Laws are (A) adopted by the City on a City wide -basis and applied to the Site in a non-discriminatory manner, (B) required by a non -City govemmental entity to be adopted by or applied by the City (or, if adoption is optional, the failure to adopt or apply such non -City govemmental law or regulation would cause the City to sustain a loss of funds or loss of access to funding or other resources), or (C) New Laws the City reserves the right to apply under this Agreement (iii) all subsequent development approvals and the conditions of approval associated therewith, including but not limited to any further site development permits, tract maps, and building permits; (iv) the payment of all fees or exactions in the categories and in the amounts as required at the time such fees are due and payable, which may be at the time of issuance of building permits, or otherwise as specified by applicable law, as existing at the time such fees and costs are due and payable; and (v) the reservation or dedication of land for public purposes or payment of fees in lieu thereof as required at the time such reservations or dedications or payments in lieu are required under applicable law to be made or paid. 2.4.1 Additional Applicable Codes and Regulations. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the City also reserves the right to apply the following to the development of the Project: Building, electrical, mechanical, fire and similar building codes based upon uniform codes adopted in, or incorporated by reference into, the Palm Desert Municipal Code, as existing on the Effective Date of this Agreement or as may be enacted or amended thereafter, applied to the Project in a nondiscriminatory manner. In the event of fire or other casualty requiring construction of more than fifty (50%) percent of any building previously constructed hereunder, nothing herein shall prevent the City from applying to such reconstruction, all requirements of the City's Building, Electrical, Mechanical, and similar building codes based upon uniform codes adopted in, or incorporated by reference into, the Palm Desert Municipal Code, solely to the extent applicable to all development projects in the City. This Agreement shall not prevent the City from establishing any new City fees on a City- wide basis and applied to the Project in a non-discriminatory manner, including new development impact fees, or increasing any existing City fees, including existing development impact fees, and to apply such new or increased fees to the Project or applicable portion thereof where such new or increased fees may be charged. 2.4.2 Owner's Obligations. Conditions of Approval. The Owner shall comply with the Conditions of Approval for the Development Approvals. Owner acknowledges that additional conditions of approval beyond those set forth in Exhibit "F" may be applicable to the Project if imposed in conjunction with future Project approvals. Failure to comply with the Conditions of Approval shall be a material breach of this Agreement and grounds for its termination. 2.4.3 Project Approvals Interdependent. All approvals required for the Project which may be or have been granted, and all land use entitlements or approvals generally which have been issued or will be issued, by the City with respect to the Project, constitute interdependent actions and approvals by the City. If any material provision of this Agreement or the application of any such provision of this Agreement to a particular situation is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, or if this Agreement terminates prior to completion of the Project, then all Project Approvals are automatically rescinded, and pursuant to Municipal Code section 25.37.110 the zoning of the Property shall revert to the zoning which existed prior to the Project Approvals. 2.5 Changes and Amendments. The parties acknowledge that refinement and further development of the Project will require subsequent development approvals and may demonstrate that changes are appropriate and mutually desirable in the Development Approvals, except that minor modifications to the Development Agreement, as determined by the Director of Community Development to not be a substantial change in the proposed Project or conditions of approval, can be approved by the Director of Community Development. In the event Owner finds that a non -minor modification in the Development Approvals is necessary or appropriate, Owner shall apply for a subsequent development approval to effectuate such change and City shall process and act on such application except as otherwise provided by this Agreement. 2.6 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that state or federal laws or regulations, enacted after the Effective Date of this Agreement, prevent or preclude compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state or federal laws or regulations, provided, however, that this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect to the extent it is not inconsistent with such laws or regulations and to the extent such laws or regulations do not render such remaining provisions impractical to enforce. 2.7 Intent and Purpose. The parties acknowledge and agree that City is restricted in its authority to limit its police power by contract and that the foregoing limitations, reservations and exceptions are intended to reserve to City all of its police power which cannot be so limited. This Agreement shall be construed, contrary to its stated terms if necessary, to reserve to City all such power and authority which cannot be restricted by contract. The provisions of this Agreement and benefits to be received by City and Owner hereunder are in the best interests of City and the health, safety, morals and welfare of its taxpayers and residents and are in accordance with the public purposes set forth in federal, state and local laws and regulations, including California Government Code Section 565865. The parties hereby acknowledge that implementation of this Agreement and the resulting development of the Property will result in substantial public benefits that justify City's decision to execute this Agreement. These benefits include, but are not limited to, furtherance of the goals and objectives of the City's General Plan and the City's Redevelopment Plan applicable to the Property, and the strengthening of the City's land use and social structure by stimulating economic activity and job creation within the City. ARTICLE 3 REMEDIES 3.1 Remedies. Each of the parties hereto may pursue any remedy at law or equity available for the breach of any provision of this Agreement, including, without limitation, proceedings in order to sue for damages or claim any damages for any breach of this Agreement or for any cause of action which arises out of this Agreement. 3.2 Specific Performance. The parties acknowledge that although money damages are available to the parties for a breach of this Agreement, such money damages and other remedies at law generally are inadequate and specific performance and other non -monetary relief, including temporary and permanent injunctive relief, are particularly appropriate remedies for the enforcement of this Agreement and should be available for the following reason: Owner has invested significant time and resources and performed extensive planning and processing of the Project in agreeing to the terms of this Agreement and will be investing even more significant time and resources in reliance upon the terms of this Agreement, and it is difficult and impracticable to determine the sum of money which would adequately compensate Owner for such efforts; the parties acknowledge and agree that any injunctive relief may be ordered on an expedited, priority basis. ARTICLE 4 MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS 4.1 Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement and any amendment or cancellation thereof shall be recorded with the Riverside County Recorder within the period required by Government Code Section 65868.5. 4.2 Entire Agreement. This Agreement sets forth and contains the entire understanding and agreement of the parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and there are no oral or written representations, understandings or ancillary covenants, undertakings or agreements which are not contained or expressly referred to herein. No testimony or evidence of any such representations, understandings or covenants shall be admissible in any proceeding of any kind or nature to interpret or determine the terms or conditions of this Agreement. 4.3 Severability. If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Agreement shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perfomi taking into consideration the purposes of this Agreement. 4.4 Interpretation and Governing Law. This Agreement and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without regard to conflicts of laws principles (if applicable). This Agreement shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Agreement, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 4.5 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement as to which time is an element. 4.6 Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Agreement by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Agreement thereafter. 4.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement. 4.8 Force Majeure. Neither party shall be deemed to be in default where failure or delay in performance of any of its obligations under this Agreement is caused by floods, earthquakes, other Acts of God, fires, wars, riots or similar hostilities, strikes and other labor difficulties beyond the party's control, (including the party's employment force), government regulations, court actions (such as restraining orders or injunctions), the other party's breach of this Agreement, or other causes beyond the party's control. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, upon the initiation of any legal proceeding by a third party to challenge the modifications to the Existing Development Approvals as described in this Agreement or to challenge any action taken by City in connection therewith, the Term of this Agreement shall automatically be extended to the longer of the period set forth in Section 1.3 or until final resolution of all such proceedings, including any appeals filed in connection therewith. 4.9 Mutual Covenants. The covenants contained herein are mutual covenants and also constitute conditions to the concurrent or subsequent performance by the party benefited thereby of the covenants to be performed hereunder by such benefited party. 4.10 Successors in Interest. The burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall be enforceable as equitable servitudes and constitute covenants running with the land. Each covenant to do or refrain from doing some act hereunder with regard to development of the Property: (a) is for the benefit of and is a burden upon every portion of the Property; (b) runs with the Property and each portion thereof; and, (c) is binding upon each party and each successor in interest during Ownership of the Property or any portion thereof. 4.11 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument. 4.12 Project as a Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed by and between the parties hereto that the development of the Project is a private development, that neither party is acting as the agent of the other in any respect hereunder, and that each party is an independent contracting entity with respect to the terms, covenants and conditions contained in this Agreement. No partnership, joint venture or other association of any kind is formed by this Agreement. The only relationship between City and Owner is that of a government entity regulating the development of private property and the owner of such property. 4.13 Further Actions and Instruments. Each of the parties shall cooperate with and provide reasonable assistance to the other to the extent contemplated hereunder in the performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this Agreement. Upon the request of either party at any time, the other party shall promptly execute, with acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this Agreement to carry out the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement. The provisions of this section shall not require the taking of any actions which are prohibited by law or, except as expressly set forth in this Agreement, impair the lawful discretion of City as to those matters to which the law imparts discretion to City. 4.14 Attorneys' Fees. If legal action is brought by either party against the other for breach of this Agreement, or to compel performance under this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation costs in addition to all other relief to which it may be entitled. 4.15 Subsequent Amendment to Authorizing Statute. This Agreement has been entered into in reliance upon the provisions of the Development Agreement Law in effect as of the Effective Date. Accordingly, to the extent the subsequent amendment to the Development Agreement Law would affect the provisions of this Agreement, such amendment shall not be applicable to the Agreement unless necessary for this Agreement to be enforceable. (Signatures follow on next page) ATTEST: By: SIGNATURE PAGE TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Rachelle D. Klassen, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM: BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP By: Dave J. Erwin, City Attomey CITY: CITY OF PALM DESERT a California charter city By: Its: SIGNATURE PAGE TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB OWNER: PDCC GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, LLC a California limited liability company By: Its: By: Its: PDCC DEVELOPMENT: PDCC DEVELOPMENT, LLC. a California limited liability company By: Its: STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ) On , 2004, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me OR proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE ) ) ) On , 2004, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me OR proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE On , 2004, before me, the undersigned notary public, personally appeared , personally known to me OR proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public EXHIBIT "A" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Legal Description of Property [Attached behind this page] EXHIBIT "B" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ZONING MODIFICATIONS EXHIBIT "C" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Description of Project and Existing Development Approvals — Golf Course Improvements [Attached behind this page] EXHIBIT C PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB GOLF COURSE RENOVATION SUMMARY • New Automated Irrigation System throughout 27 Holes • Relocated Green Complexes as necessary to accommodate new residential development • New Practice Putting Green at Clubhouse • New Short Game Area near Clubhouse • Reshape Fairway Landing Areas as necessary • New Water Features (Water falls) — Holes 9 & 18 • Rebuild Existing Lakes — Holes 1, 7 and 13 • Remodel Bunkering throughout 27 Holes • Relocate New Tee Complexes as necessary to accommodate new residential development • New Concrete Cart Trails as necessary and appropriate, throughout 27 holes • Tree Beautification Program/Tree Removal and Relocation of Palm Trees • Relocate Golf Course maintenance facility to near #14 Tee boxes adjacent to City Park CLUB HOUSE REMODEL SUMMARY • Remodel interior of Clubhouse with overall reconfiguration within existing Clubhouse of the following primary Clubhouse components: ■ Golf Shop ■ Administrative Offices • Kitchen • Bar/Grill • Toilets ■ Men's Lockers (approximately 100) • Ladies Lockers (approximately 50) • Members Only Room (expected Occupancy of 50-75) • Utilities, HVAC ■ Entry • Upgrade Clubhouse Exterior • Paint ■ Enhanced Clubhouse entrance • New Water Feature at entrance • Relocate Cart Storage Barn and incorporate with other Clubhouse and Golf Course Activities EXHIBIT D CLUB HOUSE AND GOLF COURSE IMPROVEMENTS PHASE I IMPROVEMENTS A. Club House remodel, including exterior, interior, landscaping and parking lot B. Relocate cart storage barn C. Improve 9-hole executive golf course D. Initial improvements to the irrigation system This phase of improvements will cost approximately $3,600,000. PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS A. Improve 18-hole championship golf course B. Complete all irrigation improvements C. Relocate maintenance facility This phase of improvements will cost approximately $3,223,000. Total Golf Course and Club House Improvements to cost up to $6,823,000 million. EXHIBIT "E" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT Second Phase Residences (Depiction of Lots) [Attached behind this page] Front Setback Rear Setback Side Setbacks Max. Building Height Min. Lot Area Max. Site Coverage DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS CODE REQUIREMENTS R-1 9,000 / PR 20'/as approved 15'/as approved 14' total, 5' minimum/ as approved 18'/24' 9,000/or as approved 35%/40% EXISTING PDCC DEV. STANDARDS 14-20 feet 10-20 feet 5'+3' 13-18 feet 6,000 PROPOSED R-1 9,000 LOTS 10-15 feet 11-22 feet 5'+5' 18' 9,000 sq.ft.gross/ 5,000 sq.ft.net 20-37% PROPOSED PR-6 LOTS 10-15 feet 5-20 feet 5'+5' 18' 4,691. sq.ft. 38.7% EXHIBIT "F" TO PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL [Attached behind this page] Received Jun-24-2004 11:18 From-213 623 8288 To -PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Page 002 Received Jun-24-2004 11:18 From-213 623 8288 To —PALM DESERT PUBLIC W Pale 003 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AS IT RELATES TO A CHANGE OF ZONE FROM OPEN SPACE (O.S.) TO R-1 9,000 FOR 41 LOTS AROUND THE GOLF COURSE PERIMETER, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM OPEN SPACE (O.S.) TO PR-6 (PLANNED RESIDENTIAL, SIX UNITS PER GROSS ACRE) FOR 9.68 ACRES IN THE AREA OF THE EXISTING DRIVING RANGE, A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP TO CREATE 95 RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND RELATED PRECISE PLAN OF DESIGN FOR CERTAIN GOLF COURSE RELATED IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB. CASE NOS. C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 AND PP 04-01 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, Califomia, did on the 13th day of May, 2004, hold a duly noticed public hearing which was continued to June 10 and June 24, 2004, to consider the request of PDCC DEVELOPMENT LLC for the above noted cases; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission by its Resolution No. 2255 has recommended approval of Case Nos. C/Z 04-1, TT 31836, PP 04-01 and certification of the Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and WHEREAS, said application has complied with the requirements of the "City of Palm Desert Procedure for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, Resolution No. 02-60," in that the Director of Community Development has determined that the project will not h ve a negative impact on the environment and that a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact should be certified; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing, upon hearing and considering all testimony and arguments, if any, of all interested persons desiring to be heard, said City Council did find the following facts and reasons to exist to justify certification of the above noted Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, as follows: 1. That the above recitations are true and correct and with the findings contained in the staff report dated May 13, 2004, and as delineated at the public hearings, constitute the findings of the City Council in this case. RESOLUTION NO. 2. That a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact, Exhibit A attached, is hereby certified. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Palm Desert City Council, held on this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California 2 ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor RESOLUTION NO. EXHIBIT A Pursuant to Title 14, Division 6, Article 6 (commencing with section 15070) of the California Code of Regulations. NEGATIVE DECLARATION CASE NOS: C/Z 04-01, TT 31836 and PP 04-01 APPLICANT/PROJECT SPONSOR: PROJECT DESCRIPTION/LOCATION: PDCC Development LLC 601 S. Figueroa Street, Suite 3550 Los Angeles, CA 90017 A change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to R-1 9,000 for41 lots around the golf course perimeter; a change of zone from Open Space (O.S.) to PR-6 planned residential six units per gross acre for 9.68 acres in the area of the existing driving range, a tentative tract map to create 95 residential lots and related precise plan of design for certain golf course related improvements within Palm Desert Country Club, and a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact as it relates to the above. All property being a portion of Section 13 and 14 T5S R6E. Property is located within the Palm Desert Country Club area bounded by Fred Waring Drive on the south, Washington Street on the east, Hovley Lane on the north and city of Indian Wells on the west. The Director of the Department of Community Development, 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. PHILIP DRELL DATE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 3 REVISED 06/24/04 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALM DESERT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 107, THE PALM DESERT ZONING MAP BY CHANGING THE ZONE FROM OPEN SPACE (O.S.) TO R-1 9,000 FOR 41 LOTS AROUND THE GOLF COURSE PERIMETER, CHANGING THE ZONE FROM OPEN SPACE (O.S.) TO PR-6 PLANNED RESIDENTIAL SIX UNITS PER GROSS ACRE FOR 9.68 ACRES IN THE AREA OF THE EXISTING DRIVING RANGE. ALL PROPERTY BEING A PORTION OF SECTION 13 AND 14 T5S R6E, PALM DESERT COUNTRY CLUB AREA. CASE NO. C/Z 04-01 The City Council of the City of Palm Desert, California, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN, as follows: SECTION 1: That a portion of Ordinance No. 107 referencing Section 25.46.1 of the Zoning Ordinance, the Zoning Map (Chapter 35.46 of the Palm Desert Municipal Code) is hereby amended to read as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." SECTION 2: The City Clerk of the City of Palm Desert, California, is hereby directed to publish this ordinance in the Desert Sun, a newspaper of general circulation, published and circulated in the City of Palm Desert, California, and shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after its adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the Palm Desert City Council this day of , 2004, by the following vote, to wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: RACHELLE D. KLASSEN, City Clerk City of Palm Desert, California ROBERT A. SPIEGEL, Mayor P&O WARING DR City of Palm Desert R•1 IOW : uit=liri A.M1i {1MM I LI -t1111rtnil. ;O i "�as�ae!u■ur: : mi sisigr sumo „ P.R1 T� 1 ���f\ltunr-wu�ir�, ,,1 1 1111111111 .,1.- � " . ,:. mom 1111{Ipij .. ♦-:1i as ran R i=auluutttf1,1 a r1 1. 00 1 ffr .. �l to Hti111//HU10 �-'"I 1HU11111i1 It ,,�� i,,,, 40 alpl ��..uu�� • ,,,,` = C►�� O�lafiiiltGiJhra, i • �',`��. as. i 41• 1. v H wise 1Ba i `4. ,Ya ....aHlaaix 1 as 4.'.•4.-.=: am Case No. CIZ 04-01 CHANGE OF ZONE EXHI IT A O.S. To P.R. -6 Proposed Zoning Changes O.S. To R-1 9,000 CITY COUNCIL ORDINANCE NO. Date: